JUDGMENT - A.A. CAZI, J.:---A common question of law has arisen in all these four writ petitions and, therefore, by consent, they all have been heard together and this judgment is in answer to that common question. The common question that arises is : Whether the action prescribed in sub-section (5) of section 83 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayat Regulation, 1962 is a duty that falls within section 49 of the said Regulation. 2. The facts in each of these four writ petitions insofar as they give rise to the above question are as follows The facts of Writ Petition No. 84 of 1990 are these: In this Petition respondent No. 1 is the Collector of Goa, respondent No. 2 is the Village Panchayat of Siolim-Sodiem and respondent No. 3 is Smt. Kamal R. Goltekar. The petitioner's case is that he is one of the 22 co-owners who own a property by name "VANGOD BHAT surveyed under No. 214/1 and is situated at Sodiem, Siolim, Bardez, Goa. Respondent No. 3 with her family resides in a house bearing survey No. 214/15 in the aforesaid property of the petitioner and other co-owners. On 12th May, 1986 the petitioner observed that respondent No. 3 was carrying out an extention, namely, a gallery to the existing house and that this was being done without the consent and authority of any of the co-owners and also without the requisite licence from the Village Panchayat of Siolim (respondent No. 2). The petitioner lodged a complaint with the Village Panchayat of Siolim by his letter dated 13th May, 1986 in respect of the said illegal construction and asked the Village Panchayat of Siolim to take necessary action against the respondent No. 3. Thereupon the Village Panchayat of Siolim did issue a show cause notice dated 15th May, 1986 under section 83 of the said Regulation to respondent No. 3 directing her to stop the illegal construction and also to show cause within five days of the receipt as to why the construction be not demolished. Respondent No. 3 did not give any reply to the show cause notice. Respondent No. 3 did not give any reply to the show cause notice. Thereupon the Village Panchayat of Siolim by its notice dated 10th June, 1986 directed respondent No. 3 to demolish the said illegal construction within seven days from the receipt of the said notice dated 10th June, 1986, failing which action to demolish the same would be taken by the Village Panchayat and expenses would be recovered from the respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 did not respond to the notice dated 10th June, 1986. However, the Village Panchayat of Siolim failed to demolish the said illegal construction despite reminders. It is submitted that respondent No. 2, therefore, made wilful and persistent defaults in the performance of duty imposed on it by the said Regulation. The petitioner therefore moved an application on 26th August, 1986 before the Collector moving the collector for taking action under section 49 of the said Regulation. The Collector's Office referred the matter to the Block Development Officer, Bardez on 12th September, 1986 for his comments. On 27th August, 1986 the new Sarpanch of Village Panchayat of Siolim, Shri Goltekar, addressed a letter to the B.D.O. Bardez stating that the former Sarpanch had not drawn the Panchanama and, hence, it was very difficult to know which portion of the house had been illegally constructed and refusing to carry out the demolition work. However, even after constant enquiries from the Office of the respondent No. 1, respondent No. 1 failed to take any action. Therefore, the petitioner moved another application dated 9th January, 1986 before respondent No. 1 to expedite the matter. Ultimately on 22nd July, 1986 the petitioner was compelled to file Writ Petition No. 164 of 1987 for Mandamus against the Collector directing him to dispose of the application dated 26th August, 1986 as per law. That writ petition was allowed by his Court on 7th August, 1989 by an Order: "In the result the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute. The Collector is directed to dispose of the aforesaid application of the petitioner within 3 months from today". Subsequently, by order dated 17-10-1989 the Collector passed an order remanding the matter to the Panchayat Body for taking further course of action. The Collector is directed to dispose of the aforesaid application of the petitioner within 3 months from today". Subsequently, by order dated 17-10-1989 the Collector passed an order remanding the matter to the Panchayat Body for taking further course of action. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 17th October, 1989 the petitioner has preferred the present petition for the following reliefs : a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the case and after perusing the same and examining the validity and propriety of the impugned judgment and order dtd. 17/10/89, passed by the first respondent in Case No. 31-AC-DEV/APL/88, be pleased, by way of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order of writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash and set aside the same. b) A writ of mandamus be issued against the respondent No. 1 or the respondent No. 2 directing them to demolish the illegal structure i.e. the gallery constructed by the third respondent to the house surveyed under No. 214/15. c) Any other appropriate order in the circumstances of the case as this Hon'ble High Court deems fit. 3. Only the Village Panchayat of Siolim has filed the reply. The Panchayat states that the former Sarpanch who issued the notice to the respondent No. 3 had not maintained the records and, therefore, the present Body could not interfere with the objective construction without proper documents because the Panchayat would have to face suit for damages and for such acts and hence, they left it to the Block Development Officer or to the Collector to demolish the said gallery. It is