Disposed

Kundan Kerkar., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2019PILWP/20/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted leave to amend the petition and directed the respondent authorities to treat the filing as a representation. The authorities were mandated to examine the grievances regarding construction activities and decide them within two months following natural justice principles, leaving merits open.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to amend paragraph 4; direction to authorities to treat petition as representation and decide grievances within two months in accordance with law.

Kundan Kerkar., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

mukund

¶2

 1 pilwp- 20.18

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

PIL WRIT PETITION NO. 20 OF 2018

¶5

Kundan Kerkar …Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

State of Goa & Ors.….Respondents

¶8

Mr. Fonseca Clayton Anthony, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Rajesh Shivolkar, Additional Government Advocate for respondent
nos.1 to 3.

¶10

Mr. P. Dangui, Government Advocate for Respondent no.2.
Mr. Rohit Shirodkar, Advocate for respondent no.4.
Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Advocate for respondent no.5.

¶11

Coram : M.S. Sonak & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.

¶12

Date : 23 January 2019.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Leave is granted to amend paragraph 4 of the petition so
that there is consistency between paragraph 4 of the petition and
paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition.

¶15

2.Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶16

mukund 2 pilwp- 20.18

¶17

3.Copies of the amended petition to be served upon the
respondents.

¶18

4.The petitioner seems to have a grievance against
construction/development activities undertaken by respondent no.5.
It is the case of the petitioner that the construction/development
activities undertaken by respondent no.5 are not in accordance with
the plans/revised plans, as also the relevant legal provisions. Mr.
Kakodkar, learned counsel for respondent no.5 disputes this position.
He states that the construction and development activities are entirely
consistent with the plans/revised plans as well as the relevant legal
provisions.

¶19

5.In exercise of our jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, we may not be in a position to go into
the issues raised by the petitioner in the first instance. However, since,
the petitioner has made this grievance by addressing representations to
the statutory authorities, it will be appropriate, if such statutory
authorities are directed to look into the grievances/complaints made
by the petitioner and to address the same, in accordance with law.

¶20

6.Accordingly, we direct respondent no.2 and the Village
Panchayat, Calangute, to treat the present petition as petitioner's

¶21

mukund 3 pilwp- 20.18

¶22

representation. In addition to this petition, the petitioner is granted
liberty to file yet another representation within 10 days from today.
Respondent no.2 and the Village Panchayat, Calangute, thereafter to
decide such representations, on their own merits, and in accordance
with law. Needless to add that the Authorities to comply with the
principles of natural justice and fair play before taking any decision in
the matter.

¶23

7.The representations to be disposed of within two months
from the date of receipt of additional representation by the petitioner.
The decision to be communicated to both the petitioner as well as
respondent no.5. In case, at any later point of time, the petitioner and
respondent no.5 decide to compromise the matter amongst
themselves, the Authorities should pay no cognizance to such
compromise. The Authorities to nevertheless look into the
representations and decide the same, in accordance with law.It is
made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the rival
contentions and, therefore, all the issues are left open to be decided
by the Statutory Authorities, no doubt, in accordance with law and
on their merits.

¶24

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner voluntarily offers

¶25

mukund 4 pilwp- 20.18

¶26

an amount of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand) only to the Goa State
Legal Services Authority. Accordingly, from out of deposit of Rs.
50,000/- made by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five
thousand) only will be made over to the Goa State Legal Services
Authority. The balance amount be refunded to the petitioner.

¶27

9.All concerned to act on the basis of the authenticated copy
of this order.

¶28

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. M.S.Sonak, J.

Kundan Kerkar., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kundan Kerkar., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 4 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

Pravin S. P. Usgaonkar and 2 Ors., Vs Comunidade of Usgao, Thr. Its Secretary/Attorney and 3 Ors.

Ryan Paul Fernandes, Presently at Central Jail Colvale., Vs the Inspector General of Prisons, Govt. of Goa and 2 Ors.

Rudraji Malu Naik and Anr., Vs the State Thr. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa and 4 Ors.

Hanamatarao M. Kulkarni., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Inacio Dominic Pereira., Vs the State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa and 6 Ors.

Sampal Cantor Tenant Association, Rep. by Its Chairman, Subhash Bhiku Naik and 3 Ors., Vs Mamlatdar of Bardez Taluka, Mapusa.