IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 410 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 614 OF 2008 THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER PANAJI ... Applicant Versus VENKATESHWARA ALLOYS (P) LTD ... Respondent Mr. Abhijeet Kamat,Additional Government Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S. K. Kakodkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rama Rivonkar, Advocate for the original petitioner. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 22nd June, 2009 P.C. Heard learned Advocate General in Writ petition No.614 of 2008 and applicant in the present application and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kakodkar for the present non applicant, original petitioner. 2. The writ petition was filed by the present non applicant for restoration of electric supply and in that petition, this Court, on 24.11.2008 passed orders calling upon the petitioner to show his bonafides. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.50 lakhs to show his bonafides as against his total outstanding amount of Rs.1,81,07,128/-, then claimed by the Department. The petition was heard and dismissed vide judgment dated 25.03.2009. However, at that time no orders governing the withdrawal of such deposit was passed. The Department moved this application for withdrawal of that amount and adjustment towards the amount due and payable by the petitioner. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petition has contended that the amount was deposited only to show bonafides and as bonafides have been shown, after adjudication of the petition, the amount needs to be returned back to the petitioner and the Department should be left free to recover the amount. Without prejudice, it is stated that the interest charged is excessive. The petitioner has made a representation to the Electric Inspector and it is yet to be decided. It is contented that the liability of the petitioner can be worked out only if such representation is decided. 4. Perusal of the Judgment of this Court dated 25.03.2009 shows that after considering various contentions raised and rejecting them, the petition came to be dismissed. The contention of the present applicant was therefore accepted. In these circumstances, we find no substance in the arguments that the amount was deposited only to show bonafides. Subsequent representation if any, made by the petitioner to the Electric Inspector is not relevant. We accordingly allow the application and permit the applicant to withdraw the amount for its adjustment against its claim. The application is disposed off accordingly. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. U. D. SALVI, J. lh/.