Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 148 (BOM)

Agnelo Machado v. State Of Goa

2023-01-11

BHARAT P.DESHPANDE, M.S.SONAK

body2023
JUDGMENT M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr Ryan Menezes for the petitioner and Mr D. Pangam, learned Advocate General who appears along with Mr P. Arolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. Mr Ryan Menezes, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent no.4 - Panchayat has been served and also places on record the proof of service on the Panchayat. Mr Revelino Cabral - respondent no.5 is present. This means that service on respondent no.5 is also complete. 3. Accordingly, we issue Rule in this petition and make the Rule returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and respondent no.5 who is present in person. The Panchayat is only a formal party in this petition. 4. The challenge in this petition is to the technical clearance order dated 24.12.2020 issued in favour of respondent no.5 by the Deputy Town Planner i.e. respondent no.6. 5. Respondent no.5 - Mr Cabral, had instituted Writ Petition bearing Stamp Number (Main) No.1109/2020 in this Court which was disposed of by Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2020. By the said Order, the Town and Country Planning Department was directed to dispose of petitioner's application for regularization one way or the other after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent no.5 in the said petition. The petitioner in the said petition was Mr Cabral (respondent no.5) and respondent no.5 in the said petition was the petitioner herein. 6. In our Order dated 24.11.2020 we had specifically directed Mr Cabral to communicate our order to respondents no.3 and 5 in the said petition instituted by him. However, today, Mr Cabral, who appears in person, tenders an apology and states that our order was not communicated by him to respondents no.3 and 5 in the said petition. 7. The Deputy Town Planner also did not bother to hear respondents no.3 and 5 in the petition instituted by Mr Cabral. Thus, the technical clearance order dated 24.12.2020 is vitiated on account of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, not to mention the specific directions issued by us in our order dated 24.11.2020. Accordingly, the technical clearance order dated 24.12.2020 is hereby set aside. The Deputy Town Planner is now directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to Mr Cabral (respondent no.5) and the petitioner herein. 8. Accordingly, the technical clearance order dated 24.12.2020 is hereby set aside. The Deputy Town Planner is now directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to Mr Cabral (respondent no.5) and the petitioner herein. 8. The learned Advocate General states that the petitioner herein and the respondent no.5 could appear before the Deputy Town Planner on 24.01.2023 at 11.30 a.m. On this date the Deputy Town Planner will fix the date for hearing and dispose of Mr Cabral's application for regularization one way or the other in accord with law within two months from the date of appearance. All contentions of all parties on merits are kept open. 9. The Rule in this petition is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order for costs. 10. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this Order.