IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 595 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 794 OF 2008 SHRI GAJANAN ATMA PAL ... Applicant Versus GOVT. OF GOA THROUGH HON'BLE MINISTER FOR HOUSING, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. B. Ambekar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. D. Naik, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. Kankonkar, Advocate for respondent No.5. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 11th August, 2009 P.C. Today, on behalf of respondent No.2, an affidavit, sworn in by one Mr. Gopal Parsekar, is presented in the Court, a copy of which is served to the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dessai appearing for the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dessai confirms receipt of such copy. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. The two writ petitions are before this Court i.e. Writ Petition No.794/2008 and Writ Petition No. 111/2009. Now, we are not entering into merits of these two writ petitions. We are also not referring to the earlier orders passed by this Court in these two writ petitions, except the order dated 27.7.2009 in Writ Petition No.111/2009 (Coram : S.B. Deshmukh and U.D. Salvi, JJ.) 3. The controversy which was raised before us on 27th July, 2009 has been mentioned by us, in brief, in our order dated 27.7.09. In that order and, more specifically in para 8, we have observed thus : " 8. Having considered the controversy which was brought to our notice, we feel it proper to grant liberty in favour of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.794/2009 to file appropriate civil application seeking fixed date of hearing of that petition. We direct the registry to detach Writ Petition No.111/2009." After passing of this order, indisputably, this misc. civil application has been filed by the applicant on 31.7.09. The application was mentioned before this Court. Circulation was granted and that is how the matter is before this Court. 4. The entire controversy revolves around the nature of liberty granted in favour of the applicant and which we have noted herein above from the order dated 27.7.2009. Senior Advocate Mr. Dessai took us through the record of Writ Petition No.794/2008, and some orders in both the writ petitions. We are careful, meaning thereby, we are not recording submissions of any of the Advocates so far this misc. civil application is concerned, which would affect the merits of both the writ petitions. We make it clear that our observations herein are only in respect of disposal of this Misc. Civil Application No.595/2009. We have quoted our observations in para 8 of earlier order passed by us on 27.7.09 in Writ Petition No.111/2009. Now, we would like to quote the prayers made in this civil application. The prayers at para 6(a) and (b) read thus : "(a) The writ petition no.794 of 2008 be finally heard and disposed off according to the law, before hearing the writ petition no.111/2009. (b) The writ petition no.111 of 2009 at the admission stage be finally heard and disposed off according to the law." 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, equanimously, we are of the view that present civil application needs to be rejected. We have made a pointed query to the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dessai as to whether our order passed on 27.7.09 has been challenged by the applicant by whatever means and procedure, in according with the provisions of law, Mr. Dessai fairly, on instructions, stated that no such challenge is raised. 6. In this view of the matter, the prayers made in the civil application we are not inclined to consider. Civil application stands rejected. No costs. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. U. D. SALVI, J. ssm.