Dismissed

Dempo Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Director Laxminarayan v. Dempo v Dy. Director of Panchayats and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jan 2013WP/773/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction for time-bound completion of proceedings regarding alleged illegal construction. The court accepted the respondents' assurance to dispose of the show cause notice within seven months, finding grievances substantially redressed and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of based on respondent's commitment to issue a show cause notice and dispose of it within seven months.

Dempo Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 773 OF 2012

¶3

DEMPO PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., REP. BY DIRECTOR LAXMINARAYAN V. DEMPO Versus DY. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS AND 2 ORS.,

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

... Respondents

¶6

Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. Noorani, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents.

¶7

Coram:F. M. REIS & U. V. BAKRE, JJ. Date:3rd January, 2013

¶8

ORAL ORDER:

¶9

Heard Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri K. Noorani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶10

The above petition filed by the petitioner, inter alia, seeks for writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the respondent no.1 to complete the proceedings under Section 66(5) in time bound manner in respect of the said illegal construction.

¶11

It is the contention of the petitioner that on 14/02/2012 the petitioner filed an application under Section 66(5) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 before the Deputy Director of Panchayat against the Village Panchayat of St. Lawrence, Tiswadi - Goa and Shri Felix Rebeiro, resident of Agassaim who according to the petitioner has illegally and without obtaining prior consent/permission/licence of the concerned Authorities has carried

¶12

¶13

out construction of a house having ground plus one floor constructed with RCC columns and masonary wall in the property bearing survey no.99/1 of village of Mercurim, Agassaim, Goa. It is further their case that respondent no.1 is duly bound to take necessary action against any illegal construction and is not performing its statutory duties by not taking action against such illegal construction. Consequently, the above petition has been filed for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶14

During the course of the hearing of the above petition, Shri K. Noorani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the respondent no.1/Deputy Director has already issued the show cause notice dated 12/11/2012 in respect of the disputed structure. The learned Additional Government Advocate, upon instructions from respondent no.1, points out that the respondent no.1 will dispose of the show cause notice within a period of seven months, from today in accordance with law.

¶15

Taking note of the said show cause notice issued by the respondent no.1, we find that the said respondents have initiated action with regard to the complaint of the petitioner. Considering the said statement of the learned Additional Government Advocate which is accepted we find that the grievances of the petitioner are at this stage substantially redressed.

¶16

Hence, the petition stands disposed of in terms of the said statement of the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶17

F. M. REIS, J.

¶18

U. V. BAKRE, J.

¶19

Dempo Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Director Laxminarayan v. Dempo v Dy. Director of Panchayats and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dempo Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Director Laxminarayan v. Dempo v Dy. Director of Panchayats and 2 Ors.

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

M/S. Teracom Ltd. Rep. by Its Chief Operating Officer Mr. Ashish D. Jain Vs M/S. Sojitz Corporation Rep. by Mr. Masahiro Ota

M/S. Teracom Ltd. Rep. by Its Chief Operating Officer Mr. Ashish D. Jain Vs M/S. Sojitz Corporation Rep. by Mr. Masahiro Ota

Mrs. Vanashree Fatu Kenkre and 2 Ors., Vs Dr. Sricrishna Balchandre Kenkre (Deceased) through Lr'S and Ors.

Ms. Maria D'Sa Vs Mapusa Municipal Council through Its Chief Officr and 2 Ors.

The Executive Engineer Works Division VII Vs Shri Saunsthan Devkikrishna Ravalnath

Smt.E.S.S. Almeida, Donapaula-Goa. Vs the Director General,(Csir) and Anr.