JUDGMENT : M. S. Sonak, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of the learned counssel for the parties. 2. Mr. Nigel Costa Frias, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has basically raised three grievances in relation to the construction put up by respondent no.4 in property bearing Survey No.249/1, Curchorem Village, Quepem, Goa (said property):- (i) That portion of the construction encroaches upon the public road and therefore, such portion, be ordered to be removed/ demolished; (ii) That the minimum setback of 5 mtrs. (front setback) has not been maintained and to that extent, the construction be declared as illegal and ordered to be demolished; (iii) That the internal walls have been constructed so as to cover the parking spaces in the basement and there is serious apprehension that these parking spaces will be utilized for purposes other than parking. 3. Mr. Shivan Desai, the learned counsel for respondent no.4 vehemently urged that this is not a genuine public interest litigation but rather, this is a petition filed at the behest of Mr. Vinay Desai, the municipal engineer of the Curchorem-Cacora Municipal Council (Council) who has made demands of gratification from respondent no.4 for grant of Occupation Certificate to the building in the said property. Mr. Desai submitted that the respondent no.4 in fact addressed a complaint dated 07.07.2018 to the Chief Officer and followed this by a complaint before the Lok Ayukta. Mr. Desai submits that the petitioner who is running a bar and restaurant on a different road and in a different ward has no nexus whatsoever with the construction in the said property and therefore, this is not a bonafide public interest litigation. Mr. Desai submits that in fact this Court should order the authorities to investigate into the complaints made against the municipal engineer. 4. Mr. Desai further submits that there is absolutely no breach insofar as maintenance of setbacks are concerned and the grievance raised by the petitioner is quite imaginary. He submits that almost all the statutory authorities have examined the construction in the said property and have found that the minimum front setbacks have been duly maintained. 5. Mr. Desai submits that there is no encroachment on the public road as alleged by the petitioner. He submits that almost all the statutory authorities have examined the construction in the said property and have found that the minimum front setbacks have been duly maintained. 5. Mr. Desai submits that there is no encroachment on the public road as alleged by the petitioner. He submits that on the contrary there is variance between the existing road at the site and the property acquired for the purpose of the road. He submits that even the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department has admitted to this in his affidavit filed on 16.12.2019. Mr. Desai submits that if this factor is considered, then it is clear that there is no encroachment on the public road as alleged by the petitioner. 6. Without prejudice, Mr. Desai submits that the respondent no.4 is entitled to have means of access to the said property. He refers to Clause 4.2 of the Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Regulations, 2010 (said Regulations) to submit that in case of level differences, the pathway can be in the form of steps or ramp to the road level or entrances of the building. He submits that consequent with these provisions two staircases have been provided and it cannot be said that there is any encroachment on the public road as alleged by the petitioner or even otherwise. 7. Finally, Mr. Desai submits that respondent no.4 has no intentions whatsoever to use the parking area for any purpose, other than parking. He submits that the so called partitions are only in order to provide for proper and exclusive parking spaces but the respondent no.4 has no intention to use these spaces other than for the purpose of parking. Mr. Desai therefore submits that there is no substance in the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner in this matter. 8. We have also heard the learned counsel for the statutory authorities in this matter, who have basically taken us through the affidavits filed in the matter. 9. Insofar as the first grievance is concerned, there is necessity to refer to the affidavit of Mr. Ganesh Velip, Executive Engineer of Public Works Department, Division XXV (Roads) which was sworn on 16.12.2019. This affidavit states that the same is filed in compliance with the directions issued by this Court and upon undertaking a joint inspection at the site. 10. Insofar as the first grievance is concerned, there is necessity to refer to the affidavit of Mr. Ganesh Velip, Executive Engineer of Public Works Department, Division XXV (Roads) which was sworn on 16.12.2019. This affidavit states that the same is filed in compliance with the directions issued by this Court and upon undertaking a joint inspection at the site. 10. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit dated 16.12.2019 filed by said Ganesh Velip, Executive Engineer read as follows: “5. It is respectful submitted that this Department has once again carried out the said site inspection pursuant to the Order dated 11/12/2019. In the above mentioned inspections it is observed that there are slight deviation in the road as per the acquisition plan and the actual road constructed at site. It is noted that the stairs of the building constructed by Respondent no.4 are at a distance of 1.25 mtrs. and 0.65 mtrs. from the existing road. Such position is also noted in the earlier joint site inspection conducted. 