JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar for the petitioner, Mr. Somnath Karpe for respondent no.1 - Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP), Ms. S. Bangera for respondents no.2 and 3, Mr. Gaurang Panandikar for respondents no.4 and 5 and Mr. Shubham Priolkar, learned AGA for the State. 2. This petition is an abuse of the judicial process and has been instituted by the brothers and sons of the second and third respondents, who have suffered a demolition order from the CCP and further gave undertakings to this Court that they would demolish the structures in question within a time-bound schedule. After the demolitions were partially carried out, the present petitioners, after having unsuccessfully challenged the orders made by this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, have instituted this petition to stall the demolition process which is undertaken. The petition is replete with false contentions and suppressions. 3. The fourth and fifth respondents (complainants) complained to the CCP about the patently illegal constructions by Shailesh and his mother (second and third respondents). The complainants pursued the matter with the CCP because, initially, no action was taken on their complaints. Finally, the CCP issued a show cause notice dated 01.01.2019 under Section 269 of the CCP Act, 2002. This was responded to, and by final notice dated 21.05.2019, the structures were ordered to be demolished. 4. The second and third respondents appealed to the State Government against the demolition order, but the appeal was dismissed on 10.01.2020. The second and the third respondents then instituted Writ Petition No.142/2023, challenging the order dated 10.01.2020. The learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of this petition by order dated 11.04.2023. This Court noted that an application had been made for regularisation of the structure. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed that until the regularisation application is disposed of, no coercive action should be taken concerning the structure in question. This order also records an undertaking that the illegal constructions would be demolished if there was no regularisation. 5. The Planning and Development Authority declined regularisation by communication dated 23.03.2022 since there were no compliances. Despite regularisation being declined, in breach of the undertaking given to this Court, no demolitions were carried out, and the illegal construction continued to be enjoyed, inter alia, for commercial and residential purposes. 6. 5. The Planning and Development Authority declined regularisation by communication dated 23.03.2022 since there were no compliances. Despite regularisation being declined, in breach of the undertaking given to this Court, no demolitions were carried out, and the illegal construction continued to be enjoyed, inter alia, for commercial and residential purposes. 6. Accordingly, respondents 4 and 5 (original complainants) instituted Writ Petition No.663/2023 in this Court, seeking directions to the CCP to execute the demolition order, which had attained finality. By Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2023, the Division Bench of this Court recorded Mr. Karpe's statement on behalf of CCP that the final demolition notice dated 21.05.2019 would be implemented within three weeks without giving any excuses. This Court directed that if, for any reason, the demolition squads maintained by the Government were not available, the CCP would make its own arrangements to carry out the demolition. This Court clarified that the disposal of the petition was without prejudice to the complainants' rights to issue contempt proceedings against the second and the third respondents for breach of the undertaking given before the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.142/2023. 7. The second and the third respondents, despite breaching the undertaking given by them to this Court, filed Misc. Civil Application No.2524/2023 (F) seeking a re-call of this Court's order dated 10.10.2023 in Writ Petition No.663/2023. After this application was argued for some time, the counsel for the second and the third respondents, based on instructions, did not press the reliefs in the application but stated that they would themselves demolish the structures by 15.12.2023. Once again, these respondents offered to file an undertaking in the Court. 8. Mr. Karpe pointed out that the demolition squad had, in fact, been mobilised to proceed with the demolition. He, therefore, submitted that the undertaking proposed may either not be accepted or, if it is to be accepted, the second and the third respondents must be called upon to deposit a substantial amount by way of security. 9. The second and the third respondents filed an undertaking dated 02.11.2023, which reads as follows: "6. The affidavit cum undertaking dated 02.11.2023 reads as follows:- "Affidavit cum undertaking of the Applicant's I, Mr. Shailesh Volvoikar, aged 45 years, residing at Ribander Goa do hereby on solemn affirmation state as follows: 1. I am the Applicant No.1 and the Applicant No.2 is my mother. 2. The affidavit cum undertaking dated 02.11.2023 reads as follows:- "Affidavit cum undertaking of the Applicant's I, Mr. Shailesh Volvoikar, aged 45 years, residing at Ribander Goa do hereby on solemn affirmation state as follows: 1. I am the Applicant No.1 and the Applicant No.2 is my mother. 2. I say that on behalf of myself and my mother (Applicants herein), I undertake that the demolition of the structures which are the subject matter of the Final Notice bearing No. F4/CCP/ENG/FN/2019-2020/MS/2620 dated 21.05.2019 issued by the Corporation of the City of Panaji, shall be carried out and completed on or before 15.12.2023. 