IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 744 OF 2008 SHRI LAXMAN CANDOLKAR THROUGH ATTORNEY BHARAT CANDOLKAR ... Petitioner Versus THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF CANDOLIM THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. V. P. Thali,Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sudha Pai Kir, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. J.E.Coelho Perreira, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Korgaonkar, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Coram:- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. Date:- 15th April, 2009 P.C. The order dated 21.08.2008 is challenged in this writ petition by which the respondent No.2 is allowed to intervene in an appeal filed by the petitioner under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act. 2. The Panchayat has issued a notice for demolition of the petitioner's structure. The petitioner challenged the notice. The notice was issued at the behest of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 carries on business in Tourism. The respondent No.2 had apprehension that he would be affected. It is his case that the petitioner constructed a toilet and soak pit close to his resort. The respondent No.2, therefore, desired to be heard. The impugned order allowed the respondent to be impleaded. The parties would be heard on merits. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Alwyn D'Cunha V. Village Panchayat of St. Lawrence and another reported in 2006(2) Goa L.R. 368 and Hardayal Singh V. M.C.D. and others reported in AIR 1990 Delhi 170 in which cases, the complainants were not allowed to be impleaded under Order I, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. In those cases, the complainants were required to show locus. In this case, the complainant has shown locus. The complainant is a proper party, who would bring all facts before this Court, which would be required to determine fully the issues involved in the proceedings to be tried. The impugned order cannot be faulted. The writ petition has no merit. The writ petition is dismissed. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. SMA