1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.338 OF 2000 1. Shri. Anthony De Costa s/o. Antonio D. de Costa. Represented by his attorney Shri. Nicolau Lino De Costa; And 2. Smt. Moizinha D'Costa, wife of Shri. Anthony De Costa Both major, resident of Piqueno Morod, Saligao Baardez-Goa. ...... Petitioners. Versus 1. Director, Directorate of Panchayat, Government of Goa, Junta House, 3rd Floor, Panaji, Goa. 2. Village Panchayat of Saligao, represented by its Sarpanch Shri. Dayanand Mandrekar resident of Saligao, Bardez- Goa. 3. Smt. Ophelia A.E.Fernandes, resident of Piquno Morod, Saligao-Bardez, Goa. ..... Respondents. Mr.D. P. Bhise,Advocate for the petitioner. Coram :- R.M.S.KHANDEPARKA,J. Date : - 18th March, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 2 1. Heard. By the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the authority rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for joining them as party to the proceedings. The proceedings which are initiated before the Lower Appellate Authority under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act related to the grievance of the respondent that regarding his complaint about the alleged blockage of access/pathway by the petitioners, the cognizance was not being taken by the Village Panchayat of Saligaon nor any action has been taken in relation to the alleged blockage of access/pathway done by the petitioners. Considering the same, the Lower Appellate Authority directed the Panchayat to take cognizance of the said complaint and take appropriate action in that regard. 2. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner before disposing of the said appeal under section 73 of Goa Panchayat Raj Act it was necessary for the respondent to join the petitioners as party respondents to the said appeal so that the petitioners can place before the Lower Appellate Authority all the relevant facts in relation to the alleged blockage of access/pathway. 3. Considering the fact that the Lower Appellate Authority was not dealing with the matter on the merits, but was concerned only with the fact that the Panchayat was even reluctant to take the 3 cognizance of the complaints filed by the respondents in relation to the alleged blockage of access/pathway stated to have been done by the petitioner, the question of the petitioner being heard in the matter did not arise before the Lower Appellate Authority. By the order which the Lower Appellate Authority was expected to pass in the appeal filed by the respondents was in no way adverse to the interest of the petitioners nor in relation to the alleged blockage of access/pathway in question as such. The appeal, accordingly, related to the fact that the concerned Panchayat Authority had failed to take even cognizance of the complaint regarding the blockage of access/pathway which is stated to have been illegal. In this view of the matter, I don't find any illegality committed either by the Lower Authority nor there is any fraud as such played by the respondents upon the Court in non-joining the petitioners as party to the said proceedings. The petitioner cannot make grievance of alleged failure on the part of the respondents to join the petitioners as party to such proceedings without disclosing any interest of the petitioners having been affected by the order which was passed by the Lower Appellate Authority in the said proceedings. The perusal of the order which was passed by the Lower Authority on the appeal filed by the respondents apparently discloses that the Lower Appellate Authority had merely directed the Panchayat to look into the complaints filed by the respondents and nothing beyond that. Being so, there is absolutely no any case made out for the interference by this Court in the impugned 4 order in writ jurisdiction in the matter. 4. Since the impugned order has nowhere dealt with the issue regarding the alleged blockage or pathway nor has commented in any manner on merits of the case in that regard, a question of interference in the impugned order does not arise. The impugned order nowhere debar the petitioners from taking an appropriate steps or initiating appropriate proceedings to protect their interest in relation to the alleged blockage of access/pathway. 5. For the reasons stated above, therefore, the petition fails and, accordingly, dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs. R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. SMA