further stated that neither in the Order of this Court nor in the Order of the Collector it is mentioned as to the extent of the gallery that had to be demolished and, therefore, the Panchayat could not take any action. It is further stated that the present Body of Panchayat had passed a resolution after the Order passed by the Collector not to take any action to demolish the said gallery as the records available with the Panchayat's Office did not have any panchanama drawn by the previous Sarpanch regarding the said illegal construction of the gallery. It is further stated that the present Body of Panchayat had passed a resolution after the Order passed by the Collector not to take any action to demolish the said gallery as the records available with the Panchayat's Office did not have any panchanama drawn by the previous Sarpanch regarding the said illegal construction of the gallery. It is further stated "the respondent No. 2 further submits that section 49 of the Village Panchayat Regulation Act is clear, i.e. that if the Panchayat fails to perform any duty imposed on it is for the Collector or his subordinate to exercise powers vested under section 49 of the Village Panchayat Regulation Act and demolish the said illegal construction of the gallery". Again it is submitted" .....that the petitioner has also joined the respondent No. 3 in this petition and, therefore, a decree could be passed against the respondent No. 3 and the same will be executed against the respondent No. 3 or in the alternative the Court can direct the bailiff to demolish the same and the cost could be recovered from the respondent No. 3". Finally it is submitted" ... in the absence of Panchayat it is for the Collector to demolish the said illegal extension of the gallery". 4. The facts of Writ Petition No. 463 of 1991 are as follows : Respondent No. 1 is the Village Panchayat of Assonora. Respondent No. 2 is the Block Development Officer, Bardez, Goa. Respondent No. 3 is the Collector/Authorized Officer, North Goa and respondent No. 4 is one Uttam B. Bugde. The petitioner's case is as follows : The petitioner with his family has been staying at Sawchowado, Asonora in the property commonly known as "VADACHE BHATLE" which is surveyed under Nos. 7/18 and 7/17 of the village Assonora. Adjoining this property and to its north is the property of respondent No. 4 and it bears the survey No. 7/4 of village Assonora. Beyond the 4th respondent's property on the northern side there exists main public road. On the southern side of the petitioner's property there exist various paddy fields. 7/18 and 7/17 of the village Assonora. Adjoining this property and to its north is the property of respondent No. 4 and it bears the survey No. 7/4 of village Assonora. Beyond the 4th respondent's property on the northern side there exists main public road. On the southern side of the petitioner's property there exist various paddy fields. According to the petitioner, people go to their respective paddy fields through the 4th respondent's property as well as the petitioner's property and that there is a way all along the length of the two properties from the main public road to the house of the petitioner and further down to the said paddy fields; that the length of the said way is approximately 25 metres and the breadth of it was 3 metres in the 4th respondent's land; that the petitioner and the farmers of the paddy fields were bringing bullock carts right to the house of the petitioner and further more near the paddy fields through the said for way transporting and/or carrying away the paddy and other materials from their respective fields; that the petitioner also used to bring carts or three-wheelers such as rickshaws etc. through the said way to his house. Respondent No. 4 constructed a rubble stone compound wall to his land sometime in February 1990 illegally and unauthorizedly and totally encroached upon the said way thereby grabbing approximately 2.5 metres portion of the said way all along the length of the same and the way has been reduced to a width of less than half a metre. No prior permission was given by respondent No. 1 for making such construction. Petitioner contacted respondent No. 1 for taking action. Respondent No. 1 however avoided to take action as the Sarpanch of respondent No. 1 was hand-in-gloves with the respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 1 failed to take action against the said illegal construction despite several requests. Respondent No. 3 initiated enquiry before respondent No. 2 to enquire the nature of the said construction and the respondent No. 2 after due enquiry confirmed the illegal nature of the said construction and further informed the respondent No. 3 about the hazardous nature of the same by its letter dated 7th August, 1990. Respondent No. 3 initiated enquiry before respondent No. 2 to enquire the nature of the said construction and the respondent No. 2 after due enquiry confirmed the illegal nature of the said construction and further informed the respondent No. 3 about the hazardous nature of the same by its letter dated 7th August, 1990. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 through the Deputy Collector directed respondent No. 2 to compel the respondent No. 1 to take action under section 83 of the said Regulation against the respondent No. 4 by letter dated 31st August, 1990. