Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2017 (BOM)

Ivan Dias v. State of Goa

2015-08-27

F.M.REIS, K.L.WADANE

body2015
JUDGMENT F. M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr,. Dangui, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Shri Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 5 and 6. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, waives service. 3. The above Petition, inter alia, takes exception to the construction activity initiated by Respondent no. 5 in the property surveyed under no. 133/8 and 133/9 of Village Jua at St. Estevam. 4. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, that the Respondent no. 2 has already issued a Stop Work Notice on the Respondent no. 5 with regard to the subject construction by notice dated 06.08.2015 which is at annexure R1. The Respondent no. 4 has also issued another Stop Work Order dated 06.08.2015 on account of alleged illegal conversion of the subject land. Such notice is at annexure R2. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent no. 4, has pointed out that the hearing of the said Show Cause Notice is posted for today and the learned Deputy Collector shall proceed to take a decision on such Stop Work Notice after hearing the parties in accordance with law. 6. Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, however points out that the Petitioners apprehend that the Respondent no. 5 may proceed to put up a construction without complying with the Statutory Regulations despite of Stop Work Notices being issued by the Statutory Authorities. But, however, Respondent no. 5 has filed an affidavit, inter alia, stating at para 7 that they have no intentions to carry out any construction activity in the subject property nor put up any construction in future without complying with all the statutory regulations in accordance with law. 7. Shri Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 5 and 6, pointed out that said statement on behalf of Respondent no. 5 at para 7, may be treated as an undertaking to the Court considering the assurance of the learned Addl. 7. Shri Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 5 and 6, pointed out that said statement on behalf of Respondent no. 5 at para 7, may be treated as an undertaking to the Court considering the assurance of the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent no.4 that the show cause notice issued by the Respondent no.4 shall be decided after hearing the concerned parties in accordance with law and accepting the said statements of the Respondent no. 5, we find it appropriate to dispose of the Petition and direct the Respondent no. 2 to take a decision with regard to the Stop Work Order dated 06.08.2015 at Annexure R1 and deal with the complaints lodged by the Petitioners with regard to the subject construction after hearing the parties in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties on merits are left open. 8. With the aforesaid directions, Rule stands disposed of. 9. Liberty to the Petitioners, if so advised, to file an application for intervention with the concerned Authority in accordance with law.