Disposed

Laxman Gawas and 2 Ors. v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 8 Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2024WP/798/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, not parties to an appeal adjudicated by the Additional Director of Panchayat over permissions for an RMC Plant near their homes, challenged the award. The court granted liberty to seek revision before the District Court and directed the Deputy Town Planner and Medical/Health Officer to dispose of the complaints after natural justice compliance.

What the court decided

AI extract

Laxman Gawas and 2 Ors. Vs State of Goa through… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

WP 798 of 2023

¶2

Maria S.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.798 OF 2023

¶5

LAXMAN GAWAS AND 2 ORS ... PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 8 ORS ... RESPONDENTS

¶6

Mr Eeshan Usapkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General, with Mr Prashil Arolkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents No.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.

¶7

CORAM:- M. S. SONAK & VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.

¶8

DATED :- 5th February, 2024

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard Mr Usapkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Advocate General appears with Mr Arolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.

¶11

For the order that we propose to make, no notices are necessary to the remaining respondents.

¶12

The petitioners, inter alia, challenge the judgment and award made by the Additional Director of Panchayat in Appeal No.ADP-1/Dhargalim/PA.114/2022/ which bears no date. Mr Usapkar points out that the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings

Page 1 of 3

5th February, 2024

WP 798 of 2023

before the Additional Director and have come to know and received a copy of this order from the Panchayat recently.

¶17

Learned Advocate General points out that as against the Additional Director's order, the petitioners have a remedy by way of revision before the District Court. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted liberty to avail of the alternate remedy available to them under the Panchayat Raj Act. All contentions of all parties in this regard are kept open.

¶18

Mr Usapkar points out that the petitioners have complained, inter alia, to the Deputy Town Planner and the Medical/Health Officer about the permissions granted to respondents no.7 and 8 for setting up RMC Plant close to the petitioners' homes. He refers to the complaints/representations dated 13.02.2023.

¶19

Accordingly, we direct the Deputy Town Planner and the Medical/Health Officer to look into these complaints and dispose of the same in accordance with the law after due compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. In the peculiar facts of this case, an opportunity of hearing may be granted to the petitioners and respondent no. 7 and 8 before taking any final decision. Again, we clarify that we have not examined the merits of the complaints because we think that these are matters that the authorities must first look into.

Page 2 of 3

5th February, 2024

WP 798 of 2023

The petition is disposed of with the above directions with no order for costs.

¶24

All concerned to act based on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶25

VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.

¶26

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶27

MARIA SUZANA REBELLO

¶28

Digitally signed by MARIA SUZANA REBELLO Date: 2024.02.05 17:10:41 +05'30'

¶29

Page 3 of 3

¶30

5th February, 2024

Laxman Gawas and 2 Ors. v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Laxman Gawas and 2 Ors. v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rae Martin and Anr. Vs State of Goa Thr Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Sunil Chauhan Vs State of Goa Thr the Secretary (Labour) and 3 Ors.

Seema Naik Nee Amonkar Vs State of Goa Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 7 Ors.

Amo Communicatons Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its Accounts Manager, Vindo Shinde Vs Patricia Pinto and 11 Ors.

Veeraju. v. Vs the Mapusa Urban Cooperative Bank of Goa Ltd., Mapusa and 6 Ors.

Custodio Dcosta (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs Vs State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and 18 Ors.