1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.346/2010 1. Archana A. Bhat alias Archana S. Pai Bir, aged 31 years, Occupation Practising Advocate residing at Flat No.S-1, “Kamat Gardens”, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. 2. Ms. Sonia M. Mandrekar, aged 27 years, Occupation Practising Advocate, Residing at H.No.135, Quitula, Aldona, Bardez, Goa. ......... Petitioners. Versus. 1. The High Court of Bombay, through the Registrar General, with its office at Fort-Mumbai-02 2. The Registrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa, with its office at Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 3. State of Goa, through the Secretary Law & Judiciary, with its office at Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. ........... Respondents. Mr. S. N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. The Registrar, Respondent No.2 in person and on behalf of respondent No.1. 2 Ms. S. Linhares, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM :- S.J. VAZIFDAR & U.D. SALVI, JJ. Date :- 29th April, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. We had informed the learned Counsel appearing in the matter yesterday and today that one of us (U.D. Salvi, J.) was a party to the decision making process impugned in this Writ Petition. The learned Counsel, however, requested us to hear the matter despite the same, invoking the doctrine of necessity, in view of the fact that a Bench of two Judges cannot be constituted in Goa as two Judges, out of the three Judges in Goa, were parties to the decision making process. They further stated that in view of the urgency in the matter, it would not be possible for the petitioners to make an application for constituting another Bench in Mumbai. We, accordingly, with the consent of the parties, proceeded to hear the matter. 3 3. Respondent No.2, the Registrar of the High Court of Bombay at Goa has filed a rejoinder. Taken on record. 4. The learned Registrar stated, on instructions, that the High Court has no objection to the petitioners and the other similarly placed candidates, if any, appearing for the examination scheduled on 2nd May, 2010 and that their papers will be evaluated and applications shall be considered provided they produce the necessary practice certificates from the Principal District Judge at the District Head Quarter or from the Senior Most Judge in a Taluka Court, other than the Taluka Court situated at the Head Quarter, by or at the time of viva voce. The petitioners accept the same. 5. In view of the above statement of the High Court and the petitioners accepting the same, the entire grievance of the petitioners stands redressed. As such, no further orders are required. The petition is, accordingly, disposed off in terms of the following order : (A) The petitioners and the other similarly placed candidates shall be entitled to appear for the examination and their applications shall be considered, provided they produce the necessary 4 practice certificates from the Principal District Judge at the District Head Quarter or from the Senior Most Judge in a Taluka Court, other than the Taluka Court situated at the Head Quarter, by or at the time of viva voce. (B) Respondent No. 2 shall inform the candidates about the above order by placing the same on the Official website of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, or pasting a notice to that effect on the Notice Board of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, informing the candidates through messenger or by personal service. All parties are directed to act on the basis of the duly authenticated copies of this order. S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. U.D. SALVI, J. ssm.