IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 828 OF 2011 SHRI. MUKUND NAGUESH BHANDARI., ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. K. P. DESSAI AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Ulhas Tari, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 23rd December, 2011 P.C. Heard Shri U. Tari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The learned Counsel has pointed out that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Dy. Director of Panchayats, Panaji, the petitioner has already filed an application for regularisation of the impugned structure. The learned Counsel further pointed out that according to him the regularisation is still pending. 3. I have perused the records as well as considered the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute that he has put up the impugned structure nor that the impugned structure was carried out without obtaining any requisite permission from the statutory authorities. The authorities below have also considered the said aspect and the Revisional Court on the basis of the said undisputed fact has come to the conclusion that there is no perverse finding in the impugned order passed by the authorities below. Hence, I find no jurisdictional error committed by the authorities below in passing the impugned order. No interference is called for by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. With regard to the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner to the effect that as the application for regularisation is pending, this issue is not under consideration in the above petition. 6. Hence, the above petition stands disposed of accordingly. F. M. REIS, J. at*