IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.759 OF 2002 Shri. C. Raghavan Nair ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. ... Ms. Kinjal Haria for the Petitioner. Ms. Sindhu Shreedharan, AGP for Respondent Nos.5, 8 and 9. .... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. 19th January, 2005. P.C. : After the Petition was heard an adjournment was sought by the counsel to explore the possibility of a settlement. Consent Terms have been arrived at between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 which are reflected in the Consent Minutes of Order tendered before the Court. The Consent Minutes of Order which are signed by the advocates for the parties are taken on record and marked as ’X’. Since in clause 7 there is a direction to the First Respondent which is not a party to the Consent Terms, the aforesaid clause is clarified to mean that the First Respondent shall consider the proposal contained therein in accordance with law and if the Petitioner is otherwise eligible, the benefits embodied therein shall be paid within a period of six months, in accordance with law. The Petition shall stand accordingly disposed of in terms of the Consent Minutes of Order.