6. It is respectfully submitted that it can't be said that there is an encroachment on the public road as contended by the Petitioner. The site inspection Report along with sketch indicating the actual position at site is annexed herein and marked as Ennexure R6-B colly.” 11. Along with the affidavit, there are reports filed. The first report refers to the site inspection carried out on 30.08.2018 in the presence of several officials and the parties. This report makes the following observations: “On the basis of the above observations, we may direct the licensee to:- (i) Demolish the existing structure on the south east corner of the site which is not shown in the approved plan. (ii) To develop the road widening area and gift the same to this council. (iii) To submit the revised plan showing the internal changes duly approved by the Town and country Planning Department. (iv) This council may direct the PWD to develop the road as per the acquisition plan.” 12. Thereafter, there is yet another report in terms of this Court’s order dated 13.11.2019 and the same reads as follows: “Subject:- Filing of Affidavit as per court farad order dated 13- 11-19 with regards to Case No.PIL W.P. No.02 of 2019 at HIGH COURT BOMBAY IN GOA. Thereafter, there is yet another report in terms of this Court’s order dated 13.11.2019 and the same reads as follows: “Subject:- Filing of Affidavit as per court farad order dated 13- 11-19 with regards to Case No.PIL W.P. No.02 of 2019 at HIGH COURT BOMBAY IN GOA. The site has been inspected on 13/12/2019 by Shri Ganesh Velip, Executive Engineer, W.D. XXV (R) P.W.D. Fatorda, Margao Goa along with Shri Swapnil G. Desai Assistant Engineer, Shri Sanjay Thopil Technical Assistant and Supervisors and it is noticed that, there are slight deviation in the road as per the Land Acquisition Plan and actual road constructed on site. It is noted that the stairs of the building constructed are at the distance of 1.25 mts. and 0.65 mts. from the existing road as shown in the drawings enclosed.” 13. From a perusal of the aforesaid, we find that though there is no much substance in the allegations of the petitioner regards non-maintenance of front setback, there is some substance in the petitioner’s contention about encroachment on the public road occasioned by the two staircases, which are intended to provide means of access to the said property or rather, the building put up by respondent no.4 on the said property. Though, the Executive Engineer has chosen to downplay such encroachments by observing at paragraph 5 of the affidavit that the stairs are at a distance of 1.25 mtrs. and 0.65 mtrs. from the existing road and thereafter stating in paragraph 6 that this cannot be said to be an encroachment on the public road as contended by the petitioner, we find from the plans that there is some encroachment on the public road, including in particular, the shoulder of the public road which has to be regarded as part of the public road itself. This is also the position which emanates from the reports filed alongwith affidavit by the Executive Engineer. 14. Even the photographs produced by the parties very clearly indicate that the two staircases encroach on the public road or in any case on the shoulder of the public road which is also a part of the public road as exists at the site. 15. Clause 4.2 of the said Regulations deals with the means of access to the building within the plot. 15. Clause 4.2 of the said Regulations deals with the means of access to the building within the plot. This provides that every person who erects a building shall provide a means of access to such building a clear way of not less than 3.00 mts. Clause (c) of Regulation 4.2 then provides that steps, ottas or any raised platforms shall not be permitted in such pathway. Clause (f) of Regulation 4.2 however further provides that in case of level differences, the pathway could be in form of steps or ramp from the road level to the entrances of the building. In case of steps, the tread of the step shall not be less than 30 cms. and riser shall not be less than 20 cms. In case of ramp the gradient shall be less than 1:6 for driveway and 1:12 for pathway. In case of steps, adequate parking shall be provided nearby. 