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 in its turn addressed letter dated 17-9-1990 to respondent No. 1 to take action against the illegal construction. Respondent No. 1 however did not pay any heed to the directions and this was done solely with a view to help the respondent No. 4 in all illegal ways. Respondent No. 2, therefore, by his letter dated 19th November, 1990 reported the noncompliance to the Collector informing about the noncompliance. Thereupon the respondent No. 3 issued show cause notice dated 6th February, 1991 to respondent No. 1 calling upon it to show cause as to why the aforesaid illegal construction shall not be demolished by appointing Officer under section 49 of the Panchayat Regulation. Respondent No. 1 did not file any reply nor even bothered to appear before the respondent No. 3 at any time. Subsequently, however, respondent No. 3 without hearing the petitioner and abruptly withdrew the said show cause notice by an Order dated 28th October, 1991. It might be mentioned that the withdrawal order dated 28th October, 1991 was passed by an Officer different from that who had issued the previous notice dated 6th February, 1991. It is submitted that the withdrawal was done arbitrarily on the ground that the authorized person under section 49 of the said Regulation could not have jurisdiction to interfere with the illegal construction. It is submitted that this conclusion of respondent No. 3 is improper and unwarranted and has been arrived at by misreading and/or non-appreciating the various duties and powers enjoined upon the respondent No. 1 by the said Regulation. It is submitted that this conclusion of respondent No. 3 is improper and unwarranted and has been arrived at by misreading and/or non-appreciating the various duties and powers enjoined upon the respondent No. 1 by the said Regulation. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition for the following reliefs : a) For a writ of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or any other writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order dt. 28-10-91 passed by the respondent No. 3. b) Writ of mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or any other directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to discharge its legal duties against the illegal erection of the rubble fencing done on the said public way by the respondent No. 4. c) For a writ of mandamus or any other writ or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 4 to carry out the removal of the illegal rubble fencing done by the respondent No. 4 on the said public way by appointing appropriate officer under section 49 of the G.D.D. V.P. Regulations 1962 in case if the respondent No. 1 failed to remove the said obstruction within stipulated time. d) Any other order/writ or directions in the nature of and circumstances of the case deemed fit and proper be issued. 5. In Writ Petition No. 463 of 1991, respondent No. 4 therein has filed an affidavit-in-reply. His contentions are as follows : The petitioner's father had filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 43 of 1987 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim which is pending and that it is in respect of the same subject-matter and that the petitioner is trying to use this Court to settle a private score or dispute between the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner's family. Further the petitioner is falsely claiming a right of way through the 4th respondent's property. Neither the petitioner nor his father has any right but it is out of good will that the petitioner had kept a way 1 metre in width along the eastern side of his property. He denies that people go to their respective paddy fields through his property. He denies that there is a way all along his property from the main public road. He denies that people go to their respective paddy fields through his property. He denies that there is a way all along his property from the main public road. He denies that the alleged way is approximately 25 metres in length and 3 metres in breadth. He denies that the petitioner and farmers of various paddy fields were bringing bullock carts through the said way as alleged in the said para. He says that the said property was an open property and out of his tolerance people used to go through his property as they wanted but without having any special right of way or any other right. There never existed any way fixed or marked or permanent. First he had put up a wooden fence in order to protect his plantation and cattle from destroying it and at that time he had kept 1 metre way for the plaintiff and other people to pass. Subsequently he had make a loose stone boundary compound and according to him this does not need any licence. He denies that the said compound is a public pathway. It is further contended that in the interim application for injunction the Civil Court has held that there is no pathway and further that the construction put up by the respondent did not require licence from the Panchayat. 6. The facts in Writ Petition No. 429 of 1992 are as follows : There the respondent No. 1 is one Mrs. Rose Coelho, respondent No. 2 is Mr. Cyriaco Jose Coelho, respondent No. 3 is the village Panchayat of Saligao and respondent No. 4 is the Collector/Authorized Officer, North Goa. The petitioner's case is that he is the owner in possession of the property known as 'BIDICHEM TOREBA' surveyed under Survey No. 326/14 of village Saligao, Taluka Bardez and the property known as 'BIDECHEM BHAT' surveyed under Survey No. 326/10 of village Saligao, Taluka Bardez. On 10th February, 1990 he had filed an application to the Sarpanch of village Panchayat of Saligao (respondent No. 3) that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had erected a compound wall in front of petitioner's property on 10th February, 1990 covering a public way and encroaching on the property of the petitioner. The petitioner's house is situated in the property surveyed under No. 326/14 and is identified under House No. 159. 