IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 675 OF 2008 COSTA PINTO AND ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS AND PARTNER JOSEPH ALFRED D\'COSTA ... Petitioner Versus THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF CANA BENAULIM THROUGH SECRETARY / SARPANCH AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M. P. Almeida, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4. Mr. F. M. Reis, and Mr. A. de Souza, Advocate for respondent No.3. Coram:- A. P. DESHPANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 11th December, 2008 P.C. An Occupancy Certificate issued by respondent No.1-Village Panchayat of Cana Benaulim in favour of respondent No.3 has been challenged by filing the present petition. 2. The petitioner has raised various disputes before the Authorities under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, so also before the Civil Court touching the subject-properties. A Special Civil Suit No.122/2004/A has been filed by the petitioner against respondent No.3 wherein the following reliefs are claimed : (a) A declaration that the development permission dated 30.11.2000 issued in the name of the respondent No.3 herein is illegal. (b)A further declaration is sought that the construction licence dated 18.11.03 issued in favour of respondent No.3 is illegal; (c) A permanent injunction restraining defendant No.2 from issuing the completion certificate to defendant No.3 in respect of any structure constructed in the said property; and (d) A permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from issuing the Occupancy Certificate to defendant No.3 in respect of any structure constructed in the said property. 3. All the permissions granted by the Authorities in favour of respondent No.3 are challenged in the said suit and an injunction was also sought seeking a restraint order from issuing an Occupancy Certificate in favour of respondent No.3. The said suit is pending. During the pendency of the suit, the Occupancy Certificate has been issued. The suit has been filed by making allegations of fraud played by respondent No.3 herein. Various disputed questions of facts emerge for adjudication. Issuance of development permissions and construction licence are already the subject-matter of challenge in the suit. The petitioner can very well question the legality of the Occupancy Certificate either by amending the pending suit or by instituting a fresh suit. In our view, having regard to the nature of the dispute, it would not be appropriate to entertain the petition and, hence, we deem it fit to relegate the petitioner to an alternative remedy. 5. Declining to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner, we dismiss the writ petition summarily. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. ssm.