16. Taking into consideration the provisions of Clause 4.2 of the said Regulations it is possible to accept the contention of Mr. Desai that there is nothing wrong in providing steps as means of access though, such steps, have to be consistent with the specifications of Clause (f) of the Regulation 4.2. However, such means of access or for that matter the steps, have to be within the plot of the party and no portion thereof can fall on the public road or even the shoulder of the public road which is nothing but a part of the public road itself. Though, the Executive Engineer, has admitted that a portion of the staircase falls in the public road, the same is sought to be downplayed by suggesting that there is only a slight deviation. The photographs placed on record do not indicate that this is only some slight deviation. As it is, the road is quite narrow and the portion of the two staircases which is to be found in the shoulder of such road is bound to obstruct the free flow of traffic on this road. In fact, it is possible that there is danger to safety when it comes to movement of vehicles on account of the two staircases protruding on to the shoulder of the public road. 17. In fact, it is possible that there is danger to safety when it comes to movement of vehicles on account of the two staircases protruding on to the shoulder of the public road. 17. Accordingly, we were inclined to issue directions for removal of the two staircases, no doubt, with liberty to the respondent no.4 to provide for staircases touching the building in the said property, so that, no portion of the staircases falls within the road widening areas of the shoulder of the public road, as it presently does. 18. However, Mr. Varun S. Chodankar, on behalf of respondent no.4 has filed an additional affidavit containing the following undertaking in its paragraph 2:- “I undertake to maintain 2 meters obstruction free area in the subject property from the edge of the existing tar road to the last landing step of the two means of access provided by way of steps. The two meters area is indicated in yellow colour in the plan annexed hereto as Annexure A-1.” 19. On perusing the aforesaid undertaking and the plan at Annexure A-1, we understand that the portion of the two stair cases will be demolished/removed, so that the last landing step is at a distance of minimum 2 mtrs. from the edge of the existing tar road. Based upon this understanding, we accept the undertaking given by and on behalf of respondent no.4 and direct the respondent no.4 to undertake the removal/demolition of portion of staircases and complete the same within a period of 4 weeks from today. However, if it is the case of respondent no.4 that the undertaking means something else, then, we direct respondent no.4 to remove/demolish the portion of the two staircases, so that the last landing steps, are at a distance of minimum 2 mtrs. from the edge of the existing tar road. This direction will have to be complied with within 4 weeks from today. 20. In case the aforesaid exercise is not completed within 4 weeks from today, the Council as well as the Public Works Department is directed to demolish the two staircases at the costs and consequences of the respondent no.4. However, if respondent no.4 thereafter applies for permissions to reconstruct the staircases, in accordance with our directions, the Council, to consider and dispose of such applications expeditiously though, so as not to breach any rules and regulations as may be applicable. However, if respondent no.4 thereafter applies for permissions to reconstruct the staircases, in accordance with our directions, the Council, to consider and dispose of such applications expeditiously though, so as not to breach any rules and regulations as may be applicable. According to us, all these directions substantially redress the petitioner's grievance in regard to the two staircases. 21. As noted earlier, we find no substance in the contention about non-maintenance of front setbacks. Mr. Costa Frias submits that in fact this grievance also relates to the two staircases, which according to the petitioner, fall within the setback area. Now that directions are issued in the aforesaid terms and since, the staircases are only providing means of access, we do not think that any further directions are necessary in the context of maintenance of setbacks. 22. Similarly, insofar as the grievance of converting parking spaces into spaces for some other purposes, we accept the statement of Mr. Desai made on the basis of instructions of respondent no.4 that the parking spaces will be utilized only for the purpose of parking and no other purpose. These statements are accepted as statements made to this Court and respondent no.4 is directed to act accordingly. 23. The petitioner has denied the allegations made by the respondent no.4 with regard to the bonafides. According to us, the material on record did indicate some encroachment on the public road, when it came to the two staircases. Accordingly, we cannot say that there were any malafides involved in the institution of this petition. 24. However, since, the respondent no.4 has filed complaints against the Municipal Engineer both before the Chief Officer as well as the Lok Ayukta we direct that such complaints including the complaint dated 06.07.2018 which is marked as Annexure A-2 to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4 on 02.03.2020 are looked into and disposed of in accordance with law within a period of three months from today. We make it clear that we have not examined these complaints; however, since, such complaints have been made, we feel that it is the duty of the concerned authorities to atleast look into them with a view to finding out whether there is any merit in the same. We order accordingly. 25. With the aforesaid directions we dispose of this petition. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. We order accordingly. 25. With the aforesaid directions we dispose of this petition. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this Order.