1 and 2 had erected a compound wall in front of petitioner's property on 10th February, 1990 covering a public way and encroaching on the property of the petitioner. The petitioner's house is situated in the property surveyed under No. 326/14 and is identified under House No. 159. On 2nd March, 1990 the Sarpanch of the 3rd respondent wrote to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that permission had been granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to reconstruct on the existing plinth, septic tank and soak pit and that the compound wall had been constructed without the permission of the Panchayat and that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had encroached on the traditional pathway without keeping 4.5 metres setback from the house wall to the compound wall as shown in the approved plan. By that notice the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were called upon to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them as per section 83(5) of the said Regulation. Nothing further was done in the matter and therefore the petitioner addressed a letter dated 9th April, 1990 to the Block Development Officer, Mapusa, Goa calling upon him to intervene in the matter and demolish the illegal structure. There was no response to the letter dated 9th April, 1990 and, hence, the petitioner addressed letter dated 21st September, 1990 to the Collector bringing to his notice all that had happened. The 4th respondent thereupon issued notice/order to respondent No. 2 and also to respondent No. 3. Thereafter respondent No. 4 heard the matter on 16th October, 1991. Thereafter 4th respondent issued show cause notice dated 27th February, 1991 to the Village Panchayat (respondent No. 3) to show cause as to why the provisions of section 49 should not be invoked by the 4th respondent. Thereafter the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were heard while respondent No. 3 did not turn up for hearing. The 4th respondent passed an order on 1-11-1991 holding that the 4th respondent had no jurisdiction to take action under section 49. Thereafter the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were heard while respondent No. 3 did not turn up for hearing. The 4th respondent passed an order on 1-11-1991 holding that the 4th respondent had no jurisdiction to take action under section 49. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs : a) for a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 1-11-1991 (Exhibit 'F') to the petition; b) for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to appoint an officer under section 49 of the Village Panchayat Regulation to carry out demolition of the compound wall in terms of the show cause notice issued by the Panchayat by letter dated 2-3-1990; c) for such other and further reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. 7. The facts in Writ Petition No. 440 of 1992 are as follows : The respondent No. 1 is Collector, North Goa District. Respondent No. 2 is the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Santa Cruz. Respondent No. 3 is the Block Development Officer, Tiswadi and respondent No. 4 is Mrs. Ana Severina Justa Araujo. The petitioners, case is as follows : On 17th October, 1984 respondent  No. 4 filed a complaint with respondent No. 3 against Luis Araujo, husband of petitioner Nos. 1 and father of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4, alleging that he had extended his house by constructing a new room to the same and in the open land between his house and the house of respondent No. 4. On 3rd November, 1984 the owner of the property in which the house is situated filed complaint with respondent No. 2 that the late Lusi Araujo had carried out illegal construction on 30th October, 1984. On 7th November, 1984 the respondent No. 3 directed respondent No. 2 to remove the alleged illegal construction done by Luis Araujo. On 22nd November, 1984 respondent No. 3 warned respondent No. 2 that as no action was being taken by the Sarpanch regarding removal of the alleged illegal construction the negligence of the Sarpanch or of the Panchayat would be taken seriously. On 22nd November, 1984 respondent No. 3 warned respondent No. 2 that as no action was being taken by the Sarpanch regarding removal of the alleged illegal construction the negligence of the Sarpanch or of the Panchayat would be taken seriously. On 30th November, 1984 the respondent No. 3 in reference to the memo by the Assistant Director of Panchayats submitted his report and stated that the local Panchayat was making wilful default in performance of the duty. On 5th January, 1985 the respondent No. 1 made an Order under section 49 of the said Regulation directing respondent No. 2 to take action within 10 days i.e. directing the demolition of the alleged illegal construction failing which it was stated that action would be taken under section 25 of the Regulation. On 12-2-1985 respondent No. 1 pointed out that there was no illegal construction made by Luis Araujo and that the construction in question was not illegal. On 4-2-1986 the respondent No. 1 directed respondent No. 2 to demolish the alleged illegal construction done by Luis Araujo within 15 days, and further warning that on failure to do so the Sarpanch would be removed from his Office. On 2-3-1986 respondent No. 2 informed Luis Araujo that respondent No. 1 had directed him to demolish the alleged illegal construction and called upon Luis Araujo to demolish it within 8 days. On 10-3-1986 Luis Araujo filed Civil Suit No. 13 of 1986 in the District Court, Panaji seeking declaration that the Orders dated 4-1-1986 , 5-11-1985, 2-3-1986 and 7-11-`1984 were illegal, null and void and claimed permanent injunction against demolition of the construction. On 11-3-1986 the District Court granted interim relief. On 7th July, 1987 Luis Araujo expired. On 5th April, 1988 interim relief granted earlier was vacated by the District Court. On 16-12-1988 an appeal was preferred by the petitioner being Appeal from Order No. 20 of 1988 which was disposed of by the High Court together with Civil Revision Application No. 81 of 1988. Later petitioners withdrew the Civil suit. On 30-8-1990 the impugned show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. On 14-9-1990 reply was given to the same. On 24-8-1992 the respondent