IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 592 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2008 DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT ... Applicant Versus MR. BYRON A. XAVIER ... Respondent Mr. Manish Salkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the applicant. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 9th September, 2008 P.C. 1. This is an application for extension of time. 2. The applicant who has filed this application does not dispute that an order was passed on 18.3.08 and the Order directs that the Deputy Director (South Goa), Margao will take an appropriate decision within four weeks from 18.3.08. 3. The Deputy Director Ms. Sandhya Kamat is present in the Court. 4. A perusal of the application reveals disturbing state of affairs. The Director was fully aware that the time expired on 18.4.08. There was no sense of expediency and urgency shown as is clear from the averments in para 4 of this application inasmuch as respondent No.2 issued a notice on 20.5.08 to the Village Panchayat to take action for demolition of the alleged illegal construction. Admittedly, 20.5.08 is a date after the time stipulated by this Court had expired. Being aware of the fact that this amounts to acting in violation of the order, immediately, in para 5 it is averred that a Memorandum dated 20th March, 2008 was issued by the Director of Panchayats, directing the Dy. Director of Panchayats to ensure that the Village Panchayat takes action to demolish the unauthorized structure and submit compliance report within a period of 15 days. It is, thereafter, that the Panchayat steps in and that is how the Dy. Director of Panchayats assumes power under Section 66(5) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act. That order is dated 9.6.2008. It is, therefore, urged that the time set by this Court Could not be adhered to and that is why the extension is sought. 5. We are not satisfied with this explanation and that is how requested the Dy. Director to remain present today. Nothing prevented her from informing the Court on 18.3.08 itself that the Dy. Director has yet to assume powers under Section 66(5) of the Act and all that could have been done at that stage was to direct the Panchayat concerned to commence action in accordance with law. On 18.3.08, therefore, neither she had directed the Panchayat to do anything, nor was this Court informed that the powers have been assumed by her in terms of the above statutory provision. 6. It is only after the order passed by this Court that the Authorities started moving. In such circumstances, what we find is complete non-compliance with the orders passed by this Court. In ordinary circumstances, we could have commenced action in contempt and sought explanation by following the Rules laid down in that behalf. However, the matter pertains to an illegal construction. What happens at the site is that the construction remains and may be some alterations or additions have taken place thereto. That would not be in public interest and this is the only reason why we refrain from initiating any proceedings in contempt. However, we strongly disapprove and deprecate the conduct of the officers concerned who were not at all vigilant and even went to the extent of not bringing the correct facts to the notice of this Court. The order has been made on the basis that the action has been commenced and would be completed soon. When the Court assumes these set of facts on the basis of statements made, least that is expected from the Authorities is to abide by the statements made before the Court and pass final orders pursuant thereto. 7. In the light of the above observations and it being our repeated experience that unless summoned or requested to appear before the Court, the Authorities do not take steps in accordance with law and this being one more instance of this nature, we would have been justified in imposing personal costs on the Dy. Director in this case, but we refrain from doing so and caution her that this would be the last opportunity for her to correct herself. Any lapse or inaction on her part in compliance with the Courts' orders, in future, would be viewed seriously and in addition to commencing action in contempt, we would not hesitate in imposing personal costs, so also directing that the observations with regard to her conduct be entered in her service records. 8. Since she has remained present personally and assured the Court that orders would be complied with within a period of 15 days from today, we grant her that time. Needless to state that no further extension would be granted under any circumstances. Application disposed off. 9. Before parting, it would be fair and proper to invite the attention of all concerned to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In AIR 1988 SC 1025 (Bigyan Kumar and ors. v. Union of India and ors.) at para 7 this is what the Court observes : - " 7. We would part with the matter by recording our serious concern and disapproval of the growing conduct of parties and public officers in particular of ignoring the directions of the Courts and the multiplying instances of confrontation. The Court, including the apex one, is a part of the State and is a built-in mechanism of the Constitution to administer justice in accordance with law. For discharging that duty, the Court has got to adopt an attitude of critical assessment of situations connected with litigation brought before it for adjudication. The manner of functioning of the Court in accord with the Rule of Law has to be dispassionate, objective and analytical. The Judges who preside over these courts do not act with a sense of superiority; nor do they look down upon others in the community. In order that the system may efficiently work and the purpose for which the courts are established is duly served, it is necessary that everyone within the framework of the Rule of Law must accept the system, render due obedience to orders made and in the event of failure of compliance, the rod of justice must descend down to punish. We hope and trust that every- one within the system realises this situation and does not unnecessarily get into a confrontation." Further, in AIR 1997 SC 1390 (State of Bihar and ors. v. Subhash Singh), the same view is reiterated. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. R. C. CHAVAN, J. ssm.