Writ Petition No. 197 of 2010 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- S VAZIFDAR U D SALVI
Outcome
Disposed of
In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of by the following
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of by the following order : ORDER The impugned Order dated 16.02.2010 is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.3 shall decide the matter afresh after giving the Petitioner an -3- opportunity of being heard. The applicant…
Judgment
State of Goa, Through Secretary, Secretariat, Porvorim – Goa. Director of Tourism, Department of Tourism, Patto, Pasnaji, Goa. Village Panchayat of Majorda-Utorda-Calata, through its Secretary, Office of the Village Panchayat of Majorda-Utorda-Calata, Majorda-Utorda Goa 403 721. (All registered addresses) ...... Petitioner ...... Respondents
Mr. S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. M. Salkar, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for Respondent no.3. Coram :- S. J. VAZIFDAR U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date : 18 th March, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. J. Vazifdar, J) Rule, is made returnable and heard forthwith.
The Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 16.02.2010, passed by -2- the Respondent no.3-Village Panchayat of Majorda-Utorda-Calata. The Petitioner had sought permission to put up a shack in accordance with a policy of erection of such shacks dated 14.08.2008. The Tourism Department granted its NOC to the same on 02.11.2009. The Petitioner thereafter applied to the Village Panachayat on 23.11.2009 for the said permission. Respondent no.3, instead of deciding the application, stated thus :
With reference to the above, I am to inform you that your above mentioned application dated 21.12.2009 was placed before the Panchayat body meeting held on 30.12.2009 and decided by the Panchayat body to refer the same to Village Panchayat Advocate for legal advice. On the above matter legal advice has been received from Adv. Zeller C. D' Souza stating that no erection of any temporary shack can take place in any part of the said survey bearing No. 42/1. For your reference herewith this Panchayat enclosed copy of the legal opinion given by the Advocate dated 01/02/2010 received by this office on 12/2/2010.
3. The Respondent no.3 ought to have decided the application itself independently, without being bound by a legal opinion. The Order contains no reasons whatsoever. It is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
Operative part
In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of by the following order : ORDER The impugned Order dated 16.02.2010 is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.3 shall decide the matter afresh after giving the Petitioner an -3- opportunity of being heard. The applicant for intervention before us is at liberty and shall be entitled to be heard by the Respondent no.3 in respect of the Petitioner's application. All the questions are kept open. Considering the urgency in the matter, the parties shall appear before Respondent no.3 in the first instance at
11.00 a.m. on 22.03.2010 and thereafter as they may be directed by the Respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 is requested to decide the application and communicate the decision to the Petitioner and the intervenor on or before
05.04.2010.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. All the parties are directed to act upon a copy of this Order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar. S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. U. D. SALVI, J. arp/*
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.