JUDGMENT : 1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to two Orders. The first Order dated 16.06.2021 is passed by the Chief Officer, Margao Municipal Council ('the Council'), by which he confirmed a Notice under Section 190 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, (herein after referred to as 'the said Act') issued on 20.10.2014 and directed all occupants of residential structures of the Sanskar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., to vacate within 30 days of the receipt of the Order, failing which, the occupants were to he held personally responsible for any untoward incident. The second order is dated 14.03.2022, whereby the Director of Urban Development, Panaji, Goa, rejected the challenge to the Order of the Chief Fire Officer thereby dismissing the Petitioner's appeal. An interim stay granted was vacated. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by these two Orders. At the hearing of this Petition, all parties agreed to final disposal at the stage of admission and accordingly, I issue Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waive notice. The Petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the Petitioner, the Municipal Council and the Co-operative Society and certain intervenors, Five other persons, who were members of the Respondent no.2-Society, have filed an impleadment/intervention application on 19.03.2022 claiming to be impleaded in the above Writ Petition since their cause was identical to that of the Petitioner. The intervenors were not the complainants but they support the Petitioner's case. Intervenors are also aggrieved by the Order directing members of the Society to vacate. 4. Before we consider the cases canvassed by the parties, it would be appropriate to briefly set out the relevant facts. The Respondent no.2 is a Co-operative Housing Society whose Chairman had made application to the Municipal Council-Respondent no.1, for demolition of the Society Building which was said to be more than 30 years old and in a dilapidated condition. It was contended that the Council invoked powers under Section 190 of the said Act, pursuant to the conclusion of Structural Stability Certificate dated 27.01.2012 issued by a Civil Engineer. The Council issued a notice dated 20.01.2014 calling upon the residents to vacate the building within 30 days after which the building would have to be demolished. 5. It was contended that the Council invoked powers under Section 190 of the said Act, pursuant to the conclusion of Structural Stability Certificate dated 27.01.2012 issued by a Civil Engineer. The Council issued a notice dated 20.01.2014 calling upon the residents to vacate the building within 30 days after which the building would have to be demolished. 5. On 28.01.2014, some members of the Society sought time to vacate the building citing the reason that a redevelopment process was at its final stages with the builder and the Society required some more time. One Pavan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., had meanwhile been engaged as a builder but no redevelopment agreement had been entered into at that stage. An Additional Structural Report was called for by the Council from the Goa College of Engineering (GEC). The GEC submitted a report dated 13.06.2014, suggesting various methods for restoration of the building which it found to be marginally distressed. Repairs were possible, along with retrofitting to provide sufficient service life for the building. The matter rested there and apparently negotiations between the Society and the Builder resulted into an agreement being entered into. Later, the agreement not having been performed, was terminated. 6. The parties during the course of hearing before me, did refer to the agreement in the passing but it is not relevant as on date since it is not part of the record and no serious arguments have been advanced on that basis since the agreement was already terminated. The objections of the Petitioner and presumably of the intervenors is that in the garb of the building being in a ruinous condition, Section 190 has been invoked without justification and that this attempt at demolition was only to defeat objections of members who had objected to redevelopment. It is not disputed that all members except one had vacated the building. There are a total of 28 members in the Society and the Petitioner herself has vacated the said structure and is residing elsewhere. The intervenors are also residing elsewhere. It is the Petitioner's grievance that nine years after the date of the first Resolution, the building still stands and the proposed demolition is not justified. The building ought to be repaired. 7. Mr. Agni, learned Counsel appearing in support of the Petition, has taken me through the aforesaid factual aspects. The intervenors are also residing elsewhere. It is the Petitioner's grievance that nine years after the date of the first Resolution, the building still stands and the proposed demolition is not justified. The building ought to be repaired. 7. Mr. Agni, learned Counsel appearing in support of the Petition, has taken me through the aforesaid factual aspects. He has invited my attention to Section 190 of the Goa Municipalities Act and submitted that there is no basis for action being taken for removal of the buildings under Section 190 since the Society's buildings are not in a ruinous condition nor are they likely to fall. On the contrary, they could be repaired. The written notice requiring the Society to pull down the structure is not justified since the Council itself had obtained a second opinion from GEC which supported the Petitioner's case that the building could have been repaired when notice was issued and can be repaired even today. 8. Mr. Agni submits that some members, the Petitioner included, opposed the attempts of the Society to proceed with redevelopment. He has invited my attention to the Structural Stability Report dated 27.01.2012 issued by one Suvarna K. Nambiar, copy of which is at Exhibit P-3. He has pointed out that the report in paragraph 'm' in which the report concludes that retrofitting of the building would cost more than the cost of a new building and it would also be a time consuming process. It is also observed that building is beyond repair and may be demolished to avoid danger to lives of inmates, surroundings and passers by. This observation Mr Agni submits is baseless since the suggestion that to avoid danger to surrounding lives of inmates and nearby passers it is advisable to pull down the building under Section 190 of the said Act, was not at all justified. The report is based merely on an visual inspection and not supported by any actual physical assessment. He therefore submits that the challenge in the Petition is not intended to obstruct but only to bring to fore the aspect that Section 190 of the said Act could not have been invoked in the first place. 