IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WP NO. 5 OF 2011 UNITED CULTURAL ASSOCIATION, THROUGH ITS TREASURER MR. PRAVIN V. MADGAONKAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 12 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Iftikar Agha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. Kakodkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1, 3 to 10. Mr. Sidharth Madgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for respondent No.11; Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for respondents No.12 and 13. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 21st March, 2011 P.C.:- This petition filed, purportedly in public interest, raises an issue as to whether the private respondents can carry on the activity of dance floor in an open air, in a private property. 2. The complaint is that without taking proper permissions, gala, birth day parties, new year celebrations are organized in this open area, at which liquour is also served. This organization of events creates numerous problems for the residents in the vicinity and despite complaints being made to the Panchayat and other authorities, no steps have been taken. 3. However, on perusal of the record, it is clear that the Deputy Collector & S.D.O. Mapusa (Respondent N7.7) has issued a show cause notice dated 19.1.2011 to the private respondents No.12 and 13, calling upon them to show cause as to why action should not be taken under Section 33(iii) of the Land Revenue Code, 1968. It is stated that reply will be filed by respondents No.12 and 13 to this show cause notice during the course of this week and latest by 25th March, 2011. 4. When attention of the petitioner's Advocate was invited to this show cause notice of the Dy. Collector, the grievance is that, that is an action initiated by the Dy. Collector and at the most he will be able to control the conversion of the land from the present user to commercial use. In other words, the show cause notice of the Dy. Collector will answer the grievance only in so far as illegal and unlawful conversion or change of user is concerned, but as far as the construction that is carried out pursuant to the licence of the Panchayat is concerned, the Panchayat has not taken any action for revocation or cancellation of the licence. 5. It is fairly stated by respondents No.12 and 13 that even the Panchayat has issued a show cause notice and the necessary steps, in accordance with law, have been initiated at both ends. 6. From a perusal of the affidavits on record, we are satisfied that the petitioner's grievance with regard to both, namely change of user and revocation of the construction licence, have been adressed by the appropriate authorities who have set in motion the law. It is for them to take necessary steps to hold and stop the activity altogether. Nothing prevents them from taking such measures, after complying with the principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed by relevant laws. Both of them shall endeavour and complete their action as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two months from today. 7. While dealing with the matter, the Authorities should not be influenced by the contents of their affidavits and the Panchayat concerned should not influence itself with the observations and the conclusion recorded in the Minutes of the Meeting of the said Panchayat held on 29.11.2010. 8. Needless to clarify that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and all contentions, in that behalf, of both the parties are kept open. The petition is disposed of with these directions. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. ssm.