IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 212 OF 2008 IN SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2006 THE SARPANCH VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF CALANGUTE ... Applicant Versus . ... Respondent Ms. Norma Alvares, Amicus Curiae. Mr. A.N.S.Nadkarni, Advocate with Mr. P. A. Kamat, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. R. Chodankar, Additional Government Advocate for original Respondent nos. 2 and 3. Mr. T. George, Advocate for Respondent no.12. Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for Respondent no.30. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Advocate for Respondent nso. 31 to 33. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for Respondent nos. 34 and 35 Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 16th September, 2008 P.C. Reply of respondent no.30 is taken on record. 2. There are affidavits which have been filed by the newly added respondents. They were at one time or other Secretaries of the Village Panchayat of Calangute. However, each one of them has furnished an explanation that during the relevant period i.e. 26.09.2007 to 04.02.2008, either they were not functioning as Secretaries or if they were so functioning, their tenure was of short duration. 3. After perusing all these affidavits, although we are inclined to accept the explanation furnished by respondent nos. 30 to 33, we are of the view that the said explanation is accepted only in the peculiar facts of this case and in the light of the statement of the applicant/Panchayat that the identification as directed by this Court is complete. Therefore, we accept the explanation of the Panchayat Secretaries namely respondent nos. 30 to 33 and direct that no further action be initiated against them. 4. The Sarpanch and the Deputy Sarpanch had also filed their affidavits and we have perused them. We have heard Shri Lotlikar, Senior Advocate, representing them. While not disputing that at the relevant time the office of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch did not take action, yet, they have pointed out that by virtue of interim order dated 07.11.2007 in Writ Petition no. 540/07, they could not take major policy decisions or atleast such decisions which involve financial implications. The No Confidence motion against them was moved and that is how they were constrained to approach this Court challenging the same. Later on, Administrator was also appointed by this Court. During all this, the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch could not take a decision to appoint any Surveyor as that would involve financial implications and that is how the Order passed by this Court could not be complied with. 5. When they themselves state on affidavit that they do not wish to put any excuse so as to be exempted from the consequences of not abiding from and complying with the direction of the Court, yet, the No Confidence motion and the proceedings so also the interim Order is pointed out. 6. In the peculiar facts of the case, both of them have tendered unconditional apology to this Court for their non-compliance with the Court's Order. We do not wish to take any proceedings against them in contempt. The explanation of the Sarpanch and the Deputy Sarpanch in the peculiar facts is accepted and the Misc. Civil Application no. 212/08 is disposed off. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. R. C. CHAVAN, J. arp/*