IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 636 OF 2011 M/S. COSTA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS P.O.A MR.MANJUNATH S. PAI DUKLE AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus STATE OF GOA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Vernekar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. N. Kholkar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. M. Pereira, Advocate for respondent No.3. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE & SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. Date:- 20th October, 2011 P.C.:- Heard Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Kantak, learned Advocate General for respondent No.1, Mr. Padiyar for respondent No.2 and Mr. Pereira for respondent No.3. Leave to delete bracketed portion. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the Resolution dated 23rd June, 2011 and the order dated 4th August, 2011 of respondent No.2 in terms of which the licence issued to the petitioners has been revoked in purported exercise of powers under Section 184(5) of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, on the ground that there is a public outcry against the development. The reason given for revocation of the licence is patently unsustainable in law and cannot be sustained in law, the fact that there is a public outcry cannot be a ground for revocation of the licence issued by the Municipality. On this short ground alone, the Resolution dated 23rd June, 2011 and the order dated 4th August, 2011 are liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Moreover, before revocation of the licence, the petitioners have not been given any show cause notice and as such, there is violation of principles of natural justice. This is an additional ground on which the order dated 4th August, 2011 is also liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. For the reasons aforesaid, the Resolution dated 23rd June, 2011 and the order dated 4th August, 2011 passed by respondent No.2 are quashed and set aside. Needless to mention that the disposal of this writ petition will not come in the way of respondent No.2 from taking appropriate action in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. ssm.