9. Referring to the notice dated 20.01.2014, Mr. He therefore submits that the challenge in the Petition is not intended to obstruct but only to bring to fore the aspect that Section 190 of the said Act could not have been invoked in the first place. 9. Referring to the notice dated 20.01.2014, Mr. Agni has pointed out that the notice was issued to each and every member asking them to vacate the premises in occupation within 30 days of the notice and that the building is in dilapidated condition and is very old and may collapse at any time. Nine years having passed since the building still stands and some member(s) still occupy the same. He, therefore, submits that there is no occasion to demolish the building. He also relies upon a report of GEC, Exhibit P-7, in which the GEC after making visual observations, proposes that a detailed Non- Destructive Test (NDT) will provide actual strength of structural members and that needs to be carried out. To suggest the further required action, the GEC was able to take up the work provided fees were paid depending upon the results of the NDT and further course of action to be taken. The report also observes and it is an aspect that Mr. Agni has stressed upon, that plenty of methods and techniques are available for restoration of structural members, which appear to be marginally distressed. Even now, if required, retrofitting can be carried out so that the life of the building can be enhanced. The report however concludes that GEC had no objection to the demolition and reconstruction. 10. The Petitioner has thus canvassed her case against demolition. Mr. Agni submits that the intervenors are supporting him and merely because several members of the Society support redevelopment and have vacated the premises, it is not necessary to demolish the building. He has relied on the decision of this Court in Gajanan Ramraoji Ambagovind & Ors. vs. The Corporation of the City of Nagpur & Ors., 2006 (5) ALL MR 153. He submitted that the facts of the present case are very similar to the facts in Gajanan Ramraoji Ambagovind (supra) and invited me to hold in favour of the Petitioner and grant the relief sought. 11. Mr. Amonkar, learned Counsel representing the Applicants in the intervention application, supported the Petitioner and adopted all the submissions of Mr. Agni. 12. Opposing the grant of relief, Mr. 11. Mr. Amonkar, learned Counsel representing the Applicants in the intervention application, supported the Petitioner and adopted all the submissions of Mr. Agni. 12. Opposing the grant of relief, Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel representing the Society, submitted that no case for interference is made out. Mr. Bhobe submitted that the first of the impugned orders clearly held that the inspection report justified issuance of notice under Section 190 of the said Act. The matter had dragged on for several years since 2012. The challenge to the Structural Stability Report has been filed by the present Petitioner who was the Respondent before the Chief Officer, Margao Municipal Council. The Chief Officer found that the condition of the building was dilapidated and, therefore, the notice was justified. At that stage, three persons including the Petitioner herein had raised objections. But these objections are filed seven years after the order of demolition of the structure had been passed. 13. Mr. Bhobe submitted that the Chief Officer has considered the pros and cons and the fact that the Society had decided to bring down the building and reconstruct it. He invited my attention to the order observing that the building is old and not maintained in habitable conditions. Basic maintenance had not been carried out for several years. The proposal of the Society was to redevelop the area by constructing a new building and that disputes about the correct measurements of the premises by the proposed developer were not to be looked into by the Chief Officer. The issues pertaining to the areas of flats occupied by the intervenors were to be resolved between the parties. The Order also records that the objections of Respondents are overruled. Mr. Agni had contended that the overruling of the objections is without any reasons. 14. The Second Order impugned passed by the Director of Urban Development found no fault with the order passed by the Chief Officer. The Appellate Authority had also studied the report of the GEC and the fact that the building had completed forty years since its construction and no maintenance was being carried out since 2014. The Society had already decided to demolish and reconstruct the building. The Appellate Authority found that the Municipal Council had considered all aspects and the main issue for consideration was that of demolishing the building and not reconstructing it. The Society had already decided to demolish and reconstruct the building. The Appellate Authority found that the Municipal Council had considered all aspects and the main issue for consideration was that of demolishing the building and not reconstructing it. The Appellate Authority found no reason to interfere and hence the Appeal came to be dismissed. 15. Mr. Bhobe submitted that while the Petitioner has made serious allegations against the Society and other members, its office bearers and the Petitioner was party to the Resolution dated 15.07.2012 by which the Society decided to go in for the demolition and reconstruction. He submitted that the Petitioner had herself vacated her flat, yet seeks to oppose the demolition. My attention is invited to the Minutes of the General Body Meeting held on 15.07.2012 at the premises of the Society. The heading of the Minutes recorded that the meeting was called “In order to finalise the issue of the reconstruction of the building”. The Minutes recorded attendance of 28 members/persons. Names of flat owners were mentioned and against each member's name the person had signed it. Point number one of the agenda was construction of the new building and the members were of the opinion that the building is “beyond repairs” so it was resolved to reconstruct the building at the earliest. This is the most important aspect of the resolution. 