No. 1 (Collector of North Goa/Authorized Officer) made the impugned order. Later petitioners withdrew the Civil suit. On 30-8-1990 the impugned show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. On 14-9-1990 reply was given to the same. On 24-8-1992 the respondent No. 1 (Collector of North Goa/Authorized Officer) made the impugned order. By the impugned order the 4th respondent purporting to act in exercise of powers under section 49 of the said regulation and appointed the Block Development Office, Tiswadi (respondent No. 3) to carry out the demolition of the said structure within 30 days after receipt of that order and further directed that the expenses of performing the demolition work shall be paid by the Village Panchayat of Santa Cruz within the next 15 days. Hence, the present writ petition in which the prayers are for a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 13-8-1990 - Exhibit P-1 to the petition and the impugned order dated 24-8-1992-Exhibit P-2 to the petition, after calling for the records of the case. 8. We will first consider the question that has been formulated and stated right at the beginning of this judgment. We may reproduce here section 49 of the Regulation. The same reads as follows : "49. Default in performance of duty by Panchayats.---If, at any time, it appears to the authorised officer that a Panchayat has made wilful and persistent default in the performance of any duty imposed on it by this Regulation, he may, by order in writing, fix a period for the performance of that duty. If the duty is not performed within the period so fixed, the authorised officer may appoint any person to perform it and direct that the expenses of the performance of the duty shall be paid by defaulting Panchayat within such period as he may think fit." Since section 49 is sought to be made applicable in respect of failure to carry out what is required under sub-section (5) of section 83 it would be useful to reproduce the entire section 83 and the same, excluding the Explanation therein which is not relevant for our purpose, reads as follows : "83. Control of erection of buildings---(1) No person shall erect or re-erect or commence to erect or re-erect within the limits of a village, any building without the previous permission of the Panchayat. (2) Permission shall be presumed to have been granted if the Panchayat fails to communicate its sanction or refusal in respect thereof within two months from the date of receipt of the application for permission. In case of refusal, the Panchayat shall communicate to the applicant the reasons therefor; and an appeal shall lie against any such order of refusal to the Deputy Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer in charge of the subdivision within a period of thirty days of the date of communication of such refusal. (3) No person who becomes entitled under sub-section (1) or (2) to proceed with any intended work of erection or re-erection shall commence such work after the expiry of one year from the date on which he first because entitled so to proceed therewith, unless he shall have again become so entitled by a fresh compliance with the provisions of the preceding sub-section. (4) Whoever erects or re-erects or commences to erect or re-erect any building without such permission or in any manner contrary to the provisions of sub-section (1) or any bye-law enforce, or to any conditions imposed by the Panchayat shall be punished with fine, which may extend to fifty rupees; and in the case of continuing contravention, he shall be liable to an additional fine, which may extend to five rupees for each day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention. (5) Without prejudice to the penalty prescribed in sub-section (4) the Panchayat may -- (a) direct in writing that the erection or re-erection be stopped. (b) by written notice require such erection or re-erection to be altered or demolished as it may deem necessary within a reasonable time; and if the requirement under Clause (b) is not complied with within the time fixed in the notice, the Panchayat may cause the alternation or demolition to be carried out by its officers and servants and all the expenses incurred by the Panchayat therefore shall be recoverable in the same manner as an amount claimed on account of any tax recoverable as arrears of land revenue under any law for the time being in force in the Union territory. (6) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to any building which is used or required for public service, or for any public purpose, and is the property of the Government or any Panchayat or Municipality or is to be erected or re-erected by the Government or the Panchayat or Municipality; but reasonable notice of the proposed construction shall be caused to be given to the Panchayat, and the objections or suggestions of the Panchayat, if any, shall be considered." 9. In the context of our present discussion "duties" is not the same thing as "powers". It is necessary for us to bring out the distinction between these two things. When a duty is laid down it is always done for achieving a certain end result. For enabling such person (on whom duties are laid down) to carry out such duties, certain powers are given to him. These powers are said to be conferred on that person and they are meant for facilitating the execution of the duties. Now what is the end result sought to be achieved by the said Regulation for which the duties are laid down ("imposed") therein? The answer is to be found in the Preamble of the Regulation read with Article 40 of the Constitution of India and section 31 read with Schedule II of the Regulation. Now the Preamble states : "A Regulation to provide for the establishment of Panchayats in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and for matters connected therewith." Article 40 of the Constitution reads as follows : "40. .............. Organization of Village Panchayats---The State shall take steps to organize Village Panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-Government." Section 31 appears under Chapter III of the Regulation which is entitled : "Powers, Duties and Functions of Panchayat". Section 31 itself reads as follows: "Duties and functions.