IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 12 OF 2011 SHRI PRAKASH REVODKAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Vahidulla, Government Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 11th January, 2011 P.C.: We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Teles for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate Mr. Vahidulla for the respondents. Advocate Vahidulla waives notice for all respondents. 2. Advocate Mr. Vahidulla on instructions from the officer concerned who is present in the Court states that notice dated 17-08-2010 i.e. Annexure-'C' at page-10 is withdrawn right now. 3. The petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside of communication dated 04-01-2011 (Annexure-'A' colly at page-7) which states demolition of illegal structure over the nallah at Grande Chivar, Anjuna in survey no. 582/9. Since notice dated 17-08-2010 is withdrawn, communication dated 04-01-2011 is also being withdrawn as stated by the learned Counsel for the respondents on instructions from the officer concerned. It is the grievance of the respondents that petitioner Mr. Prakash should remain present before the Authority. According to the respondents it is difficult to secure presence of the petitioner. Advocate Mr. Teles makes a statement that address of the petitioner is given in the cause title. The respondents are desirous to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Irrigation Act, 1973. 4. Notice would be served to the petitioner as per the address given in the cause title of the petition. Such notice would be issued within a period of one week from today. Advocate Mr. Teles makes a statement that on receipt of the notice petitioner will remain present to co-operate the hearing. The Authority concerned shall hear the petitioner and pass an appropriate order under provisions of law. Such entire exercise will come to an end within three weeks. 5. We have not expressed any opinion in the merits of the case. The Authority concerned to hear the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. 6. In view of the above, writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. F. M. REIS, J. EV