IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 698 OF 2008 MR. DOMINGOS BARRETO ... Petitioner Versus STATE THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 10 ORS., ... Respondents Mr.S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr.P.S. Lotlikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General With Mr. A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 To 5. Mr. C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 7 to 9. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. R. S. DALVI, JJ. Date:- 13th April, 2009 P.C. We have heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri Lotlikar with Advocate Mr.P.S.Lotlikar, for the petitioner, the learned Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Coutinho, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 7 to 9. 2. The learned Counsel have invited our attention to various entries to show either the fact that the amounts of grant, have been sanctioned after the relevant festival was celebrated or then to urge that though so sanctioned, the respondent No.7, Association has utilised it for the relevant purpose. The amount of Rs.50,000/- sanctioned for Ganesh Festival in the year 2006, is shown to have been utilised in Ganesh Festival in the year 2007. In so far as the amount for Christmas in the year 2006 is concerned, the learned Advocate General states that the payments therefor, have been made on 02.01.2007 and hence that amount has been utilised for the very same festival. 3. The learned Advocate General as also the respondent Nos. 7 to 9 have placed reliance on some certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant but the said certificates are also not very clear. Apart from error in the dates of cheques mathematical calculations undertaken therein also do not prima facie match. The Advocate General has tried to explain that the certificate of Chartered Accountant at page No.151 on record, only mentions the factual position and it is not a balance sheet and hence, the argument of the petitioner to that effect, are incorrect. 4. We have verified the said certificates and also the bank statements and vouchers, which are produced on record. We find that it is not possible for this Court to look into all these details for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, has stated that the petitioner has no objection if the enquiry in this respect,is undertaken by the respondent No.3, the Director and in such enquiry, the petitioner is given proper opportunity. The learned Advocate General has no objection to such enquiry. 5. In the circumstances, without recording any finding on any of the disputed issues, we direct the respondent No.3 to hold an enquiry into the grievances made by the petitioner in the light of the Government policy regulating the grants, within a period of two months and to complete the same by 30.06.2009. The petitioner shall be given due intimation of the date, on which the equiry shall be undertaken and shall also be given an opportunity to inspect the record and place his say in the matter. 6. In view of this order, we permit the petitioner to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited by him in pursuance of the Court order dated 10.12.2008. 7. We further find that if the respondent No.3, the Director notes any fault on the part of the respondent No.7, who has received the grants or his Association, it will be proper to compensate the petitioner in the matter for approaching this Court. In view of this, we direct that the respondent No.3 shall, in that event, pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as costs of the writ petition to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 shall be at liberty to recover that amount from the respondent No.7. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. SMA