3. I say that this undertaking given to this Hon'ble Court is unconditional and unqualified. 4. I say that what is stated in the above paragraphs is true to my own knowledge. Solemnly affirmed this 02nd day of November 2023 at Porvorim Goa."" 10. This Court disposed of Misc. Civil Application No.2524/2023 (F) by order dated 02.11.2023 by accepting the undertaking and directing the second and the third respondents to demolish the structures by 15.12.2023 and file a compliance report. In addition, the second and the third respondents were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 50, 000/- by way of security. In our order dated 02.11.2023, we also referred to the conduct of the parties who had put up illegal constructions and how an attempt was made to create an impression that the regularisation applications were pending and, based upon such impression, to postpone the execution of the demolition orders. 11. The present petitioners are the brothers of Shailesh Volvoikar (respondent no.2) and the sons of Prabhavati (respondent no.3). As noted earlier, Shailesh gave undertakings on behalf of himself and his mother that the demolitions would be completed by 15.12.2023. At this stage, Shailesh or his mother raised none of the defences which are now sought to be raised by the petitioners. Thus, the matter should have ended with the indulgence shown to Shailesh and his mother by our order dated 02.11.2023. 12. However, the present petitioners challenged this Court's orders dated 10.10.2023 and 02.11.2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by seeking permission to file a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s).50708/2023. By order dated 03.01.2024, such permission was granted, but after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. 13. Mr. 12. However, the present petitioners challenged this Court's orders dated 10.10.2023 and 02.11.2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by seeking permission to file a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s).50708/2023. By order dated 03.01.2024, such permission was granted, but after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. 13. Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, admitted that the grounds raised in the Special Leave Petition were the same as those urged in the representation dated 29.02.2024, which the petitioners made to the CCP after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. From the perusal of the representation dated 29.02.2024, which the petitioners made to the CCP, it is evident that the petitioners suppressed the fact that they had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to challenge the order dated 10.10.2023 made in Writ Petition No.663/2023 and order dated 02.11.2023 made in Misc. Civil Application No.2524/2023 (F) in Writ Petition No.663/2023. 14. Instead, most dishonestly, the petitioners, in paragraph 9 of their representation, stated as follows:- "9. Please note that the undertakings given, and orders made in Writ Petition No.663/2023 and MCA 2524 of 2023 (F) are not binding upon us as we were never a party to the same. Even the original Show Cause Notice dated 01/01/2019 and the Final Notice dated 21/05/2019 were made only upon Mr. Shailesh and Mrs. Prabhavati Volvoikar." 15. Thus, after the petitioners challenged this Court's orders dated 10.10.2023 and 02.11.2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and after this Special Leave Petition was dismissed, still, by suppressing this fact of dismissal, the petitioners attempted to make a case before the CCP that the orders dated 10.10.2023 and 02.11.2023 were not binding on them. Further, in this representation, the petitioners tried to deliberately confuse the issue by contending that they were entitled to notices before the original demolition order was made and that the original demolition order did not refer to Chalta No.12 of P.T.Sheet No.17. 16. Despite the two undertakings, the second and third respondents did not complete demolitions by 15.12.2023 or to date. Still, again, with utmost dishonesty, a compliance report was filed claiming compliance. This was refuted by both the CCP and the original complainants. Even from the photographs filed, it is apparent that there is no compliance. 16. Despite the two undertakings, the second and third respondents did not complete demolitions by 15.12.2023 or to date. Still, again, with utmost dishonesty, a compliance report was filed claiming compliance. This was refuted by both the CCP and the original complainants. Even from the photographs filed, it is apparent that there is no compliance. The compliance was deliberately avoided or delayed, and, meanwhile, the present petitioners, who are brothers of Shailesh or sons of Prabhavati, were put up as a front to stall the demolition proceedings. 17. Significantly, a copy of the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioners has not been annexed to this petition. However, fortunately, Mr. Gaonkar admitted that the grounds raised in the Special Leave Petition were the same grounds subsequently urged in the representation dated 29.02.2024. 18. Mr. Gaonkar submits that notices had to be issued to all the coowners, including the present petitioners before any demolition order could be made about the structure. He submitted that the final demolition notice did refer to Chalta No.7 and 16 of P.T. Sheet No.17 but not to Chalta No.12, and therefore, there should be no further demolitions. He submitted that Section 269 conferred a discretion to the Commissioner, and the jurisdictional parameters for the exercise of Section 269 were never fulfilled. 