--(1) It shall be the duty of every Panchayat so far as its Fund may allow to make reasonable provision within its jurisdiction in regard to the matters specified in the Second Schedule. Section 31 itself reads as follows: "Duties and functions.--(1) It shall be the duty of every Panchayat so far as its Fund may allow to make reasonable provision within its jurisdiction in regard to the matters specified in the Second Schedule. (2) A Panchayat may also make provision for carrying out within the area comprised within its jurisdiction any other work or measure which is likely to promote the health, safety, education, comfort, convenience or social or economic wellbeing of the residents of the area." It will be seen that the said section 31 refers to the Second Schedule. The Second Schedule refers to matters within the jurisdiction of the Panchayats and specifically refers to sections 31 and 31-C and there are a number of matters enumerated there under six different heads, the first head being "Sanitation and Public Health," the second being "Public Works", the third being "Planning and Development", the fourth being "Administration", the fifth being "Social Welfare" and the sixth being "Education and Culture". We may only refer to Items Nos. 1 and 6 of the various matters referred to "Public Works". Item No. 1 is "Construction, repair and maintenance of village roads, drains, bridges, etc." and Item No. 6 is "Extension of village sites and the regulation of buildings and housing schemes in accordance with such principles as may be prescribed." It will, therefore, be seen that the end result of the Regulation is to comply with the Directive Principles of the Constitution as contained in Article 40 which calls upon the State to take steps to organize Village Panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-Government. 10. It was urged by Mr. Walwaikar that what is required to be done by the Panchayats under the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 83 is a duty which the Panchayat must carry out. He urged that the word "may" used in the said sub-section (5) should be read as "shall". According to him though the provision of the said sub-section (5) is worded in permissive language it must be interpreted in the imperative sense. He urged that the word "may" used in the said sub-section (5) should be read as "shall". According to him though the provision of the said sub-section (5) is worded in permissive language it must be interpreted in the imperative sense. In support of his argument he relied upon the decisions of (The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and another v. The Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd.)1, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 218, (Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar)2, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1088, (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh)3, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1618, (Sardar Govindrao and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh)4, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1222, (Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service, Raipur v. Regional Transport Authority, Raipur and another)5, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1318, (L. Hirday Narain v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly)6, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 33, and (Textile Commissioner and others v. The Sagar Textile Mills (P) Ltd. and another)7, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1516. Now it is true that in these various decisions it is observed and held that the word "may", though permissive in form, is required to be held as obligatory depending on the context and language of the rule. In these various authorities it is observed that where there is a discretion conferred upon a public authority coupled with an obligation, then the word "may" which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command. It is further urged that in the over said sub-section (5) though the word used is "may" which denotes discretion yet this discretion has been conferred upon a public authority coupled with an obligation, and therefore, the word "may" should be construed to mean a command and therefore it is mandatory upon the concerned Panchayat to take the action as contemplated in the said sub-section (5). Now it is true that the action contemplated under-sub-section (5) may be construed as mandatory upon the Panchayat for the reasons pointed out by Mr. Walwaikar. However, this would only mean that it is mandatory upon the Panchayat to exercise the power which has been conferred upon him. This does not mean that the action under the abovesaid sub-section (5) is necessarily such work as contemplated in the said section 49. As pointed out above, section 49 refers to the performance of the duty imposed on the Panchayat by the Regulation of 1962. This does not mean that the action under the abovesaid sub-section (5) is necessarily such work as contemplated in the said section 49. As pointed out above, section 49 refers to the performance of the duty imposed on the Panchayat by the Regulation of 1962. In other words, the Panchayat is charged by the Regulation for carrying out certain duties in order to achieve the end result as pointed out above or to achieve the objectives of the said regulation. The object of the said Regulation is not to demolish premises nor to penalize persons or Bodies of persons. These are penal actions which the Panchayat is empowered to take under certain