IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 325 OF 2008 M/S. AQUARIUS PRIVATE LIMITED ... Appellant Versus THE ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. S. D.Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Vaidya, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V. B. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 4th August, 2009 ORAL ORDER : We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The respondent No.1 Estate Officer is appointed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act of 1971. It is not in dispute that the proceeding was initiated by the respondent No.1 against the present appellant for eviction. The subject matter of the present appeal, is 'Port area along the creek' adjacent to M/s. Goa Shipyard Ltd. Vasco-da-Gama. The respondent No.1, after hearing the applicant and the respondent No.2, passed the order against the present appellant in view of the power vested with the respondent No.1 under subsection 1 of Section 5 of the Act of 1971. The appellant and all the persons, who are in occupation of the said premises, were directed to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of the order. This order was passed by the respondent No.1 on 19th October 1989. This order passed by the respondent No.1, was subject to Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.5/1990 filed by the present appellant before the learned Additional District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao. It was registered as Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.5/1990 and made over to the learned Additional District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao. The learned Additional District Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal i.e. Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.5/1990 by the judgment and order passed on 17.02.1993. That order passed by the appellate authority, the First Additional District Judge, was challenged by the respondent No.2, in the W.P. No.319 of 1993. The learned Single Bench of this Court, after hearing the parties, remanded the case by its order dated 08.07.1997 to dispose it of by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao. 3. After remand by the learned Single Bench of this Court, the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.5/1990 was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao by its judgment and order dated 24.04.2008. This is second round that this order passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.5/1990, was questioned before this Court in W.P. No.325/2008. The learned Single Bench of this Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed this writ petition by the order passed on 30.01.2009. The learned Single Bench, however, granted four weeks' protection in favour of the present appellant. This order passed by the Single Bench in W.P. No.325/2008, is the subject matter in the present L.P.A. filed in this Court. Along with this appeal, C.A. No.75/2009 is also filed. This Court by order passed on 09.04.2009 in L.P.A. 6/2009 in W.P. No.325/2008, issued notice returnable on 29.04.2009 and further directed, till then, status-quo to be maintained by the parties of date 09.04.2009. Since this order was passed in L.P.A., it appears from the record, no separate order was passed in C.A.No.75/2009. 4. The maintainability of the L.P.A., was the issue raised before this Court earlier in L.P.A. No.6/2009 and L.P.A. No.15/2000. The Division Bench of this Court,after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties,have decided L.P.A. No.15/2000 holding that the L.P.A. is not maintainable. One of us (Mr. Justice U.D.Salvi) is a party to the judgment of L.P.A. No.15/2000. In this L.P.A. also, learned Senior Advocate for respondents has raised said ground as preliminary objection. The issue of maintainability of the L.P.A., was raised before this Court in one more L.P.A. No.10/2009 with C.A. No.93/2009. This L.P.A. also decided and disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram- B.P.Dharmadhikari and U.D.Salvi,JJ) to which, one of us (Mr.Justice U.D.Salvi) was party. We have considered the judgment of this Court in L.P.A.No.15/2000 dated 22.06.2009. From that judgment, we have noticed four paragraphs i.e. paras 37,38,39 and 40. We are respectfully in agreement with the view taken by this Court. In the judgment of this Court in L.P.A. No.10/2009, reference of the earlier Division Bench Judgment in the case of Cadar Constructions Vs. Tara Tiles reported in 1984(2) Bom.C.R.530 has been made. 5. We have considered the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. Nos.15/2000 and 10/2009. This L.P.A.,in our view, is sans merits and needs to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. 6. The L.P.A. stands dismissed. We have noticed that this order of eviction has been passed by the Authority competent i.e. Estate Officer on 19.10.1989. Indisputably, the appellant is in occupation/ possession of the property/ area of the Port. The Counsel for the appellant, seeks protection and extension of status-quo order, which was granted by this Court on 09.04.2009 for four more weeks. After hearing the Counsel for the respondents, in our opinion, such time can be extended. Status-quo, which we have directed earlier from 09.04.2009 shall stand extended for four weeks i.e. till 01/09/2009. No costs. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. U. D. SALVI, J. SMA