19. Mr. Gaonkar relied upon an order made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. MEC Building Tenants Welfare Association v. Greater Chennai Corporation & Ors. - Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).10336/2023 dated 25.09.2023. This order has certain observations made at the stage of issuing notice. These observations were in the context of protection being accorded to the structures put up before 1962 under the Madras Regulations. These observations have no connection with the facts in the present case. 20. There are no clear pleadings about petitioners' being unaware of complaints, demolition orders, and litigation's concerning the structures, which have been adjudged as illegal and unauthorised. Even the regularisation pleas have been turned down. In any case, since the petitioners claim to reside in the same house, it is inconceivable that they were unaware of all these proceedings. The petitioners waited in the wings and have now been put forth by Shailesh and his mother to stall the demolition proceedings again and avoid compliance with the solemn undertakings given to this Court. In any case, since the petitioners claim to reside in the same house, it is inconceivable that they were unaware of all these proceedings. The petitioners waited in the wings and have now been put forth by Shailesh and his mother to stall the demolition proceedings again and avoid compliance with the solemn undertakings given to this Court. Based on the undertakings, indulgence was obtained from this Court, and now, it is apparent that the undertakings have been breached, and the present petitioners have been put up as a front to avoid the demolitions. 21. The contentions now raised by Mr. Gaonkar lack merit. There is no explanation for why the demolition order was not questioned after it was made in 2019. The orders directing demolition within a time-bound period and the order by which this Court declined Shailesh's application for re-call were challenged by the present petitioners before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This challenge did not succeed. By suppressing facts, the present petitioners approached the CCP, trying to introduce a completely different case, which was also not backed by credible material. 22. The petitioners contend that sometime in 1996, a tree fell on the house, and later on, the petitioners and other family members repaired and reconstructed the house. There was an admission about the extensions, and now, a case has been made that only extensions were unauthorised. Even repairs and reconstruction require permission. Even repairs and reconstruction have to be undertaken in accordance with the municipal bylaws and other planning, development and construction regulations. Admittedly, there was no such permission. Even regularisation was refused because the constructions far exceeded the permissible limits and were inconsistent with the regulations. 23. The petitioners are now attempting to confuse the issue about survey numbers by making false statements. The idea was to stall demolitions that were going on. The transgression report is clearly on record. The demolition order that has attained finality must be construed with this transgression report. The Petitioners have accepted illegal extensions and were unable to produce any permissions or authorisations for the reconstructed structures. Even regularisation pleas were turned down by the authorities Such confusion or contentions were never raised at any time in the past. Accordingly, based on such belated and, in fact, dishonest contentions, Shailesh and his mother cannot wriggle out of the solemn undertakings given by them to this Court. 24. Even regularisation pleas were turned down by the authorities Such confusion or contentions were never raised at any time in the past. Accordingly, based on such belated and, in fact, dishonest contentions, Shailesh and his mother cannot wriggle out of the solemn undertakings given by them to this Court. 24. On two occasions, the demolition squad was at the site, and relying upon the undertakings given, demolitions were deferred. After securing such indulgence, the undertakings were breached with impunity. By raising dishonest pleas and suppressing facts, the petitioners were used as fronts to stall or delay the demolition process. Such petitioners cannot abuse our equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. In this petition, at para 6, the petitioners have themselves pleaded that the petitioners' family repaired and reconstructed the suit house as it presently stands. This repair and construction work was completed by January 1997, and the suit house was partly extended into the property bearing Chalta No.16, this was within the knowledge of its owners, the Tarcar family and on an oral understanding, the Tarcars have never raised any issue with regard to the extension of the suit house. In this petition, we are not concerned with the issues, if any, between the original owners, i.e. the Tarcars and the petitioners. However, even the Tarcars cannot permit illegal and unauthorised construction. These averments clearly belie the contentions now put forth at this belated stage after similar contentions were raised in the Special Leave Petition and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. 26. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this petition with costs of Rs. 25, 000/- payable by the petitioners within a week from today to the CCP.