:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2768 OF 2003 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 375 OF 1995 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3432 OF 1991 Purshottam Yashwant Rudraksha ...Petitioners Versus Managing Officer and Ors. ....Respondents Rajesh S.Datar, Adv for the petitioners. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 23.11.2007 23.11.2007 23.11.2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The service is already complete as per the office report. Respondent nos.1 to 5 are the State authorities whereas Respondent no.6 is a private party who has been served as per the office report. 2. There is no affidavit-in-reply opposing the Civil Application. The Civil Application sets out the sufficient cause for the petitioner not being able to comply with the office objections. Considering the :2: :2: :2: office objections and the fact that they are now being complied with, the Civil Application is granted in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). Office to proceed accordingly. However the petitioner to pay costs quantified at Rs.1500/- to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from today. On proof of costs being paid is produced the Registry to place the Writ petition for hearing and final disposal. 3. For the very same reasons, Civil Application No. 375 of 1995 is also allowed and as directed above, the Office to proceed and place the Writ Petition for hearing and final disposal, after costs are paid and proof is produced. Civil Applications allowed accordingly. sd/- ********