1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Writ Petition No.527 of 2010 1.Maria Virgina De Matos Sequeira. 2. Jorge Aninal De Matos Sequeira 3. Vitor Manuel De Matos Sequeira. 4. Nidia Maria De Matos Sequeira. 5. Maria Clelia Filomena De Matos Sequeira Tadeu 6. Maria Ivone De Matos Sequeira. 7. Maria Vanda De Matos Sequeira. Through their duly constituted Power of Attorney Shri Balchandra S. Bakhale, r/o “Swatantrya”, Plot No.3, H.No.5/857, Near Talsazor, Alto, Margao,Goa. .... Petitioners V e r s u s 1. The Custodian of Evacuee Property, having office at Government Quarters Bhatulem, Panaji-Goa. 2. The State of Goa through its Chief Secretary, having office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa. ..... Respondents. Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. Bandodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent no.2. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 6th October, 2010. Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Sardessai, learned counsel for the 2 petitioners and Mr. S. Bandodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent no.2. None appears on behalf of respondent no.1. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners challenges order dated 24/6/2010 by which application dated 20/4/2007 filed by the petitioners under Section 15 of the Goa Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964 (“The Act” for short) has been rejected on the ground that no documents have been produced by th Attorney showing that the legal heirs of late Jorge Anibal de Matos Sequiera are of Indian Origin. The second ground on which the application was dismissed was that the custodian of Evacuee Property does not hold the Mining Concessions, which have since lapsed. 4. On behalf of respondent no.2, affidavit of the Under Secretary (Home) for the State Adminstration has been filed. The said affidavit discloses that the Government has not authorized any officer in terms of the Section 15(1) of the Act to entertain an application filed by an heir of evacuee for 3 restoration of the property. Indisputably, the application seeking restoration of property of evacuee was filed before Respondent no. 1, who dealt with the same and passed the impugned order. 5. In view of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, it is evident that respondent no.1 had no authority to deal with such an application. It is really surprising that respondent no.1 dealt with the application filed in the year 2007 and passed the impugned order in year 2010, when he had no authority to deal with the application. Be that as it may be, the fact remains that since respondent no.1 had no authority to deal with the application filed by the petitioners, the impugned order passed by him is patently without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. Sardessai, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would file an application under Section 15 of the Act before the State Government within a period of one week. Mr. Sardessai further submits that having regard to the fact that the application filed in the year 2007 before respondent no.1 was disposed of after four years and this Court has found that the 4 respondent no.1 had not authority to deal with the same, direction be given to the State Government to dispose of the application within reasonable time. 7. I find merit in the submission of Mr. Sardessai. Therefore, in the event the petitioners chose to file an application under Section 15 of the Act, the State Government shall deal with the same in accordance with law and dispose of the same expeditiously and in any case on or before 30/4/2011. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No orders as to costs. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-