JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 to 3, Mr. V. Rodrigues learned Counsel for Respondent no.4 and Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel for Respondent no.5. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the judgment passed by the Additional Director of Panchayat-I,Margao-Goa disposing of Panchayat Appeal no.219/2006 and Panchayat Appeal No. 220/2006. 4. Perusal of the record discloses that since the Village Panchayat of Nuvem did not take any action in respect of the illegal constructions alleged to have been carried out by the Petitioner, the Deputy Director assumed jurisdiction under Section 65(5) of the Village Panchayat Act. In respect of illegal construction carried out by the Petitioners on the Ground floor the Deputy Director of Panchayats disposed of Case No.DDPS/illegal.Const/16/2002 by Judgment and order dated 14.8.2003 and by another Judgment of the same date the Deputy Director disposed of Case no.DDPS/illegal-Const./25/2002 in respect of illegal construction carried out on the Second floor. The Petitioner preferred Panchayat appeal no.219/2003 challenging the Judgment in case of illegal. Const/16/2002 and Panchayat appeal no.220/2003 challenging Judgment passed in case No.Illegal- Const/25/2002. By common judgment dated 13.2.2009 The Additional Director of Panchayats, Margao disposed of both the appeals in terms of the order passed thereon. 5. The grievance made by Mr. Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that although by the impugned judgment the Appellate Authority has disposed of both the appeals there is absolutely no reference to the alleged illegal construction carried in Case no.illegal/Const./16/2003 and only after dealing with the evidence in illegal. Const./25/2003, the Additional Director has passed the impugned Judgment, which clearly discloses non-application of mind on the part of the Additional Director. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside and the matter remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 6. Mr. Vahidulla the learned Government Advocate for Respondents nos.1 to 3 fairly conceded that the matter deserves to be remanded. Mr. Countinho learned Counsel appearing for Respondent no.5 supported the impugned Judgment. Ms. Pai Kir, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 left the matter to the Court. 7. Perusal of the impugned Judgment and order discloses that the Appellate Authority has only dealt with the matter in illegal. Mr. Countinho learned Counsel appearing for Respondent no.5 supported the impugned Judgment. Ms. Pai Kir, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 left the matter to the Court. 7. Perusal of the impugned Judgment and order discloses that the Appellate Authority has only dealt with the matter in illegal. Const Case no.25/2003 and has absolutely not referred to the factual matriz and arguments in relation to Case no.illegal. Const./16/2003. Therefore, Mr. Lotlikar is right in contending that the impugned Judgment and Order discloses non-applicability of mind on the part of the Appellate Authority. On this ground alone, the impugned Judgment and order is liable to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the Panchayat Appeal No.219/2003 and Panchayat Appeal No. 220/2003 afresh after hearing the parties and pass separate Judgments, in accordance with law. The parties either in person or through their advocates will appear before the Appellate Authority on 5th October, 2010 at 3 p.m. Since the appeals pertain to the year 2002, the Appellate Authority will dispose of the appeals expeditiously and in any case on or before 30th December, 2010. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.