Judgment 1. Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri V.P. Thali, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, Shri Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.2, Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4. 2. The above petition is filed seeking inter alia for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records and proceedings of the case and quashing and setting aside the decision of the first respondent dated 27/11/2003 passed in its 6th meeting in so far as it pertains to the reconstruction work carried out by the 4th respondent on the 18th June road, Panaji, Goa and the subsequent order passed by the respondent no.1 on 30/01/2004. The other relief sought by the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents no.1 and 3 to order demolition of the illegal construction work carried out by the 4th respondent in the premises under Chalta No.49 of P.T. Sheet no.43 of Panaji City by holding or declaring regularisation, if any, by the third respondent of the offending construction to be illegal or void. 3. The petitioner filed the above petition on the ground that she is the permanent resident of Panaji and on inquiries with the 1st respondent and 3rd respondent she learnt about the construction and completion of civil work carried out at the junction of 18th June road which according to the petitioner is patently illegal. It is further her contention that she came to know that pursuant to the application made by the respondent no.4 a licence was granted by respondent no.3 to the respondent no.4 for repairs of the roof, flooring and plastering of the shop namely U.K. Dry Fruit Shop at Panaji. On the basis of the said licence dated 13/04/2000, respondent no.4 had carried out entirely illegal construction in as much as he has demolished the entire shop, cast R.C.C. Columns, laid a slab on them and reconstructed the shop, with laterite masonary, infringing the rules relating to set back. On the basis of the said licence dated 13/04/2000, respondent no.4 had carried out entirely illegal construction in as much as he has demolished the entire shop, cast R.C.C. Columns, laid a slab on them and reconstructed the shop, with laterite masonary, infringing the rules relating to set back. Thereafter, on 11/08/2000, a site inspection was carried out by the respondent no.1 and the petitioner brought to their notice about the said illegal activities and, consequently, the respondent no.1 issued a show cause notice under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1974, as it was found that there was illegal development carried out by respondent no.4 in the said property. A reply was sent by the respondent no.4 to the show cause notice stating that he has not cast any illegal R.C.C. slab and that the show cause notice may be withdrawn as he had carried out the activities in accordance with law and according to the licence issued by the authorities to carry out the said repairs. Respondent no.3 also issued a show cause notice as to why repairs licence granted should not be revoked under Section 184 of the Municipality Act. A reply was submitted by the respondent no.4 seeking 30 days time as he was unwell. But however, on 13/03/2001 the respondent no.3 ordered the demolition of the offending structure. A Writ Petition was thereafter filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No.337/2001 before this Court against the Member Secretary of the respondent no.1 seeking a direction to the Authorities to take necessary action against the illegal construction. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 26/02/2002 as the respondent no.1 made a statement that he had already issued a final order for demolition. The respondent no.4 thereafter preferred the appeal bearing no.33/2002 against the notice of the respondent no.1 as the final order required the respondent no.4 to demolish the illegal construction in the said property. The said appeal was taken up for hearing at the 105th meeting of the Board and the matter was remanded to the respondent no.1. At the hearing of the said appeal, the petitioner was also heard by the Board while passing the said order remanding the matter to the respondent no.1. The said appeal was taken up for hearing at the 105th meeting of the Board and the matter was remanded to the respondent no.1. At the hearing of the said appeal, the petitioner was also heard by the Board while passing the said order remanding the matter to the respondent no.1. After the remand to the respondent no.1, the matter was taken up for discussion at its 109th, 110th, 113th, 115th meeting and at the said last two meetings of the respondent no.1 it was decided to defer the matter. Thereafter, as there were no preferable steps taken by the respondent no.1, the petitioner once again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.609/2003 commanding the respondent no.1 to decide the matter which has been remanded by the Board. On 5/01/2004, in view of the statement made by the respondent no.1 that further action would be taken in view of the fact that the appeal before the Board has already been disposed of and the said petition came to be accordingly disposed of. Upon inquiries, the petitioner learnt that on 30/01/2004, the show cause notice dated 19/09/2000 came to be withdrawn and the final notice dated 31/01/2002 by the Member Secretary of respondent no.1 was also withdrawn. Being aggrieved by the said orders passed by the respondent no.1 the petitioner preferred the above Writ Petition seeking to quash the orders passed by respondent no.1. 4. The respondent no.1 has filed a reply justifying the actions of the respondent no.1 and inter alia contending that there was no illegal construction carried out by the respondent no.4 as according to the respondent no.1 the construction which has been carried out by the respondent no.4 comes within the meaning of “repairs” under Section 43 of the Town and Country Planning Act and consequently no permission is required as contemplated under Section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Respondent no.4 has further pointed out that after fresh inspection they came to the conclusion that there was no illegality committed by respondent no.4 with regard to the disputed construction. It is stated by the respondent no.1 that there is no reason for any complaint with regard to the illegal construction by the petitioner as according to them there is no illegality committed by respondent no.4 in respect of the impugned construction. It is stated by the respondent no.1 that there is no reason for any complaint with regard to the illegal construction by the petitioner as according to them there is no illegality committed by respondent no.4 in respect of the impugned construction. Respondent no.4 has also disputed the contentions of the petitioner