IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 290 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2622 OF 2007 XYZ ....Petitioner V/S. National Aviation Company of India Ltd & Ors. .....Respondents --------- Petitioner in person. Mr.Atul Rajyadhyaksha, Senior Advocate with Mr.G.S.Kulkarni i/by. M.V.Kini & Co.,adv.for respondents no.1, 5 and 6. Ms.Shobhana Gopal, adv.for respondent no.3. Mr.Mihir Gheewala i/by.Desai & Chinoy, adv.for respondent no.4. Mr.M.S.Bharadwaj with Mr.L.S.Shetty, adv.for respondent no.7. Ms.Geeta Shastri, AGP for respondent no.8. Vinay Kumar Tiwari, adv.for respondent no.10-proposed respondent. CORAM : J.N.PATEL, & : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATED : 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The proposed respondent has been served and is represented by Advocate Mr.Tiwari. The Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). In so far as, the other prayers are concerned, the same pertain to the merits of the matter, which will be examined in due course. Necessary amendment to be carried out forthwith. Petitioner who appears in person states that she will carry out the necessary amendment during the course of the day and has already served the proposed respondents who is respondent no.10 with the copy of the amended petition. With this, the Chamber Summons stands disposed off. 3. Respondent no.10 to file his affidavit-in-reply before the next date, particularly in reference and in context to the report filed by the State-CID which is taken on record alongwith four forensic reports annexed as Exhibits-A, B, C and D. 4. The court would specifically want respondent no.10 to clarify as to who was in custody of the results of the test pertaining to performance of the petitioner conducted by respondent no.1-company through the officials and respondent no.10 who was one of the member of the Committee and was entrusted with the duty of the Co-ordinator and which is alleged to have been tampered according to the report submitted by the State-CID to this court. The learned counsel for respondent no.10 states that he has received the copy of the petition upto date. So far as the copy of the report filed by the State-CID is concerned, respondent no.1 may collect it from the learned APP representing the State in the matter. Stand over to 29th September, 2009. [ SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J] [J.N.PATEL, J]