IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 375 OF 2008 SHRI. JOE MARTINS ... Petitioner Versus THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PANAJI AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. F. Diniz, Advocate for respondent No.1. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & SANTOSH BORA, JJ. Date:- 19th August, 2008 P.C. 1. This is one more instance of a resident approaching this Court with a prayer to direct the Corporation of the City of Panaji to act in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier and it is not disputed before us that Writ Petition No.27/08 was placed before a Division Bench of this Court and a direction was issued to the Corporation to decide the show cause notice dated 21.11.07 which is issued to respondent No.2 in the present petition, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after giving opportunity to all concerned to make their submissions. 3. The petitioner is residing near Football Ground, Caranzalem, Goa. 4. A development permission was issued in favour of respondent No.1 by the North Goa Planning and Development Authority, on the basis of which a construction licence dated 20.4.2007 came to be issued by the first respondent Corporation. 5. It is alleged by the petitioner that in violation of the approved plan dated 22.4.07 by the Planning Authority and construction licence dated 20.4.07 issued by the first respondent Corporation, the second respondent has constructed a compound wall, whereby width of the road has been reduced to 2 metres and the compound wall is constructed on the existing road. The petitioner has relied upon photographs and documents which have been made available to him pursuant to an application under the Right to Information Act. 6. It is common ground before us that the show cause notice was issued by the first respondent Corporation to the second respondent for violation of the terms and conditions of the construction licence. That show cause notice dated 21.11.07 came to be issued after a site inspection by the Municipal Engineers carried out on 16.11.07. The construction covered by the compound wall admeasures 46.25 metres. The same is allegedly constructed without obtaining alignment from the first respondent in accordance with Condition No.1 of the licence. Therefore, the inspection report was titled as "Document of Transgression" and the noticee (second respondent) was called upon to show cause as to why the construction of the compound wall should not be demolished. Seven days' period was provided to show cause and even the Authority stated that the licence would be revoked if no cause is shown. A copy of the document of transgression was also forwarded. 7. Since no action was taken despite the show cause notice being issued, the earlier writ petition was filed. Now, it is alleged by the petitioner that on 26.3.08, an order is passed by the Commissioner of the first respondent Corporation. 8. We have perused the said order and the relevant part of it reads thus : " Accordingly the undersigned issued notices to both the parties to remain present with documentary evidence if any to decide the issue. The complainant remained present in person along with his legal counsel. The complainant submitted that Show Cause Notice prima facie show violation of construction licence and that the licencee have not produced any document to the contrary and therefore prayed that licence be revoked. The licencee remained absent, however on his behalf one Robert Gonsalves remained present who sought time to produce document in the matter. Time was granted till 29.02.08. On the fixed day Advocate for the both parties remained present. The Advocate for licencee submitted that though they have not obtained alignment from the Commissioner as per the condition of licence, the construction carried out is as per the approved plan. Since the point raised by the licencee was of technical nature. The Municipal Engineers were asked to report in the matter whether the construction was as per the approved plan. The Municipal Engineers on inspection of site are of the opinion that in absence of demarcation of plot it is difficult to indicate whether the construction is as per the approved plan. The finding of the municipal engineer are not ethically accepted. In fact they should have verified that boundary marks are put in place at the time of recommendation of the construction licence. In view of the above I pass the following order : The licence No.4/15/TS/2007-CCP/07-08/19 dt. 20.02.2007 issued in favour of Shri Nicolaus M. Gonsalves is hereby suspended. The licencee shall put the boundary marks and approach this office to issue licence which will be decided thereafter." 9. The Noticee does not challenge the Show Cause Notice nor this Order. A perusal of the order would go to show that no cause really had been shown by the noticee and his Advocate remained present and submitted that no alignment was obtained as per conditions of licence. But the construction is as per approved plan. The very Municipal Report which is styled as document of transgression in the show cause notice is made foundation of the order. But, surprisingly, the Commissioner terms the said report as ethically unacceptable. The Municipal Engineers, who held inspections, were of the opinion that in the absence of demarcation of plot, it is difficult to indicate whether the construction is as per approved plans or not. With all these observations, the Commissioner proceeds to suspend the construction licence. 10. The grievance of the petitioner is the compound wall, remains as it is. It is untouched and all that has been done by the Authority is suspension of the construction licence, after holding that the conditions, more particularly, condition No.1 under the same having been already breached. In other words, after concluding that there was a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the construction licence, all that has been done is suspension of the construction licence, but no demolition, which is clearly a foundation of the show cause notice. 11. When this petition was placed before us, after notice to the first respondent, Mr. Diniz has appeared before us and he makes a statement, on instructions, that the Corporation will take necessary action in pursuance of the show cause notice, after giving final opportunity to respondent No.2 and the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. However, he prays for 8 weeks' time to do the needful. 12. We are not impressed by the fact that such matters which are virtually concluded by the hearings already held, are thereafter delayed. The anxiety must be to see that the road remains free of all obstructions and obstacles. If something is designated as "road" and for the use by public, then, it is the duty of the Authorities to see that the road remains in condition, whereby access to every one is possible. In other words, its usage must be free and continuous. However, in the instant case, despite noticing the violation, the Authorities have not taken necessary steps. 13. Be that as it may, now that assurance is given by the Commissioner and the Corporation through their Counsel, We accept the statement. We are of the view that considering the cause shown in this case, the Authorities must act with expediency. This being the second petition for redressal of the same grievance, interest of justice would be subserved if the Authorities are granted 3 weeks' time to do the needful. Needless to state that the observations in this order should not be construed as final opinion on merits of the controversy. It is only that we have brought to the notice of the Authority its own observations and the powers that are available to them in law. It is for them to exercise these powers and in a manner which would subserve the purpose in making the concerned law. In such circumstances, the observations have been made only to impress upon respondent No.1 the object and purpose of setting up of an Authority like the Corporation and Commissioner under the Act. We hope that the Authority will now take cognizance of the orders and directions and dispose off the matter by granting a final opportunity within the above period. Under no circumstances shall any extension be granted. Needless to state that if the Noticee fails to respond even to the second opportunity, the first respondent must act in accordance with law, without waiting any further. Petition disposed off. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SANTOSH BORA, J. ssm.