circumstances. If those circumstances exist, then, it is open for the Panchayat to take that action. If those circumstances do not exist, the Panchayat does not take that action and, in fact, is not called upon to take that action and, therefore, it is not called upon to do that work. The duty which is referred to in section 49 is the duty which always the Panchayat is called upon to do not by way of circumstances and not depending upon the contingency of existence of circumstances, but by the Regulation itself. The duties that are contemplated under section 49 are, therefore, clearly the duties with which the Panchayat are perpetually charged with to carry out and not dependent upon contingencies, and these are the ones that are referred to in section 31 read with Schedule II of the Regulation. The distinction between powers on one hand and duties as contemplated in section 49 on the other, may be further clarified as follows : Powers are to be exercised only on the existence of certain contingencies. Duties are imposed by the Regulation and are not dependent upon the existence of any contingency. Therefore, though Mr. Walwaikar may be right in urging that the word "may" appearing in sub-section (5) though permissive in form must be interpreted to mean command and that it is mandatory for the Panchayat to take action under the said sub-section (5) under certain existing circumstances, it is material to note that this action can be taken only under certain circumstances. 11. It must be noted that the entire section 83 appears in Chapter VI which bears the heading "Miscellaneous". 11. It must be noted that the entire section 83 appears in Chapter VI which bears the heading "Miscellaneous". This gives various powers to various authorities including the Panchayats while performing the duty with which the Panchayat is charged to do by the Regulation. These powers include power of entry (section 55), delegation of powers (section 59), powers and duties of police in respect of offences and assistance to Panchayats (section 60), power to requisition vehicles (section 69), power to obtain information (section 71) and power to levy penalties (section 73). In fact, section 83 itself lays down in sub-section (4) that a person who erects or re-erects or commences to erect or re-erect any building without the permission of the Panchayat shall be punished with fine. This is a penal provision. In that sense, sub-section (5) also is a penal provision. Various penal provisions are laid down under the Chapter VI and the Panchayat and various other authorities have been empowered to act and take action according to these penal provisions. This is far from saying that the object of the Regulation of 1962 is to punish people or to penalize or to break down or demolish structures. As stated earlier, these are only the powers which enable the various authorities mentioned in the Regulation to do their duty with which they are charged under the Regulation or to facilitate the carrying on of their duty with which they are charged under the Regulation. 12. We will now consider each petition separately. In Writ Petition No. 84 of 1990 what is sought is : (a) the quashing of the Order dated 17th October, 1989 passed by the Collector (respondent No. 1 therein) and (b) a writ of mandamus directing either the Collector (respondent No. 2 therein) to demolish the gallery constructed by respondent No. 3 therein to the house surveyed under No. 214/15. So far as the Collector's order is concerned it was sought to be urged that the Collector was wrong in not taking action under section 49. Since we have already held that an order under section 49 is not called for in respect of pulling down an illegal structure simpliciter, i.e. where it does not concern the duties under section 31 or the various works mentioned in Schedule II, therefore no order can be passed in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. Since we have already held that an order under section 49 is not called for in respect of pulling down an illegal structure simpliciter, i.e. where it does not concern the duties under section 31 or the various works mentioned in Schedule II, therefore no order can be passed in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. As regards prayer (b) of the petition the petitioner can succeed in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for this Court to order the Village Panchayat of Siolim to take action under the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 83. In this case the Village Panchayat had issued notices dated 15th May, 1986 to respondent No. 3 to show cause within 5 days thereof as to why the construction be not demolished. Respondent No. 3 gave no reply to it. Thereafter on 10th June, 1986 respondent No. 2 gave another notice to respondent No. 3 referring to the earlier show cause notice dated 15-5-1986 and calling upon respondent No. 3 to demolish the objected structure within 7 days and further stating that if the respondent No. 3 failed to comply with that notice the Panchayat would demolish the objected structure. There was no response for this letter from the respondent No. 3. All that the petitioner wants is respondent No. 2 must act in terms of its letter dated 10th June, 1986. As discussed above, it is mandatory for respondent No. 2 to exercise his powers under the said sub-section (5) if circumstances warrant taking of action under the said sub-section. The above said facts of the case show that the circumstances of the case warrant action being taken under sub-section (5). Accordingly, there will be writ of mandamus in terms of prayer (b) of the petition. The respondent No. 2 shall demolish the gallery within 3 months from the date of service of the writ of this Court. 