Through its Chairman Dinesh Vaghela v. Ribandar, Ilhas, Goa
Case at a glance
- Bench
- S VAZIFDAR U D SALVI, S VAZIFDAR, U D SALVI
Judgment
V e r s u s Government of Goa through its Chief Secretary, with its office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. The Town Planner, Mapusa Bardez, Goa. The Deputy Collector, with its office at Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. The Commissioner of Excise, with its office at M. G. Road, Panaji, Goa. Village Panchayat of Pilerne-Marra, through its Secretary with its office at Pilerne Marra Bardez, Goa. Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration, with its office at Campal Panaji, Goa.
Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services, Santa Inez, Panaji, Goa. Chief Electrical Engineer, Electricity Department, B. B. Road, Panaji, Goa. Mrs. Sanyogita Kashinath Shetye, Babino Building, Alto Fondvem, Ribandar, Ilhas, Goa. ...... Respondents Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. M. Salkar, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8. Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, Advocate for Respondent no.5. Mr. R. Menezes, Advocate for Respondent no.9. -2- Coram :- S. J. VAZIFDAR U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date : 8 th April, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT Rule, made returnable and heard forthwith.
The main grievance in this Writ Petition pertains to the user for commercial premises which is allegedly impermissible. Respondent no.5 has in fact taken action in respect thereof against Respondent no.9 by an Order dated
15.03.2010, calling upon Respondent no.9 to stop the user of the premises for commercial purposes. Respondent no.9 has filed a statutory appeal. This Respondent no.9 is entitled to. However, as far as the Petitioner is concerned, the grievance stands redressed. There are various other disputes between the parties including as regards issuance of licence and permissions.
However, in view of what is stated above, it is not necessary for us to go in to these questions. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open regarding the same. It will also be open to the parties to make appropriate applications for intervention if they so desire which would be decided by the concerned authorities including the Director of Panchayats.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. 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.