IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 762 OF 2008 MR. DARSHAN VINAYAK TODKERI ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 9 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Pravin Faldesai, Advocate for respondent No.6. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for respondent No.7. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 29th July, 2009 P.C. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2, Mr. Faldesai for respondent No.6 and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nadkarni for respondent No.7. This Court, when the matter was taken up for admission, initially, doubted intention and/or filing of the petition by a citizen of this Country. This Court, therefore, imposed a condition on the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000/- in this Court. Time was permitted, subsequently was extended and the petitioner has complied with the order of security deposit, as ordered by this Court, initially. Thereafter, notices were issued. Reply-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents concerned. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties in this proceeding, we have considered the earlier writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.560 of 2006, order passed by this Court on 19.9.2007, disposing of the writ petition, thereafter withdrawal of cancellation order by the State of Goa and filing of the present writ petition. 2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the pleadings, affidavits at this stage and have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We are inclined to issue Rule only. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the point of interim relief. During the course of submissions, he submitted that in a S.L.P. filed in the Supreme Court by the State of Rajasthan, ad interim relief has been granted by the Supreme Court. He submitted that he is making this submission based on a news paper clipping, Annexure A-1 (The Times of India dated 20.6.2009) to the misc. civil application. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, reference to registration of FIR against some public servant of the State of Rajasthan is mentioned. Learned Counsel for the petitioner concedes that copy of the Supreme Court order in that matter is not on record. In this view of the matter, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant interim relief. Since we are issuing rule in the matter, in our view, liberty needs to be granted in favour of the petitioner to file an appropriate civil application if the petitioner wishes to seek some interim stay in changed circumstances. If such an application is filed, the same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed. 3. Rule. Expedite. No interim relief. Liberty in favour of the petitioner to move this Court, in changed circumstances, seeking interim relief. Liberty in favour of the parties to move for early hearing of the petition. 4. After issuance of Rule, respective Counsel for the respondents waive notice. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. U. D. SALVI, J. ssm.