JUDGMENT : M.S. SONAK, J. Heard Mr. Melwin Viegas for the Petitioner, Mr. Nigel Fernandes for Respondent No.1, Ms. Sapna Mordekar, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for Respondents No. 2, 3 and 5, Mr. Joaquim Godinho for Respondent No.4 and Mr. Pranay Kamat for Respondent No.6. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner complains about a dairy farm, established by Respondent No.1 without obtaining necessary permissions from the statutory authorities, as contemplated under the Goa Public Health Act, 1985 and the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The Petitioner contends that despite complaints to the statutory authorities, no action is being taken in the matter and in the meanwhile, Respondent No.1 is continuing with his activity of cattle dairy farm. The Petitioner contends that this is a source of nuisance and health hazard and the authorities under the Public Health Act have only initiated certain proceedings under Chapter VI which deals with abatement of nuisances. He submits that the main issue is whether any permissions have been obtained by Respondent No.1 to put up such an activity and it is only thereafter that the issue of nuisance can be addressed. 3. Mr. Nigel Fernandes, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 disputes the contentions of Mr. Viegas. He points out that no commercial activity is undertaken by Respondent No.1. He points out that there are about 9 cattle, which are in the nature of 'pets' of Respondent No.1. Mr. Fernandes, on instructions, submits that these cattle are drought i.e. they are not milching cattle and, therefore, there is no question of any activity of cattle dairy farm, as alleged by the Petitioner. He points out that in the proceedings for abatement of the nuisances, certain directions were issued, which have been complied with by Respondent No.1. For all these reasons, he submits that this Petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Section 29 of the Goa Public Health Act, 1985 reads as follows : “29. He points out that in the proceedings for abatement of the nuisances, certain directions were issued, which have been complied with by Respondent No.1. For all these reasons, he submits that this Petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Section 29 of the Goa Public Health Act, 1985 reads as follows : “29. Establishment of commercial, industrial and other establishments and constructions.— (1) No person, including Government Department, semi-Government Organization, Government company and statutory or non-statutory Corporation shall construct any building, house, cesspool and any other structure unless prior permission to that effect is obtained from the Health Officer or the Medical Officer in-charge of the respective Health Centre, at the time of starting such construction and also at the time of actually occupying such constructed premises. (2) No commercial or industrial establishments, warehouses, storehouses, factories, workshops, massage parlour/SPAS (excluding therapeutic massage) or any other like service or any other establishments of any kind, shall be established, without obtaining the prior permission from the Director. (3) All such permissions issued shall be subject to the payment of such fees as may be notified by the Government from time to time.” 5. The provisions of Section 29 of the Public Health Act at least, prima facie, appear to be quite widely worded. This means that no commercial or industrial establishments, warehouses, storehouses, factories, workshops, or any other like service or any other establishments of any kind, can be established, without obtaining the prior permission from the Director. 6. In the present case, admittedly, there is no prior permission from the Director. The contention of Respondent No.1 that he is not undertaking any commercial activity, is really not sufficient. As long as Respondent No.1 has set up an establishment, prior permission of the Director appears to be necessary. 7. However, since Respondent No.1 has solemnly stated before this Court that he is not carrying on any dairy activity on commercial basis or otherwise, for the present we accept his statement. The Director of Health Services to visit the site in question within a period of 15 days from today, or depute one Health Officer to visit the site in question within a period of 15 days from today, to verify the statement made on behalf of Respondent No.1. The Director of Health Services to visit the site in question within a period of 15 days from today, or depute one Health Officer to visit the site in question within a period of 15 days from today, to verify the statement made on behalf of Respondent No.1. If it is found that statements are not correct, or that Respondent No.1 is indeed undertaking any activity of dairy farming, the Director shall take steps to forthwith stop such activity. This shall be without prejudice to Respondent No.1 being liable for contempt of this Court for making statements which were not true. 8. The Director/Health Officer, in any case, should take steps to see that Respondent No.1, in the name of looking after his 'pets' does cause any nuisance in the area. 9. The Petitioner has made complaints to the Panchayat regards a cattle shed put up by Respondent No.1. The Panchayat is required to dispose of these complaints on their own merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from today. The Panchayat will have to comply with the principles of natural justice and fair play. The decision of the Panchayat should be communicated to both, the Petitioner, as well as Respondent No.1, within a period of one week from the date the same is taken. 10. The Petitioner has also filed proceedings before the Deputy Director of Panchayats bearing Case No.72/2014. Mr. Viegas states that this matter does not pertain to the cattle shed, but relates to yet another structure put up by Respondent No.1 adjacent to the cattle shed. The Deputy Director is directed to dispose of the proceedings within four months from today. No doubt, the Deputy Director will also have to abide by the principles of natural justice and fair play. 11. Rule in this Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order.