Allowed

Shri Laxman Candolkar through Attorney Bharat Candolkar v. the Village Panchayat of Candolim through Chief Secretary and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Jan 2012LPA/19/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Letters Patent Appeal, filed against the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition challenging the impleadment of a third party, is allowed because the Additional Director of Panchayat failed to give reasons for allowing the application.

What did the court decide?

The Additional Director of Panchayat order reconsidered after hearing all parties and directed to dispose of the appeal before 30.9.2012.

Shri Laxman Candolkar through Attorney Bharat… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.

¶3

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.19 OF 2009

¶4

Shri Laxman Candolkar, 76 years old, married, residing at House No. 437(new), 12/5(old) Vaddy, Candolim Goa, represented by his power of attorney Mr. Bharat Candolkar.

¶5

…....... Appellant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 The Village Panchayt of Candolim, through its Secretary with his office at Candolim Bardez Goa.

¶8

2 M/s Casa Blanca Beach Resort, Through its proprietor, Shri Antonio Fernandes, Residing at Wadi, Candolim Goa. …....... Respondents.

¶9

Mr. V. Pangam, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶10

Mr. D. Shirodkar, Advocate for Respondent no.1.

¶11

Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Korgaonkar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶12

CORAM: A. P. LAVANDE & U. V. BAKRE, JJ.

¶13

DATE: 25^th January, 2012.

¶14

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

Heard Mr. V. Pangam, learned Advocate for the appellant, Mr. D. Shirodkar, learned Advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶17

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against order dated 15.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 744/2008 by which Writ Petition filed by the appellant against an order passed by the Additional Director of Panchayat, Panaji, in appeal no.12/2008 allowing an application for impleadment filed by the respondent no. 2 was dismissed.

¶18

Appellant herein preferred an appeal to Additional

¶19

Director of Panaji bearing no.12/2008 against an order of demolition issued by Village Panchayat of Candolim. It appears that action was taken by the Panchayat at the instance of respondent no. 2 herein. In appeal no.12/2008, respondent no. 2 filed an application for joinder in the appeal which was vehemently opposed on behalf of the present

¶20

- 3 -

¶21

appellant. The additional Director of Panchayat passed order dated 21.8.2008 which reads as follows:-

¶22

“Parties present. Intervention application is allowed. Inform the parties matter is kept for arguments. Ld. Adv for Appellant to file W/A on main petition. Next date is 15.9.2008 at 3.00 p.m

¶23

21/8/2008”

¶24

The appellant preferred Writ Petition no.744/2008 against

¶25

the said order which was dismissed after hearing learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

¶26

The appeal is admitted. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, appeal is taken up for final hearing.

¶27

Mr. Pangam, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

¶28

that it is settled law that in an appeal preferred under Section 66(7) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, party cannot be joined/impleaded

¶29

¶30

and as such the Additional Director of Panchayat ought to have given reasons for allowing the application for impleadment filed by respondent no. 2. According to learned Counsel on this ground alone impugned order passed by Additional Director of Panchayat and learned Single Judge, are liable to be set aside.

¶31

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the order passed by the learned Additional Director of Panchayat as well as learned Single Judge.

¶32

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be allowed on short ground that no reasons have been given by the Additional Director of Panchayat for allowing the application for joinder of parties. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of Apex Court that the Court/Tribunal has to give reasons in support of the order as the reasons are the heartbeats of an order. Since no reasons have been given by the Additional Director of Panchayat for allowing the application, in our considered view, order dated 21.8.2008 passed by

¶33

Additional Director of Panchayat is liable to be set aside. Consequently order dated 15.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition no. 744/2008 is also liable to be set aside.

¶34

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Order dated 21.8.2008 passed by Additional Director of Panchayat in Appeal No. 12/2008 and order dated 15.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ petition No.744/2008 are quashed and set aside and Additional Director of Panchayat is directed to consider the application for joinder after giving opportunity of being heard to all the parties in accordance with law. The Additional Director of Panchayat shall decide the application for joinder filed by the respondent no. 2 expeditiously. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claim and all the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶35

Considering that the matter is pending for almost for a

¶36

period of four years, Additional Director of Panchayat to dispose of the appeal bearing no.12/2008 expeditiously and in any case on or

¶37

¶38

before 30.9.2012.

¶39

Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no

order as to costs.

A. P. Lavande, J

U. V. Bakre, J.

vn*

Shri Laxman Candolkar through Attorney Bharat Candolkar v. the Village Panchayat of Candolim through Chief Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Laxman Candolkar through Attorney Bharat Candolkar v. the Village Panchayat of Candolim through Chief Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandurang Naik,Sanvordem-Goa and 4 Ors., Vs State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.

Goa Foundation,through Its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares, Mapusa Goa. Vs State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.

Goa Foundation through Its Secretary, Dr Claude Alvares, Mapusa Goa. Vs State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 7 Ors.

Goa Foundation, through Its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares Vs the Chief Wildlife Warden, Forest Dept., Panaji

Smt. Anita Sena Fernandes E Coutinho Vs State of Goa through the Secretary (Health) and 3 Ors.

Smt. Angela Diniz Presently Lodged in Central Jail Aguada Vs State ( P. I. Cuncolim Police Station )