JUDGMENT/ORDER M.S.SONAK, J. - Heard Mr Zaveri for the Petitioner, Ms Akshata Bhat, Additional Govt. Advocate for Respondent No.1, Mr Sahish Mahambrey for Respondent No.2-North Goa Planning and Development Authority (NGPDA) and Mr J.E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Ms Tanvi Parab for Respondents No. 3 and 4. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner's main grievance is that its complaint dtd. 17/10/2022 about some alleged illegalities committed by Respondents No.3 and 4 is not attended to by the NGPDA. 4. Mr Pereira, learned Senior Advocate for Respondents No.3 and 4, while denying that the Respondents to whom he represents, have indulged into any illegalities, submits that it is the various members of the Managing Committee of the Petitioner who have indulged into several illegalities. He submits that such illegalities have been referred to in the affidavit-in-reply filed by and on behalf of Respondents No. 3 and 4. 5. Mr Zaveri, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner denies that any of the members of the Managing Committee of the Petitioner have indulged into any illegalities. 6. At this stage, and in this Petition, it is not for us to investigate into the alleged illegalities committed by the parties. However, since the complaint has been made by the Petitioner on 17/10/2022 to the NGPDA, it is only proper that the NGPDA considers and disposes of the said complaint within a time-bound schedule. Similarly, liberty is granted to Respondents No.3 and 4 to file a complaint before the NGPDA within 15 days from today. If, such a complaint is indeed filed, then, the NGPDA must consider and dispose of the Petitioner's complaint dtd. 17/10/2022 and the complaint that Respondents No.3 and 4 might file within 15 days from today, together and latest on or before 30/7/2023. 7. The NGPDA must comply with the principles of natural justice and fair play and grant an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and Respondents No.3 and 4, should they wish such a personal hearing. Otherwise, the matter can be decided based upon the complaints and the material that the parties place on record in support of their respective complaints. The NGPDA must also consider inspecting the premises before taking an appropriate decision in the matter. Otherwise, the matter can be decided based upon the complaints and the material that the parties place on record in support of their respective complaints. The NGPDA must also consider inspecting the premises before taking an appropriate decision in the matter. The decision must be communicated to the parties on or before 30/7/2023. 8. We clarify that we have not examined the rival contentions regards the alleged illegalities because, we think that such matters must first be examined by the NGPDA. 9. With the above directions, the rule is disposed of in the above terms. Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order for costs. 10. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. Mr Mahambrey states that an authenticated copy of this order will be immediately communicated to the NGPDA for necessary action and compliance.