13. We will now consider Writ Petition No. 463 of 1991. The averments of the petition are already stated earlier. The various prayers in this petition are also reproduced above. Prayer (a) thereof pertains to Collector's Order dated 28th October, 1991 by which order the Collector held that the duties under section 49 were only those which are covered by section 31 read with the Schedule. The averments of the petition are already stated earlier. The various prayers in this petition are also reproduced above. Prayer (a) thereof pertains to Collector's Order dated 28th October, 1991 by which order the Collector held that the duties under section 49 were only those which are covered by section 31 read with the Schedule. So far as this observation is concerned the decision of the Collector is quite right, as we have held above while discussing the scope of section 49. However, allegedly there is a public way and so far as the public way is concerned this is covered this is covered by the duties referred to in section 31 and the works enumerated in Schedule II. On 6th February, 1991, respondent No. 3 (at that time the Collector was one Mr. Lalmasawma) wrote to the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat of Assonora "Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under section 49 of the Goa, Daman and Diu, Village Panchayat Regulation 1962, I hereby direct the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat of Assonora, Bardez-Goa to show cause within 10 days from the receipt of this notice, as to why the aforesaid illegal construction of compound wall should not be demolished by appointing an officer and expenses recovered from the Panchayat. In case the reply is received from the Panchayat within the stipulated time limit it will be presumed that the Panchayat has no say in the matter and further action will be taken in accordance with law". The Collector of North Goa while passing the show cause notice stated "It has come to the notice of this office that Shri Uttam B. Bugde r/o Assonora, Bardex-Goa, has constructed a compound wall with rubble stones about 22 to 25 mts. in length on a public pathway, without obtaining the required permission from the Village Panchayat of Assonora, Bardez-Goa, as required under section 83 of the Goa, Daman and Diu, V.P. Regulation 1962, thereby reducing the public pathway by about half metre which causes obstruction for the movement of the public ...................". It will, therefore, be seen that the Collector has while proceeding to issue the show cause notice dated 6th February, 1991, proceeded on the footing that an obstruction has been caused to a public pathway. Maintenance of a public pathway is clearly the duty with which the Panchayats have been charged under the said Regulation. It will, therefore, be seen that the Collector has while proceeding to issue the show cause notice dated 6th February, 1991, proceeded on the footing that an obstruction has been caused to a public pathway. Maintenance of a public pathway is clearly the duty with which the Panchayats have been charged under the said Regulation. Section 49, therefore, is clearly attracted. This notice dated 6-2-1991, therefore, was wrongly withdrawn by the impugned order dated 28th October, 1991. Hence, the writ petition will have to be made absolute in so far as prayer (a) is concerned. The Collector shall proceed with the show cause notice dated 6th February, 1991 giving fresh period of time to the respondent No. 1 as well as to the respondent No. 4 to show cause within that fresh period as to why the objected structure should not be demolished by resorting to provisions under section 49. It is made clear that since it is disputed by respondent No. 4 that the structure stands on a public pathway it will be open for respondent No. 4 to raise that contention and the concerned authorities will decide whether or not it is a public pathway before proceeding to take further action under section 49. Needless to add that all other defences which the parties may wish to raise are open for them to raise before the concerned authorities. Insofar as action under section 49 of the Regulation is not called for it is open to the petitioner to move the Village Panchayat to get the alleged illegal structure removed. Needless to state that if the petitioner moves the Village Panchayat for requiring the Village Panchayat to take action to get the alleged illegal structure removed, the Village Panchayat will first issue show cause notice to the concerned party before taking any action to the prejudice of the concerned party. 14. Writ Petition No. 429 of 1992: The relief sought in this writ petition has already been enumerated earlier. However, by an amendment the petitioner has also sought the following relief : "b(1) for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commading the Respondent No. 3 to act on the show cause notice" In view of our findings as regards the scope of section 49, prayers (a) and (b) of this writ petition cannot be granted. As regards prayer b(1) what is sought there is a writ commanding the Village Panchayat to take the necessary action. We have observed that it is mandatory for the Village Panchayat to act under sub-section (5) of section 83 provided the requisite circumstances are present. It is true that show cause notice was already issued and further action thereupon will have to be taken by the Panchayat depending on the finding which the Panchayat arrievent after hearing the parties. As considerable time has elapsed due to the pendency of this writ petition, it would be in the fitness of things that while we do issue a writ in terms of prayer b(1) we make it clear that this will require the issuance of a fresh show cause notice by the respondent No. 3 upon the concerned parties before taking any further action. 15. Now we will take for consideration the Writ Petition No. 440 of 1992. In view of our finding on the scope of section 49, this writ petition will have to be made absolute in terms of prayer (a) and it is made absolute accordingly. Order accordingly. *****