Dismissed

Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunstha, Zambaulim, Thr. Its Man. Committee, Rep. by Jaiprakash S. Kunde., v. State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2019WP/882/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa, disposing of a writ petition, directed the Town and Country Planning Department and the concerned Panchayat to look into and dispose of the petitioner's pending complaints regarding certain activities of Respondent No.8 expeditiously, in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, without issuing any notice to other respondents.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Town and Country Planning Department and the concerned Panchayat to look into and dispose of the petitioner's complaints expeditiously in accordance with law and principles of natural jus

Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunstha, Zambaulim, Thr… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 WP882-19dt.03.10.2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 882 OF 2019

¶4

SHREE RAMNATH DAMODAR SAUNSTHA,
ZAMBAULIM, THR. ITS MAN.
COMMITTEE, REP. BY JAIPRAKASH S.
KUNDE.

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

Versus
STATE OF GOA, THR. CHIEF SECRETARY
AND 7 ORS.... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sahish Mahambrey, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent
Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7.

¶9

Coram:- M. S. SONAK &

¶10

PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
Date:- 3rd October, 2019

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard Mr. S. Mahambrey, learned counsel for the

¶13

Petitioner.

¶14

2. Ms. S. Mordekar, learned Addl. Government Advocate

¶15

appears for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7.

¶16

3. Considering the order which we propose to make in this
petition, we do not feel that there is any necessity of service of notice
upon other Respondents.

¶17

2 WP882-19dt.03.10.2019

¶18

4. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner made
complaints to various Authorities in regard to some activities being
undertaken by Respondent No.8 are not being attended to.

¶19

5. From the record, we note that the Directorate of Vigilance
vide communication dated 28.06.2018 have requested the Chief Town
Planner and the Director of Panchayats to look into those complaints.

¶20

6. Even according to us, if the complaints are pending, the
Authorities must look into those complaints and dispose of them in
accordance with law. Needless to add, that in so disposing of the
complaints, the Authorities must follow the principles of natural justice
and fair play.

¶21

7. Therefore, we dispose of this petition by directing the
concerned Authorities i.e. Town and Country Planning Department and
the concerned Panchayat to dispose of the Petitioner's complaints in
accordance with law and on their own merits as expeditiously as
possible.

¶22

8. With the aforesaid directions, we dispose of this petition.

¶23

PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. M. S. SONAK, J.

¶24

at*

Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunstha, Zambaulim, Thr. Its Man. Committee, Rep. by Jaiprakash S. Kunde., v. State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunstha, Zambaulim, Thr. Its Man. Committee, Rep. by Jaiprakash S. Kunde., v. State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 7 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

L and T Finance Ltd., Thr. Its Field Legal Officer, Dishan Naik., Vs Rim Logistics, Thr. Its Partner, T. Raghuvendra Swamy.

Kashinath Jairam Shetye and Anr., Vs the Chief Secretary, State of Goa and 5 Ors.

Keshav Ramchandra Naik., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Anant Y. Lotlikar., Vs Kadamaba Transport Corporation Ltd., Thr. Its General Manager.

Alisha Govekar and Anr., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Jose Filipe Francisco Noronha Alvares., Vs Town and Country Planning Board, Thr. Member Secretary and Anr.