IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 82 OF 2011 SHREE SHANTADURGA DEVASTHAN THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY, SHRI SADAY KESHAV GAUDE AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. M. S. Sonak, and Mr. J. P. Supekar, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kakodkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. Kankonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 28th April, 2011 P.C.:- The prayer in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding Respondents No.1 and 2 to take immediate action, including departmental proceedings against Respondent No.3. 2. It is stated that Respondent No.3 has fraudulently deleted the name of Petitioner No.2 Temple from the Survey Records of an immovable property, details of which are more particularly set out in the Petition. 3. It is alleged that several complaints were addressed to the Collector, North Goa, requesting him to take action against Respondent No.3 for the acts of omission and commission which amounts to misconduct, according to the Petitioners. The allegations in the Petition are that the Temple is located in Survey No.95/2 of Village Candola. The Temple is located in the property allegedly owned and possessed by the Petitioners and their Mahajans. The name of Petitioner No.2 Temple is recorded in the Occupants Column and the name of one Vaman Gaude is recorded as "Wahi". The said Vaman Vaude was appointed as a servant by the Mahajans of the Temple for the purpose of carrying out day today rituals of the Temple. It is alleged that sometime in June, 2010, the Petitioners came to know that Respondent No.4 has deleted the name of Petitioner No.2 from the Survey Records and thereupon, applications were made for furnishing copies of the documents. The documents revealed that Respondent No.3, in a Mutation Case, has got the name of Petitioner No.2 Temple deleted from the Survey Records and that is how the allegations of misconduct are made. 4. The matter was adjourned to enable the State to make an appropriate statement. 5. At the hearing today, our attention has been invited to the allegations in the Petition and particularly Para 10A, which has been inserted by way of an amendment. 6. We have heard Shri Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, learned Advocate General appearing for Respondents No.1 and 2, Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 and Mr. Menezes, appearing for respondent No.4. 7. On instructions, learned Advocate General makes a statement that presently, the Order of Respondent No.2 Dy. Collector and S.D.O. has been challenged before the Administrative Tribunal and the proceedings are pending. Immediately, upon conclusion of these proceedings, respondents No.1 and 2 will take cognizance of the allegations made in the complaint and take a decision as to whether Departmental Proceedings/Disciplinary Action should be initiated against Respondent No.3 or not. He states that such a decision would be taken as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the Administrative Tribunal. 8. In the light of this statement made by the learned Advocate General, which is accepted, we deem it unnecessary to keep the Writ Petition pending. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made and all pleas of all parties are kept open. Needless to state that when the decision is being taken by the State, they will take note of the allegations made in this Writ Petition, so also the contents of the letters addressed by the Petitioner and particularly, Petitioner No.2. The Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. ssm.