Judgment : (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri B. Zaiwalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri M. P. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. The above petition, inter alia, seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 22nd December, 2012, passed by respondent No.1 as well as the notice dated 25th May, 2012 issued by respondent No.2. The other relief sought by the petitioners is to direct the respondent Panchayat to renew the licence dated 14th March, 2008 in view of the application filed by the petitioners dated 8th February, 2011. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioners obtained a licence for putting up a construction in the property surveyed under No.378/1 of Benaulim Village, in a portion of land admeasuring 2,677 sq. metres. It appears that another portion of the property admeasuring 700 sq. metres was amalgamated, which, totally admeasured 3377 sq. metres. A construction licence was, thereafter, issued on 14th March, 2008, after obtaining the requisite technical approvals, as well as a NOC from the Health Office at Cansaulim. It appears that there were some objections with regard to the construction activity proposed by the petitioners in the said property. The respondent No.1 accordingly somewhere on 30th April, 2008 informed the petitioners about some complaints lodged in respect of such construction activity. A reply to such letter was duly submitted by the petitioners. Thereafter, on 6th April, 2009, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners by respondent No.1, which was duly replied by the petitioners. On 14th March, 2011, the site incharge was handed over with a letter dated 10th March, 2011, bearing No.3195/2010-11 which, inter alia, stated that the construction licence dated 14th March, 2008 of the petitioners has been revoked in view of a resolution passed by the respondent No.1. Feeling aggrieved with the said resolution, a writ petition was filed before this Court bearing No. 558/2011, challenging the said action on the part of respondent No.1. The said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 6th February, 2012 whereby respondent No.1 undertook to consider the application dated 8th February, 2011 filed by the petitioners for renewal of the construction licence dated 14th March, 2008 within a specific period of time. The said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 6th February, 2012 whereby respondent No.1 undertook to consider the application dated 8th February, 2011 filed by the petitioners for renewal of the construction licence dated 14th March, 2008 within a specific period of time. It appears that on account of default committed by the respondent No.1, the petitioners were also forced to file proceedings for contempt before this Court which were subsequently disposed of. On 16th March, 2012, respondent No.1 informed the petitioners that although respondent No.1 resolved to withdraw its notice dated 10th March, 2012 to revoke the construction licence dated 14th March, 2008, respondent No.1 would, within a period of one week, take an appropriate decision in respect of the application for renewal of licence dated 8th February, 2011. Thereafter, on 28th December, 2012, the petitioners received the impugned order/notice dated 22nd December, 2012 of respondent no.1 rejecting the application for renewal dated 8th February, 2011. Being aggrieved by the said resolution passed by respondent No.1, the petitioners have approached this Court with the aforesaid reliefs. 5. The respondent No.1 has filed its reply, inter alia, contending that as the Town and Country Planning Authority, respondent No.2 herein had directed the respondent No.1 Panchayat to keep the construction licence in abeyance as the original licence did not conform to the provisions of the Building Regulations 2007, the respondent No.1 was forced to pass the impugned resolution. 6. The matter was extensively heard by us on the last date of hearing. The main contention of Shri Zaiwalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, was that the respondent No.2 is trying to invoke the Building Regulations, 2010 when, according to him, such Building Regulations would not be applicable to the petitioners as the construction licence was issued to the petitioners in the year 2008. The contention of the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent No.2 was that the technical approval was kept in abeyance essentially on the ground that the approach road to the project did not conform to the Building Regulations either of the year 2007 or of the year 2010. The controversy was that though the land was acquired, no such road was constructed at the site. 7. The controversy was that though the land was acquired, no such road was constructed at the site. 7. During the course of the hearing, an opportunity was given to the petitioners to submit a plan disclosing the width of the approach road and its location to the project in question. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted such a plan. The respondent No.2, thereafter, filed an additional affidavit dated 30th April, 2014. The dispute with regard to the width of the approach road and its construction was amicably resolved by the petitioners and the respondent No.2 in terms of the averments made at para 2 of the said affidavit, in the peculiar facts of the present case. 8. In terms of the stipulations in the said additional affidavit, the petitioners have also filed an undertaking to this Court by filing an affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 7th May, 2011. In view of the said undertaking, which is stated to be in conformity with the terms as stipulated by the respondent No.2 in the said affidavit, Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, the learned Advocate General states that the respondent No.2 would pass an order within one week from today, revoking the order dated 25th May, 2012. In view of the said statement of the learned Advocate General, we find that the foundation on which the renewal of the licence was refused by the respondent No.1 does not subsist. In such circumstances, the impugned resolution passed by the respondent No.1-Panchayat dated 22nd December, 2012 would not survive. 9. At this stage, Shri M.P. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 states that the only ground for the said refusal of the renewal by the respondent No.1 of the licence in question, was due to the said order dated 28/5/2012 which now is intended to be revoked by the respondent No.2 and the local Panchayat/ respondent No.1 does not have any other grievance to grant such a renewal of the licence to the petitioners. 10. In view of the above, we find it appropriate to quash and set aside the order refusing the renewal of the licence dated 22nd December, 2012 and direct the respondent No.1 to consider the renewal application dated 8th February, 2011 afresh, in the light of the observations made herein above, within four weeks after the respondent no.2 passes the order as stated herein above. 11. 11. Rule stands disposed of in the above terms, with no orders as to costs.