IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 540 OF 2010 MR. ANTON MACHADO ALIAS MR. ANTHONY CHARLES MACHADO ... Petitioner Versus THE SARPANCH, VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF SALIGAO AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Joseph Vaz, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 2nd September, 2010 P.C. Heard Mr. Vaz learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Menezes learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. 2. None present for other respondents though served. 3. Rule by consent. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Addl. Director of Panchayats dismissing the application for condonation of delay dated 8.10.2008 filed by the appellant. 4. The petitioner preferred appeal under section 66(7) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 challenging the notice dated 30.8.2009 by which the appellant was directed to stop construction of the compound wall. The appeal was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the appeal. 5. By the impugned judgment, the respondent No. 4 has refused to condone the delay on the primary ground that the petitioner had not filed any affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. 6. Mr. Vaz, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioner by the impuged judgment since his appeal has been dismissed as time barred. 7. Mr. Vaz seeks leave to file affidavit in support of the condonation of delay before respondent No. 4 within a period of four weeks. 8. Although Mr. Menezes seriously opposes the prayer made by Mr. Vaz, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant time of four weeks to file affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. 9. If such an affidavit is filed, the respondent No. 4 shall decide the application on its own merits after considering the materials on record, in accordance with law. 10. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the respondent No. 4 is quashed and set aside. 11. Petitioner is given liberty to file affidavit in support of the condonation of delay within a period of four weeks. in case the affidavit is not filed within a period of four weeks, the impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2009 shall stand revived. 12. Writ Petition stands disposed of on the above terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. MF/-