IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 231 OF 2011 MR. RUI PINTO ... Petitioner Versus CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PANAJI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Shri Pavithran A. V, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A. F. Diniz, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri M. S. Sonak, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri N. N. Sardessai, Advocate for the Applicant in M.C.A. No.470 of 2011. Shri Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 5th May, 2011 P.C.:- By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the licence dated 28-2-2011. The Petitioner claims that the petition proceeds on the basis that the Petitioner is the owner of the flat/property which is situated on the ground floor of the structure covered by the licence. It is the case of the Petitioner that there is only an agreement of sale in favour of Respondent No.2 and the title has not passed as the property is not conveyed to Respondent No.2. However, Respondent No.2 has been put in possession of the part that is the ground floor of the structure in question. It is alleged that in the garb of seeking permission for re-plastering, re-roofing, re-flooring and erection of temporary shed in the open terrace, Respondent No.2 is carrying on permanent construction and there are illegal extensions to the original structure and all this violates the Building Bye-Laws and the directions and conditions of the licence. Therefore, the same should be revoked and cancelled. It has been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the parties including the Applicant/Respondent that the Corporation of the City of Panaji has issued a Show Cause Notice and a Stop Work Order against Respondent No.2. It is stated that a reply is filed to this Show Cause Notice and the proceedings are pending before the Corporation. Shri A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation of the City of Panaji, on instructions, states that the Corporation will hear all affected parties including the Petitioner and the Applicant and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible within a period of four weeks from today. Several contentions have been raised by Shri S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in support of the petition. He submits that the photographs annexed would show that the work carried out is without having any authority or consent from the owner i.e. the Petitioner. This is nothing but construction of a new building or in any event the work carried out is far beyond the licence. These contentions are denied on affidavit by Respondent No.2. We are of the view that we cannot go in these disputed questions of facts in our limited jurisdiction. We have only taken note of the grievance that the Corporation of the City of Panaji has not taken any action even though the Petitioner has made serious allegations and has pointed out, prima facie, certain violations of the Building Bye-Laws and the terms and conditions of the licence. Now, that the Corporation of the City of Panaji has stated before us that it has initiated action and that it will pass final orders, we do not wish to interfere in writ jurisdiction. While dismissing the petition, we clarify that we have not gone into and expressed any opinion on the rival contentions. If the Petitioner has rights in the property, nothing prevents the Petitioner from instituting proper proceedings to ascertain and prove the same. Equally, disputes between the Applicant and the Petitioner, can be agitated in appropriate proceedings before a competent Court. All such remedies and the pleas therein are kept open. We accept the statement of Shri M. S. Sonak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 made on instructions that Respondent No.2 in pursuance of the Stop Work Order will not carry on any activity which is the subject matter of the Stop Work Order and the Show Cause Notice. It is stated that these activities will not be carried on until the final orders on the Show Cause Notice are passed by the Corporation. In our view, in the light of these statements which are accepted as undertakings to this Court, there is no necessity of passing any restraint orders. However, we clarify that the statements made by Respondent No.2 are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of Respondent No.2 and equally merely because such a statement is made and taken on record as an undertaking to this Court the Petitioner's right in the property, if any, will not be adversely affected. Statement is accepted even without prejudice to the rights of the Petitioner. All contentions in that behalf are kept open. The statement made by Respondent No.2 and accepted as an undertaking before us shall not be construed as Respondent No.2 carrying on any activity which is not permitted by law or the licence and the terms and conditions thereof. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. RD.