1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 485 OF 2009. NUSI/ITF Trust for Indian Seafarers registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 having its registered address at “Samudra Seema”, 5th Floor, Plot No.329, TPS III, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai- 400050 and was having its Hospital & Research Center at Panzorconi Cuncolim, Salcete Goa Duly represented by Mr. A. Gopalkrishan .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Chief Officer, Cuncolim Municipal Council, Cuncolim, Goa. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Goa Secretariat Porvorim, Goa. 3. The Chief Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, Panaji, Goa. 4. Wockhardt Hospitals Limited Through NUSI Wockhardt Hospital Cuncolim, Goa. Having Head Office Address at Wockhardt Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra-East, Mumbai- 400 051. .. Respondents. 2 Mr. Chandu Uday Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Bandodkar with Mr. Anant Upadhyay, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. P. A. Kholkar, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. S. M. Singbal, Advocate for the respondent No.4. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM :- S. B. DESHMUKH & U. D. SALVI, JJ. DATE : 8 th October, 2009 . ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per S. B. DESHMUKH, J) 1. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, the Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the Counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties finally. 3. With the assistance of the Counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the order impugned in this writ petition i.e. the order dated 02.06.2009 passed by the Chief Officer of the respondent No.1, Municipal Council. 3 Learned Senior Counsel addressed this Court on the merits of the petition. We have considered the submissions made by the Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. We have also considered the pleadings i.e. writ petition, reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1. The order impugned seems to be in nature of administrative order passed by the respondent No.1. It is not in dispute that show cause notice had been issued by the respondent No.1 i.e. the Chief Officer to the present petitioner. The subsequent order dated 02.06.2009 is an order directing the petitioner to stop the construction activity. It is apparent that even the time during which the petitioner was called upon to file its response/ reply to the notice i.e. show cause notice, the respondent No.1 did not wait and the order dated 02.06.2009 has been passed and the petitioner is being affected by the said order. The petitioner filed this writ petition before this Court on 15.07.2009. We have considered our earlier order passed on 06.08.2009. In substance, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the respondent No.1 Municipal Council after issuance of even 4 occupancy certificate annexed with the approved plan for the proposed building, issued show cause notice and stop work notice dated 01.06.2009 and 02.06.2009 respectively. 4. We are not listing all the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Counsel for the respective respondents since we are of the view to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.06.2009, permitting the present petitioner to file reply to show cause notice dated 01/06/2009. The respondent No.1 after receipt of such reply, shall consider the reply and pass an appropriate further reasoned order in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 02/06/2009, which is impugned in this writ petition, is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file reply to the show cause notice dated 01.06.2009 to the respondent No.1 within two weeks from today. On receipt of such reply, the respondent No.1 shall consider the reply and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the provisions of law and communicate the said order to the petitioner. In case the 5 order which is likely to be passed by the respondent No.1, is adverse to the petitioner, protection in favour of the petitioner from such proposed adverse order is granted for the period of two weeks thereafter enabling the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of law. 6. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The petition stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs. An authentic copy is permitted to the parties as per usual procedure and on their demand. S. B. DESHMUKH, J. U. D. SALVI, J. SMA