: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 90 OF 2006 Sine Fine Advertising Pvt. Limited, Bardez-Goa. ... Petitioner. V/s. 1. Village Panchayat of Penha-de-Franca, Franca, Bardez-Goa. 2. Sallete Miranda E. Shetty, Bardez-Goa. ... Respondents. Rohit Bras De Sa for the petitioner. A.Kakodkar for respondent No.2. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. DATED : 16th August 2006. : 2 : P.C. : Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of parties petition is taken up for hearing. 2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 24th November, 2005 delivered by the Additional Director of Panchayats-II, Panaji, Goa in Panchayat Petition No.6/2005, whereby application dated 15th February, 2005 moved by the intervener/ petitioner herein came to be rejected. 3. The factual matrix reveals that respondent No.2 filed panchayat petition under section 178(1) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (“Act” for short) challenging Resolution No.11 dated 15th January, 2005 passed by respondent No.1- Panchayat revoking the licence granted in favour of respondent No.2 and praying for suspension thereof. : 3 : 4. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 got fraudulently transferred the licence standing in the name of the petitioner- Sine Fine Advertising Pvt.Ltd. in favour of respondent No.2. On the complaint of the petitioner, respondent No.1- Panchayat initiated action by adopting resolution bearing No.11 dated 15th January, 2005, whereby the licence transferred in favour of respondent No.2 was revoked. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid resolution, respondent No.2 preferred panchayat Petition before the Director of Panchayat, North Goa, Panaji; wherein the present petitioner moved an application dated 15th February, 2005 for intervention/ impleadment, which came to be rejected by the impugned order holding that the presence of the petitioner for adjudication of the issues involved in the panchayat petition is not necessary. : 4 : 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The undisputed facts reveal that the resolution No.11 dated 15th January, 2005 has been adopted by respondent No.1- Panchayat on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner being complaint dated 13th December, 2004 and that the licence was, initially, granted in favour of the petitioner. The said licence came to be transferred. At this juncture, it is not necessary to go to the reasons leading to transfer of licence. Suffice it to say that when the action is initiated on the complaint made by the petitioner and when the petitioner was referred to as part to the original resolution; which is challenged by respondent No.2 in the : 5 : panchayat petition, then the presence of the present petitioner in said panchayat petition cannot be denied. In the circumstances, instead of permitting the petitioner to be as party respondent in the said panchayat petition, the petitioner is only permitted to intervene in the said petition. No prejudice would be caused to respondent No.2, if the petitioner is allowed to intervene and make its submissions. The Additional Director of Panchayat shall hear the petitioner at the time of final hearing of the petition. 8. In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24th November, 2005 is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to intervene in the matter as intervenor. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (V.C. DAGA, J.)