IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 255 OF 2009 NARENDRA NAIK ... Petitioner Versus THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT PENHA-DE-FRANCA THROUGH SARPANCH/SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M. G.S. Khandeparkar, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Mr. S. Bandodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.3. Coram:- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. Date:- 2nd May, 2009 ORAL ORDER : The respondent No.2 is the main contesting party. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have appeared pursuant to notice. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional Director of Panchayat - II at Panaji, Goa dated 19.3.2009. Under that order, the petitioner's application to intervene in the proceedings as an interested party has not been allowed. 3. This allowance is on account of the precedents in the case of Hardayal Mehta Versus M.C.D. reported in AIR 1990 Delhi 170 which has referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jyoti Basu Versus Debi Ghosal reported in AIR 1982 SC 983 in which it has been held that when there is a matter between the public authority and the private person as opposed to a private dispute, the person who is a complainant may not be a necessary party. 4. That proposition of law is applicable only in the case of a person who is a complainant simplicitor in such a case. The complainant would be a witness in an action taken by or against the public authority and an individual which has found fault with any action or order of the public authority. 5. In this case, the Village Panchayat, Penha-de-Franca, Bardez, Goa has opposed the resolution under which the petitioner as an owner has been given permission to demolish an illegal construction on account of, on behalf of and in the place of panchayat who would otherwise, as a local authority, carry out such demolition. The respondent No.2 may have justly challenged such a resolution. However, he takes exception to the petitioner being heard at the time of his challenge. The petitioner distinctly has locus. The question may arise before the public authority about what the petitioner may have done pursuant to the resolution being passed or what the petitioner precisely can be directed to do upon hearing the applicant, respondent No.2 herein. The petitioner, therefore, certainly has locus and can intervene in the proceedings. 6. It may be mentioned that the judgments simplicitor as in the case of Hardayal Singh (supra) and Jyoti Basu's case would be correctly interpreted and understood to understand the precise import of the locus of the party to appear before the Court when he is either a necessary or a proper party for the purpose of determination of the issues that would arise in a particular lis so that that lis can be suitably and completely disposed of, once both the parties are heard. Consequently, therefore, it cannot be said that all the intervenors, even if they have locus, cannot be allowed to appear and to bring forth before any authority of Court all the necessary facts which would be required to determine finally the issues between the parties. 7. In this case, the locus of the petitioner is seen. Hence, the impugned order is required to be set aside. The necessary authority shall allow the petitioner to intervene in the lis. The authority shall hear both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 and finally decide the issues in dispute between both of them. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute accordingly. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. SMA