1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 5 OF 2010. 1. Mr. Anthony Pereira, Age 55 years, r/o H.No.E4/134, Porabavaddo, Calangute, Bardez-Goa. 2. Mr. Anjelo Pereira, Age 72 years, r/o. H.No.E/4/135, Porabavaddo, Calangute, Bardez-Goa 3. Mr. Celestino Fernandes, Age 46 years, r/o H.No.E/4/132,Porabavaddo, Calangute, Bardez- Goa 4. Mr. Domnic Pereira, Age 66 years, r/o H.No.E/4/133A, Porabavaddo, Calangute, Bardez-Goa. .. Petitioners. V e r s u s 1. The Additional Director of Panchayat II, Government of Goa, Junta House, Panaji-Goa. 2. Block Development Officer, Bardez Taluka, Mapusa, Goa. 3. State of Goa through Secretary (Panchayat), Secretariat Porvorim, Goa 4. Village Panchayat Calangute through it's Sarpanch/ Secretary, Having office at Calangute, Bardez-Goa 5. M/s. Kay Jay Constructions Company Pvt. Ltd. 2 through its Director, Porba vaddo, Calangute, Bardez-Goa. 6. Assistant Engineer, Electricity Department, Candolim, Bardez, Goa. (deleted as per order dated 22/4/2010) .. Respondents Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Linhares,Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1,2,3 and 6. Mr. P. A. Kamat, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. S. Lotlikar, Advocate for respondent no.5. CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE, J. Reserved on : 15 th October, 2010. Pronounced on : 20 th October, 2010. ORDER : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 19th October, 2009 passed by the Block Development Officer – respondent no.2 disposing of the complaint made by the petitioners against respondent no.5. The petitioners alleged that respondent no.5 was carrying out illegal construction in the property bearing survey nos.362/12 and 362/10. Since the Panchayat did not take any action in 3 the matter, the petitioners filed a complaint before the Panchayat, pursuant to which Panchayat issued notice to respondent no.5 ordering to stop construction against which appeal was filed before the Additional Director of Panchayat, which was stayed ex-parte. In the mean time, the petitioners filed complaint before the Block Development Officer – respondent no.2. Initially by order dated 26th August, 2009, he issued stop work order. Thereafter, by judgment and order dated 19th October, 2009, respondent no.2 observed that the construction is not illegal and permitted respondent no.2 to carry out work which has been legally approved following the conditions laid down in the construction licences and other approvals. The petitioners have challenged the said order on various grounds including the ground that the petitioners were not heard by respondent no.2 before passing the judgment and order. 3. Respondent no.4 – Panchayat has filed affidavit dated 12th October, 2010, in which, it has been stated that the issue of complaints of the petitioners about the illegal construction is pending. In it, it is stated that the Panchayat will initially conduct inspection and after inspection and verification of the complaints, the Panchayat will take further action and in case any illegal construction is found, then the 4 Panchayat will issue show cause notice and take further action. 4. No doubt, respondent no. 2 by the impugned judgment and order has held that the construction is legal and has permitted respondent no.5 to carry out construction in terms of approvals/ permissions granted. It, therefore, will necessarily follow that respondent no.5 is entitled to carry out construction in terms of approved plans and approvals. In terms of section 66(3) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994('The Act' for short), the Panchayat is entitled to find out if any building is constructed, erected, added, reconstructed without permission or in any manner contrary to the rules prescribed or any conditions imposed by the permission granted and take appropriate steps in terms of sub sections (3) and (4) of Section 66 of the Act. 5. Since respondent no.4, which is entitled to find out if the construction is legal or illegal, has stated that it is going to take action in accordance with the provisions of the Act, I do not deem it necessary to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Needless to mention that I have not expressed any opinion on merits of the impugned judgment and order. The respondent no.4 is entitled to verify and find 5 out if the construction carried out by respondent no.5 is accordance with plans and approvals granted. 6. Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA