1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5028 OF 2006 (WITH CONNECTED MATTERS) WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2065 OF 2008 Shilpa V. Thakur. ...Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Ms.Helen K. Mandlik, Mr. C.K. Bhangoji and Mr. V.M. Madne for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos.5028/06, 177/06, 6293/05, 8227/05, 5029/06, 5030/06, 452/06, 454/06 and connected matters. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with R.K. Mendadkar, Ms.Helan K. Mandlik, Mr. C.K. Bhangoji & Mr. V.M. Madne for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos.2152/07, 3153/96, 3737/01. 3834/07, 1968/07, 2151/07, 2153/07, 3706/07 and other connected matters. Mr. Aparajit Ninawe for the Petitioner in W.P. No.9677/07. Mr. V.A. Gangal, Special Counsel with Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Govt. Pleader and Mr. S.S. Deshmukh for the State Mr. R.G. Ketkar i/b. Mr. R.S. Khadapkar for the Petitioner in W.P. No.9705 of 2007. Ms. D.M. Shende for applicant in C.A. No.2065/08. ..... CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR CJ, V.C. DAGA AND 2 DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ. September 19, 2008. P.C. We have heard some arguments addressed in the matters wherein an application being Civil Application 2065 of 2008 filed by the Applicants for grant of intervention in the Writ Petition has also been heard. This application has been filed on behalf of nine MLAs to which an affidavit of one Mr.Surajmal Bhat has been annexed. This affidavit contains some information which could have some bearing on the matter in issue before this Court. While declining the application for intervention, we direct that the affidavit of Mr.Bhat be taken on judicial record. Liberty to all other Counsel to file replies to that affidavit. The person who has filed an affidavit shall be represented in Court and interact with the Research Officer of the Scrutiny Committee before the date of hearing and would bring in Court the original documents referred to in the affidavit. It is averred on behalf of the non-applicants that some persons have been named in the affidavit and they also propose to move an application for 3 intervention in this application for intervention. We also reject that request. However, we grant liberty to those persons to file affidavit primarily dealing with the correctness of the information. Another argument urged by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners is that they had moved certain applications for passing of interim orders hearing whereof has been deferred on the basis that the matter is referred to a larger bench, that is, before this Bench. This Bench has been constituted for a limited purpose of answering the questions of law as referred to in the order of reference dated 31st January 2005. We make it clear that we are not travelling into the merits of the petitions listed before us. The parties are at liberty to move the Hon'ble Division Bench which shall deal with those matters in accordance with law as it deems fit and proper. Civil Application No.2065 of 2008 for intervention is rejected. 4 Adjourned to 3rd October 2008 at 3 p.m. CHIEF JUSTICE. ( V. C. DAGA, J. ) ( DR.D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)