1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.W. NO.2876 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1038 OF 2010 (SOCIETY FOR BACKLOG REMOVAL & DEV. & OTH.VS..STATE OF MAH.& OTH .) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. K.H. Deshpande, Sr. Advocate for Petitioners. Mrs.Bharti Dangre, Addl.G.P. for Respondents No.1, 3 & 6. Mr. S.G. Jagtap, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Dewani, Advocate for R-5. Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for Respondents No.7 to 15. CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & MRS .MRIDULA BHATKAR , JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 25, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners points out that during the pendency of the petition challenging order of allocation of water to respondent No.5, His Excellency the Governor of Maharashtra has issued Ordinance No.XI of 2010 purporting to validate the impugned order of allocation. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the present application for amendment, which proposes the challenge to the impugned Ordinance on the ground stated therein, be allowed. 3. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for State of Maharashtra and Mr. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5 submit that the amendment be rejected since it changes the nature of the petition. 2 4. There is no doubt that the nature of the petition will undergo a change to the extent that earlier there was no ordinance which was challenged but only an executive order. However, the nature of the petition does not change in the sense that no fresh cause of action is introduced but only a ground for challenge is enlarged so as to include a challenge to the impugned Ordinance. We, therefore, see no reason to disallow the amendment. The Civil Application for amendment is allowed. 5. Mr. Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners should not be directed to file the entirely fresh petition in view of the comprehensive amendment since this is a public interest litigation. 6. There is no doubt that this petition has been treated as Public Interest Litigation. However, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the petitioner to file amended copy of the petition, other than the annexures, afresh after giving copies thereof to the respondents and after ensuring proper pagination. 7. S.O. to 15th November, 2010. JUDGE JUDGE RR..