Disposed

Meenakshi v. Naik., v State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC2 Aug 2019WP/299/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa directed the Village Panchayat of Mandur to investigate rival complaints alleging illegal structures by both parties, issue show cause notices following natural justice, and take action within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Village Panchayat of Mandur to investigate rival complaints, issue show cause notices, act on natural justice principles, and take action within three months.

Meenakshi v. Naik., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 wp299-19dt.2.8.19

¶2

 Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.299 OF 2019

¶5

Meenakshi V. Naik.….Petitioner.

¶6

 Versus

¶7

State of Goa and others. …. Respondents.

¶8

Ms. Cota Viegas Maria Carmel Teresa de Jesus, Advocate for the
Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. D. J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. T. Gawas, Addl.
Government Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 3.

¶10

Mr. Vibhav R. Amonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶11

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

¶12

 Date : 2nd August, 2019.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

 Heard Ms. Viegas for the Petitioner, Mr. D.J. Pangam, the
learned Advocate General for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Mr.
Vibhav Amonkar for Respondent No.5.

¶15

2.In this Petition, the main grievance of the Petitioner is that
Respondent No.5 has put up a structure which, according to the
Petitioner, is illegal and unauthorised. There are allegations that
illegal and unauthorised activities are being undertaken in relation to
the structure.

¶16

2 wp299-19dt.2.8.19

¶17

3.Ms. Viegas points out that the Panchayat had, in fact, fixed
a date for site inspection. However, for no valid reasons the site
inspection was not held. She submits that directions are liable to be
issued to Respondent No.2 to take action on the complaint made by
the Petitioner.

¶18

4.Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, learned Counsel for Respondent
No.5 submits that Respondent No.5 has not undertaken any illegal
or unauthorised construction or development. He submits that in
fact, it is the Petitioner who has put up an illegal construction, for
which the Village Panchayat has issued a show cause notice in that
regard. He points out that a copy of the show cause notice has been
placed on record at Exhibit-R3.

¶19

5.According to us, in a matter of this nature, we are not
required to go into the allegations and counter-allegations made by
the Petitioner and Respondent No.5. However, since complaints
have been made by both the parties to the Village Panchayat of
Mandur, we feel that it is the duty of the Panchayat to look into these
complaints and to take action as may be permissible in law.

¶20

6.Accordingly, we direct the Village Panchayat of Mandur to
look into the rival complaints and take action on the basis of the
same, in accordance with law on their own merits. Before any action

¶21

3 wp299-19dt.2.8.19

¶22

is taken, we are sure that the Panchayat will issue necessary show
cause notice and comply with the principles of natural justice and
fair play. The action is expected to be taken within three months
from today. All contentions of all the parties are expressly kept open.

¶23

7.The Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

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

¶25

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

Meenakshi v. Naik., v State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshi v. Naik., v State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Goa through Chief Secretary and Anr., Vs Inox Leisure Limited through Asst Manager (Legal) Amit Karle

The State of Goa through Chief Secretary and Anr., Vs Mr. Prakash K. Kothari Proprietor of M/S Osia Multiplex

Sheila Prakash Kavlekar and Anr., Vs Ravindra Tulsidas Deulkar and 8 Ors.

Jagannath P. Shirodkar Vs State of Goa

Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunsthan, Zambaulim, Thr. Its Man. Comm., Jaiprakash S. Kunde., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Kashinath Jairam Shetye., Vs Bharat Nigalye.