1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.388 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1783 OF 2008 Prakash H.V. Shorff. ...Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. G.S. Godbole with Mr. A.A. Joshi i/b. Nivit Srivastava for the Petitioner. Mr. K.K. Singhvi with Ms. G.S. Joglekar for BMC. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, GP for the State. Mr. N.H. Shukla – Notice 1, 2, 3. Mr. G.S. Godbole for the Applicant in Ch/S.388/08. ..... CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. January 14, 2009. P.C. : Heard. In this application, the Petitioner prays for making amendments to the Writ Petition originally filed. According to the Petitioner, this application is based upon subsequent events and pleadings are based upon and are related to the provisions of Section 49 of the Act. 2 The Chamber Summons is opposed by Counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant on the ground that the Petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.2639 of 2004 which was disposed of vide order dated 24th July 2006. The prayers raised in the present Writ Petition now by way of amendment are identical and they having already been considered, the application for amendment is not maintainable. It is also contended that the award having already been passed by the Competent Authority, it is hardly be open to the Petitioner to challenge the award in the present Writ Petition. We are not impressed by either of the contentions raised by the non-applicant. Firstly, we may notice that there is no dispute about the fact that in Writ Petition No.2639 of 2004, the Petitioner had challenged the notification under Section 6 and had also prayed for consequential reliefs. This Writ Petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court. The Bench had categorically granted leave to the Petitioner by stating that liberty to the Petitioner to raise all contentions to which they are entitled to before the appropriate 3 authority or before the Court, if finally aggrieved by the award or otherwise. This clearly shows that the Court not only intended but also granted liberty to the Petitioner to take up all the challenges before the appropriate authority. Thus, there is no merit in these contentions. Secondly, we may also note that the amendments sought for by the Petitioner are primarily based on subsequent events as well as on the assertion that the Corporation did not take effective steps as per the order dated 24th July 2006 and passed award. In fact, it was after the present notification was issued and even show cause notice issued to the officers of the State Government and the Corporation for taking action for contempt, that the award came to be passed. In these circumstances, we see no reason to decline the prayers raised in the Chamber Summons. The Chamber Summons is allowed. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today. Reply to the amended petition would be filed within four weeks thereafter. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. 4 Stand over to 25th February 2009. Liberty to mention to the Petitioner. CHIEF JUSTICE Dr.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.