16. On a query from the Court, Mr. Bhobe stated that there is no challenge to this resolution. Disputes between the members have arisen thereafter and that pertained to certain misunderstandings from the computation of area with which the Municipal Council was not concerned. Mr Bhobe therefore supported the Society's decision to go in for demolition of the structure. It is in this background, that the matter has been brought before the Court. 17. Mr. Bhobe relied on the judgments in M/s. Whiz Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2009(6) ALL. M.R. 539. Tadeshwar Wadi Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2013(3) Bom. C.R. 79 and Maya Developers & Ors. vs. Neelam R. Thakkar & Ors., 2016 (6) Bom C.R. 629. 18. On behalf of the Respondent-Corporation, Mr. S. Karpe, supported the impugned Orders. M.R. 539. Tadeshwar Wadi Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2013(3) Bom. C.R. 79 and Maya Developers & Ors. vs. Neelam R. Thakkar & Ors., 2016 (6) Bom C.R. 629. 18. On behalf of the Respondent-Corporation, Mr. S. Karpe, supported the impugned Orders. He submitted that all aspects have been considered by the authorities and that the building was in unsafe condition and if any untoward incident had to take place, the Council could not be blamed. In any case, the Society decided to redevelop the building, there was no occasion to deny them that right especially considering that fact the condition of the building is not good and many of the members had already vacated. He, therefore, supported the impugned Orders. 19. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I have been informed that several attempts were made to resolve the disputes between the parties, but these have not fructified. The lone Petitioner has since been supported by the intervenors and, in my view, what is required to be considered is whether the impugned Orders reveal flaws as would require interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 20. The principal ground that the Petitioners have urged are that the impugned demolition notice dated 17.01.2021 was contrary to the record and was issued by ignoring material on record which the authorities had failed to consider and the absence of any important material, while disregarding the report of the GEC dated 13.06.2014, GEC's report had clearly stated that the building does not appear to be structurally distressed and that would by itself reveal that with repairs, the said building would have sufficient service life. The Petitioner has also urged the ground that the authorities, namely the Municipal and the Director of Urban Development, have merely relied upon the Structural Stability Certificate produced by the Society in 2012 issued by a Civil Engineer ignoring the GEC Report. 21. The challenge as canvassed before me is premised on these aspects which the Petitioner has urged as the most critical issues. The case of the Petitioner is that, notwithstanding the condition of the building and the Resolution to demolish and reconstruct the building taken as far back as 2012, the issuance of notice under Section 190 of the said Act was not justified. In my view, in the facts of the present case that is rendered purely academic. The case of the Petitioner is that, notwithstanding the condition of the building and the Resolution to demolish and reconstruct the building taken as far back as 2012, the issuance of notice under Section 190 of the said Act was not justified. In my view, in the facts of the present case that is rendered purely academic. The structural engineer's report is dated 27.01.2012. The reason for which the assessment was made is evident from Part A. It was issued at the request of the Society and pursuant to NOC from the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the Margao Municipal Council. Mr. Agni had submitted that the Corporation should have used their own experts and expertise to reach such a decision but has based its decision on a private Surveyor's view about the state of the building. He had assailed the report on the basis that the GEC report specifically held that methods were available for restoring the building and enhancing its service life. 22. One of the principal ground in the Petition, that the GEC report records that the building does not appear to be structurally distressed is not entirely accurate since I find that the GEC Report holds that “plenty of methods and techniques available for restoration of members which appear to be marginally distressed, if any.” [Emphasis supplied]. It is not as if the GEC found it completely unnecessary to demolish the building. The very fact that the GEC Report contemplates retrofitting and repairs indicated that the building was not in an ideal state of repair. Whether or not to proceed with demolition and reconstruction was a decision that the Society in its collective wisdom resolved to take. The Society has already resolved as far back as on 15.07.2012 that the members were of the opinion that the building is beyond repairs. All 28 members have so agreed and that includes the Petitioner and obviously the intervenors. The dispute now appears to be for different reasons. 23. In my view, absent a challenge to the Resolution passed at the Special General Body meeting on 15.07.2012, there is no occasion to interfere with the Society's decision to demolish the buildings. In fact, I am informed that except for one or two members, all others including the Petitioner, have vacated their respective tenements and are residing elsewhere. 