IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 790 OF 2008 SHRI. GURUDAS B. SHIRODKAR ... Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 6 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, ADvoate for the petitioner. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for respondent no. 1 To 4. Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for respondent no. 5 and 6. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 12th October, 2009 P.C. We have heard learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1. On behalf of respondent no. 3 affidavit in reply is presented in the Court. Accepted, taken on record. 2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks writ of mandamus directing respondent no.1 for demolition of illegal construction of respondent no.7 in survey no. 238/2-A of village Assagao, Bardez, Goa and to initiate action and demolition under section 66 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act. Petition seems to have been filed on 17.12.2008. 3. Respondent no. 7, Private Individual, was served with the notice of this Court. Registry report shows that he has refused the writ notice of this Court. The reason assigned by respondent no. 7 for non acceptance is not correctly addressed. Further registry reports that respondent no. 7 did not allow the bailiff to affix the notice on main door, on the conspicuous part of the dwelling house wherein he resides. 4. We have perused the report of the process surveyor/bailiff dated 6.8.2009. It is pertinent to note that this report itself, shows endorsement made by the respondent no. 7 Mr. Shashikant Shirodkar. Respondent no.7 in this endorsement states that "undersigned Shri Mr. Shashikant B. Shirodkar is not resident of Mapusa, please quote proper address concerned to the undersigned." These contents have been signed by the respondent no. 7 on 6.8.2009 at 15.10hours. Process server's/bailiff's report is in view of provisions of Civil Procedure Code as per his own statement dated 7.8.2009. We have given utmost consideration to the endorsement made by respondent no. 7, report of the process server under Order 5 Rule 9(5) of Civil Procedure Code. We are satisfied that respondent no. 7 has been duly served. In our view, therefore, service of this petition on the respondent no. 7 is complete. 5. On behalf of Panchayat concerned, affidavit in reply is filed on record. It is sworn in by one Mr. Vippin Korgaonkar, Secretary of Village Panchayat of Assagoa, Bardez Goa. In para 9 of this affidavit, it is stated that if the panchayat decides to take action at the meeting or any subsequent meeting, a show cause notice would be required to be issued to the respondent no. 7 inviting his reply. Further it has been stated that panchayat would make every effort to decide on issuance of show cause notice in available time. In view of this statement, counsel appearing for the panchayat on instructions made statement that notice has been issued during the last week of this month on respondent no. 7. 6. On behalf of respondent no. 3 affidavit has been filed by the Additional Government Advocate. In this affidavit paras 3 and 4 are relevant. Mr. Rodrigues, points out para 3. In this para 3 reference is made to the section 66(5) of the Panchayat Raj Act. Para 4 states that petitioner after approaching the Village Panchayat has not contacted respondent no. 3 raising a grievance that no action was taken by Village Panchayat within stipulated period of 30 days. Further grievance is raised that petitioner without approaching to the authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act has directly approached extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. On this ground itself he has requested not to entertain the petition. 7. After hearing counsel appearing for the respective parties, we are of the opinion that on the ground raised by the respondent no.3, refusal of the extra ordinary jurisdiction in the case in hand, cannot be said to be justifiable. Advocate Mr. Valmiki Menezes appearing on behalf of panchayat and Mr. Rodrigues, pointed out the provisions of Panchayat Raj Act, making available statutory appeal to the aggrieved person by the order or decision rendered by the Village Panchayat concerned. Counsel appearing for the petitioner admits that statutory appeal to the aggrieved party is available. 8. Petitioner before approaching to this Court, had addressed a complaint, the copy of which is on record( page 25). This complaint seems to be dated 4.12.2008. Complaint is addressed to the State of Goa, Directorate of Panchayat, Deputy Director of Panchayat, Block Development Officer, Sarpanch/Secretary of panchayat concern. We are satisfied that petitioner is vigilant and tried to raise his grievance before all this authorities under the Panchayat Raj Act. 9. In this view, we direct the village Panchayat Assagoa, Bardez Goa to decide and dispose of the complaint (Page25) within a period of 3 months from today. i.e on or before 12.1.2010 in accordance with the provisions of law. 10. Petition is allowed and stands disposed of in view of above terms. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. U. D. SALVI, J. vn