IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 832 OF 2010 DR. JENNY E. VIEGAS AND 7 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF GOA, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 6 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1,3,4,5 & 6. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, and G. Teles, Advocates for respondent No.2. Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for respondent No.7. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 21st March, 2011 P.C. :- The petitioner seeks a mandamus, directing respondents No.1 to 6 to take appropriate action, including demolition of the alleged illegal constructions and modifications, carried out by respondent No.7 in the property, more particularly described in prayer (a) of the petition. 2. During the course of arguments, our attention was invited to the communication of the Town Planner, to the Sarpanch/Secretary of the Village Panchayat dated 23.10.2009 Annexure "P", page 166 of the paper book and the inspection report accompanying the said communication. 3. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that what has been done at the site can, by no stretch of imagination, be termed as minor deviations or alterations from the plan, but there is illegal and unauthorised change effected in the user, and without complying with the requirement of law commercial activities have been commenced in the areas which are not earmarked for the same and further the access has been blocked as noticed by the Town Planner during the site inspection. 4. Respondent No.2-Panchayat has filed an affidavit on 21st March, 2011, through its Secretary which, in para 2, states that a show cause notice dated 14.2.2011 has been issued to respondent No.7 and a reply was placed before the Village Panchayat meeting on 17th March, 2011. In paras 4 and 5 of this affidavit this is what is stated : "4. The Village Panchayat Body after considering the reply has directed the Respondent No.7 to comply with the letter bearing Ref. No.TPM/Tech/ Comp/2009/5800 dated 23.10.2009 pertaining to the irregularities pointed out by Respondent No.3 in the construction of Block A & B in the plot bearing survey No.31/1 & 3. 5. I say that the aforesaid decision of the Village Panchayat Body has been communicated to the Respondent No.7 vide letter dated 19/3/2011 bearing Ref No.VP/SVCG/2516/2010-11 and has been received by Respondent No.7 on 20/3/2011. Annexed hereto is the copy of the letter dated 19/3/2011 and marked as "Annexure R-1"." 5. Respondent No.7 states that what the Village Panchayat desires is to correct the irregularities and that is how this affidavit reads. Whereas, the Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Town Planner would urge that by no stretch of imagination can the Court be told that these are minor deviations and what has been done at site is a mere irregularity which is capable of being condoned or regularised. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at some length and it being submitted by Mr. Fereira appearing for the Village Panchayat that final decision is yet to be taken and what the Panchayat intends to do is to hear the affected parties, we do not think that this is a fit case to interfere in writ jurisdiction, at this stage. 7. The Village Panchayat is aware of the powers that it is supposed to be possessing in law. The understanding of the Secretary of the Panchayat can never be said to be the decision of the Panchayat. Therefore, we are sure that uninfluenced by what is stated in para 6 of this affidavit, the Panchayat will take appropriate action, in accordance with law, against the wrongful acts of respondent no.7. In furtherance of the show cause notice that the Panchayat must act after hearing respondent No.7 and the petitioner. The Panchayat shall take final decision in this behalf within a period of 4 weeks from today. The Panchayat should not be influenced by the contents of its affidavit. 8. It is also clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the controversy and all the pleas of both sides are kept open. 9. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All concerned to act on the basis of the authenticated copies of this order. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. ssm.