IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 32 OF 2011 HUMBERTO F. DE J. D'CUNHA ... Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Additional Govt. Advocate holding for Mr. M. Salkar, Govt. Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. R.V. Kamat, Advocate for Respondent No. 6. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 14th March, 2011 P.C.: In this petition, notice was directed to be issued on 21st February, 2011. Accordingly, notice has been issued to respondent nos. 1 to 6. Respondent no. 5 is husband of respondent no. 6. Learned Counsel representing respondent no. 6 states that signature on vakalatnama could not be obtained as respondent no. 5 is out of India. Since respondent nos. 5 and 6 are husband and wife and the final directions not prejudicing them in any manner, at this stage, we proceed on the basis that all respondents are duly served. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with a request that an Execution Application which is pending before respondent no. 1 be directed to be disposed of expeditiously and as early as possible. The complaint is with regard to illegal construction which is yet to be demolished, although respondent nos. 5 and 6 lost in their challenge to the order passed in that behalf. 3. Our attention is invited to the order passed on 30-09-2008. Our attention is also invited to the order dated 10-08-2007, Annexure-B to the petition and the Appellate order copy which is annexed at 'D' from pages 29 to 35. From perusal of these orders, it is apparent that order dated 30-09-2008 which was passed by the Village Panchayat has been upheld. However, in the order of the Additional Director of Panchayat-I, Panaji, Goa dated 04-05-2009, the respondent no. 6-appellant has been permitted to apply for regularization of the construction to the Panchayat. It is stated that the application for regularization before the Panchayat is pending. The Panchayat has called for the technical approvals of the Town and Planning Authority and they are awaiting compliance in this behalf. 4. After hearing this matter for sometime, we are of the opinion that direction to the Panchayat to dispose of the pending application expeditiously would serve the ends of justice. In such circumstances, the Panchayat should dispose of the pending application within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Equally, other authorities which are supposed to convey technical approvals to the Panchayat should also assist the Panchayat in the expeditious disposal. The petitioner to convey the order passed today to the Chief Town Planner. 5. Needless to state that petitioner can request the Authority before whom the execution application is pending, to issue appropriate directions, but the application for execution will be taken up and disposed of only after the Panchayat communicates its decision to respondent nos. 5 and 6. When the Panchayat hears the application for regularization of respondent nos. 5 and 6, it should also give an opportunity to the petitioner to place his objections and these may also be taken into account. 6. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. EV