and pointed out that whatever construction activities have been carried out come within the meaning of “repairs” as contemplated under Section 43 of the Town and Country Planning Act and further that he has not extended the plinth area nor has carried out any exteriors and whatever work was carried out was restricted to the interior repairs. It is further pointed out considering that the activity carried out by respondent no.4, no permission was required within the meaning of Section 43 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The respondent no.4 has also made averments with regard to the bonafides of the petitioner. Elaborate facts have been narrated in the reply to the effect that respondent no.4 is in enimical terms with the petitioner on account of the fact that there was some illegal activity of construction carried out by the petitioner at the place of her residence at St. Inez and further that respondent no.4 was party to some complaint lodged before the statutory authorities in respect of such illegal construction. Further contention of the respondent no.4 is that in order to take revenge against the respondent no.4, for having made such complaint to the Statutory Authorities the petitioner has filed the present petition with malafide motives only for the purpose of harassing respondent no.4 who is carrying on business activities in his premises to live his livelihood. Learned Counsel further contended that considering the conduct of the petitioner no reliefs are to be granted to the petitioner in the present petition. 5. I have heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the Counsel appearing for the respective respondents. Learned Counsel further contended that considering the conduct of the petitioner no reliefs are to be granted to the petitioner in the present petition. 5. I have heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the Counsel appearing for the respective respondents. Apart from the fact that the Counsel appearing for the respective parties have supported their rival contentions on merits in as much as that it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the construction put up by the respondent no.4 required the permission under the provisions of Section 43 and 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and further that all the activities committed by the respondent no.4 are illegal and without any permission, while the learned Counsel for the respondents have disputed the said contentions. 6. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 as well as the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 that no permission was required as according to them necessary permission for repairs has already been obtained by the respondent no.4 and the work carried out was in accordance with the permissions granted as contemplated under Sections 43 and 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act. 7. Be that as it may, the main grievance of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that at the time when the impugned order was passed by the respondent no.4, the petitioner who was always made a party and was also heard before the Town and Country Planning Board considering that she had filed two petitions before this Court which came to be considered and orders were passed thereon, the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned orders by the respondent no.1. 8. Shri Thali, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 though supports the impugned order and points out that such orders have been passed in accordance with law, nevertheless, does not dispute the fact that the petitioner could have been heard at the time of passing the impugned order, considering her said involvement in the matter. 9. Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 has vehemently argued that no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner considering her conduct and this Court cannot entertain the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner who is in enimical terms with the respondent no.4. 10. 9. Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 has vehemently argued that no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner considering her conduct and this Court cannot entertain the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner who is in enimical terms with the respondent no.4. 10. Without going into the merits or otherwise of the rival contentions with regard to the impugned construction nor with regard to the conduct of the petitioner as contended by the respondent no.4, I find it appropriate that considering the contentions of Shri V.P. Thali, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 to the effect that the petitioner could have been heard before passing the impugned orders, that the respondent no.1 can always be called upon to hear the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was the complainant and has approached this Court on two earlier occasions with regard to the impugned construction and petitioner was heard before the Board it would be appropriate that the petitioner be heard by the respondent no.1 before any orders are passed with regard to the impugned construction. 11. Consequently, in view of the above, keeping all the issues on merits open as well as the contentions of Shri Pangam with regard to the conduct of the petitioner, I find it appropriate that the impugned orders passed by the respondent no.1 on 27/11/2003 and the consequent order dated 30/01/2004 be quashed and set aside and the respondent no.1 be directed to pass a fresh order after hearing all the concerned parties including the petitioner in accordance with law. 12. Shri Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 points out that the order of regularization passed by respondent no.3 shall be reconsidered if required in case such occasion arises after the fresh order is passed by the respondent no.1. 13. In view of the above, I pass the following order: O R D E R (i) The impugned orders dated 27/11/2003 and 30/01/2004 passed by the respondent no.1 are quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondent no.1 is directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the concerned parties including the petitioner in accordance with law. (iii) All contentions of both the parties on merits are left open. (iv) Rule is disposed of in the above terms. (v) Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (ii) The respondent no.1 is directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the concerned parties including the petitioner in accordance with law. (iii) All contentions of both the parties on merits are left open. (iv) Rule is disposed of in the above terms. (v) Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (vi) The respondent no.1 is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.