IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 975 OF 2009 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (SUO MOTU) NO. 1 OF 2009 KASHINATH JAIRAM SHETYE ... Applicant Versus . ... Respondent Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the applicant. Advocate Mr. Shivan Dessai, Amicus Curiae. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- NARESH H. PATIL & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 16th February, 2010 P.C. Heard. Learned Advocate General submits that the applicant, who intends to intervene in the matter, is a Government Servant. He had filed a writ petition against his transfer order which came to be dismissed, according to the learned Advocate General, and this application he has filed soon thereafter. Counsel appearing for the applicant disputes this position and submits that the applicant has genuine concern in the PIL (SM) No.1/09 and he has filed the application based on the information which he has obtained under R.T.I. Act, before filing of the writ petition, challenging his transfer. 2. Considering the submissions advanced, we are not inclined to allow the applicant to intervene in the PIL (SM) No.1/09. The application stands rejected. However, the learned Amicus Curiae is entitled to refer to and make use of the documents relied upon and placed along with the intervention application by the applicant. Learned Advocate General submits that in view of the Amicus Curiae permitting to make use of the documents relied upon by the applicant, he may be permitted to file an additional affidavit-in-reply. Such an affidavit could be filed before the next date. Disposed of Misc. Civil Application No.975/2009 shall be tagged along with the PIL (SM) No.1/09. NARESH H. PATIL, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. ssm.