23. In my view, absent a challenge to the Resolution passed at the Special General Body meeting on 15.07.2012, there is no occasion to interfere with the Society's decision to demolish the buildings. In fact, I am informed that except for one or two members, all others including the Petitioner, have vacated their respective tenements and are residing elsewhere. That itself is a sign which reiterates the Society's resolve to demolish the building and reconstruct it. I am informed across the bar that of the three blocks comprising the Society's buildings, two have already been demolished. The block occupied some of the intervenors still stands and, in that respect, the Petitioner seeks a restraint against demolition by way of staying of the implementation of the Orders dated 16.06.2021 and 14.03.2022. 24. In the facts of the case, no interference is called for. In the course of submissions, the parties had occasion to refer to a letter dated 28.01.2014 in response to Exhibit P-4. Exhibit P-4 is the notice under Section 190 of the Act and 14 members are seen to have responded to the notice on 28.01.2014. The contents of the reply to the notice reveals that the redevelopment process had then reached the final stage of signing the Agreement. The members sought further time to complete formalities. They state that it is impossible to get accommodation within a short period of thirty days which was granted for vacating the premises. This letter written as far back as 2014 is admittedly, signed by the Petitioner and some of the intervenors. Thus, even after objections are sought to be raised to the initial report of the Surveyor, the members have sought more time to vacate the premises. 25. Several similar cases of members resisting redevelopment have been examined by this Court. In Maya Developers & Ors. (supra), this Court has considered opposition to redevelopment of Societies buildings and held that a majority decision would prevail. Once majority of the members of the Society had fully accepted redevelopment and if these decisions were in consistent with material compliance required, which handful of persons could not ransom the interests of the majority in a cooperative society. In that case, the Court directed the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the property. Maya Developers & Ors. Once majority of the members of the Society had fully accepted redevelopment and if these decisions were in consistent with material compliance required, which handful of persons could not ransom the interests of the majority in a cooperative society. In that case, the Court directed the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the property. Maya Developers & Ors. (supra) has taken into consideration various decisions governing the subject and I am of the view that interests/decision of the majority cannot be faulted. The challenge that is now been posed is to the notice under Section 190 of the Act and the decisions that are impugned in this Petition. 26. On facts, I find interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court will not be appropriate. The Petitioner and the members have all unanimously accepted that redevelopment would naturally require demolition to be undertaken. The impugned decisions are restricted to enforcement of notice under Section 190 of the said Act and the authorities were not concerned with the internal dispute to Society members as to area and that is a matter for the appropriate Court to consider under the Goa Co-operative Societies Act. Once the majority had approved the reconstruction, the challenge to the notice under Section 190 however meritorious, cannot be used to derail the Society's collective wisdom and interest. Besides the notice is of 2014 and it is also pertinent to note that when the Society had failed to develop the property after having resolved to do so, on or about 21.04.2015, the Petitioner and one other member had called upon the other chairperson of the Society through their Advocate reiterating that the building was thirty two years old and its foundation has weakened and that urgent redevelopment was necessary. 27. This is one aspect that also must be taken into account. The Petitioner had herself found that the foundation was weak and urgent reconstruction was necessary. The demand notice called upon the Society through its Chairperson to approach another developer for redevelopment of the building because the earlier agreement dated 31.03.2013 presumably with Pavan Buildcom was cancelled. The change in stand today is unexplained and mounting a challenge to the notice pursuant to Section 190 of the said Act and the challenge to impugned orders cannot come to the assistance of the Petitioner. 28. The change in stand today is unexplained and mounting a challenge to the notice pursuant to Section 190 of the said Act and the challenge to impugned orders cannot come to the assistance of the Petitioner. 28. In Gajanan Ramraoji Ambagovind (supra), the Court was considering an order of the Single Judge dismissing a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner who is challenging an Order of the Commissioner, who dismissed Revision Applications filed by the Petitioners against an order of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner. The Petitioner had challenged an order notice/dated 12.08.2005 under the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. That notice also concerned 31 occupants of a building which was referred to be demolished on the ground that it was dilapidated. The contention of the Petitioner was that the authorities of the Corporation had not acted in bonafide exercise of powers. The Single Judge had not considered the materials available on record while rejecting the Writ Petition. The Petition was rejected solely on the ground that report of the A. D. T. P., an expert in the field disclosed the need for demolition. He therefore submitted that the dismissal of the Petition in that case called for interference by the Division Bench. The fact situation in Gajanan Ramraoji Ambagovind (supra) was quite different and did not involve a long standing voluntary decision of the Society to demolish the building in question. In the facts at hand, the Society's Resolution stands sans a challenge. On the contrary, even after the Resolution was carried unanimously, at least fourteen members including the Petitioner had reiterated the need to reconstruct the building. In conclusion, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned Orders and the Writ Petition cannot succeed. 29. Accordingly, I pass the following order : (i) Writ Petition is dismissed. (ii) Pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (iii) No costs. (iv) Rule discharged.