1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NOS. 121 AND 160 OF 2010 Shri Jose Olimpio Martins(Joe), Near Football ground, Caranzalem, Goa 403 002. ... Petitioner versus 1. The State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary, Alto Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. 2. The North Goa Planning and Development Authority, Through its Member Secretary, having office at Archdiocese Building, 1st floor, Mala Link Road, Panaji, Goa. 3. The Corporation of City of Panaji, Through the Commissioner, Panaji, Goa. 4. Village Panchayat of Taleigao, Through the Secretary/Sarpanch Taleigao, Goa. 5. The Director of Panchayat, 4th floor, Junta House, Panaji, Goa. 6. The Asst. Engineer, Sub Div. IV Electricity Department, Taleigao, Goa. 2 7. The Chief Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, 2nd floor, Dempo Towers, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa. 8. The Police Inspector, Town Police Station, Panaji, Goa. 9. Mr. Kumar P. Gera Mr. Kumar Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd., G-11, Ground Floor, Gera's Imperium, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa. ... Respondents Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 5 to 8. Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Shri H. D. Naik, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 9. Shri A. F. Diniz, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2010. ORAL ORDER Heard. The Petitioner is a neighbouring owner. 3 2. These two writ petitions are directed against the construction project being carried out by Respondent No.9 pursuant to development permission issued by Respondent No.2-NGPDA dated 9-10-2006, and construction license issued by Respondent No.3-the Corporation of City of Panaji dated 8-3-2007 with the allegation that Respondent No.9, the developer has carried out certain illegalities. It appears that upon a complaint filed by the Petitioner, as claimed by him, a show cause notice dated 11-6-2009 came to be issued as regards the construction of underground water storage tank which was coming up within the area reserved for 10 meters wide ODP road. The said notice was replied to by Respondent No.9, vide reply dated 17-6- 2009. In the said reply, it was stated by the said developer that the said water storage tank was not located in the area reserved for 10 meters wide road. Consequently, a final notice dated 19-8-2009 came to be issued calling upon the developer to demolish/remove the said water storage tank, etc. Respondent No.3-Corporation followed suit and issued an Order dated 26-10-2009, and called upon the developer to show cause as to why the licence should not be revoked and the developer was directed the stoppage of work but subsequently by another Order dated 21-1-2010 Respondent No.3-Corporation through its Chief Commissioner granted partial relief to the developer to resume work only to those areas which are unaffected by deviations/violations at their own risk and consequences, and further it was stipulated that no work should be carried out beyond the scope of that Order until the NGPDA grants the 4 approvals or relaxations as the case may be and the same are intimated to him, and further the said developer was directed to obtain within 45 days the approved revised plan from the NGPDA. 3. There is no dispute that the developer has submitted revised plans to NGPDA which are pending its approval. 4. We have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. We have heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner and Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.9 at length. Shri Bras De Sa has submitted that the Petitioner has no objection that in case Respondent No.9, the developer proceeds with the construction in accordance with the plans approved by the authorities, namely, the NGPDA and the Corporation of the City of Panaji. In fact, that is the Petitioner's main prayer in Writ Petition No.121 of 2010. Learned Counsel submits that the Commissioner could not have reviewed the earlier orders by Order dated 21-1-2010 as there is no such power given to them. However, learned Counsel has not been able to point out to any specific illegalities having been committed by Respondent No.9, the developer except as regards the said underground water storage tank which according to the Petitioner is coming within the area reserved for 10 meters wide road in the ODP plan and violation of certain set-backs as reflected in the Order dated 5 21-1-2010, which the learned Counsel has not been able to point out with any clarity with the help of any sketch or plan. 5. On the other hand, Shri Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the developer has explained the controversy with the site plan approved by both the authorities, and which is found at page 91 of the paper book. According to learned Senior Counsel, Respondent No.9-developer had left out a 8 meter wide space of his own property for the future construction of said proposed ODP road of 10 meters width and 2 meters beyond the said 8 meters were falling in another property regarding which the Goa Football Association had raised an issue. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that he had kept a set-back ranging from 6.2 to 625.22 meters from the said 8 meters left out and now because of the demand of the said GFA Respondent No.9, the developer proposes to leave out another 2 meters so that the entire area of 10 meters wide ODP road can be secured and that is from the property of Respondent No.9, the developer. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that a plan for revision showing the location of the said water storage tank is pending before the NGPDA. 6. After considering the submissions made and the facts of the case, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions which have been filed at a belated stage. In case the water storage tank falls within the 10 meters 6 proposed ODP road then the NGPDA is bound to demolish the same and action in that regard has already been taken pursuant to the Order dated 19-8-2009. As regards the set-backs, we are prima facie satisfied, with the explanation given by Respondent No.9, the developer under what circumstances the said set-backs would be reduced and that too at a time when according to the learned Senior Counsel 99% of the work, as depicted from the photographs filed, has already been completed. In fact, the Petitioner has not even filed any sketch to show in what manner the set-backs were violated by Respondent No.9-developer. 7. Nevertheless, we direct the NGPDA to dispose of, in accordance with law, the revised plans filed by Respondent No.9, the developer within a period of 4 weeks. 8. With the above observations, the Writ Petitions are hereby dismissed. NARESH H. PATIL, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD