IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 342 OF 2009 SHRI. RAVINDRA V. KENKRE ... Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. G. Bhonsale, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 to 3. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 13th July, 2009 P.C. Heard respective Counsel. Our attention has been invited to the provisions of Section 38 of Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, which provides a statutory appeal to District Court and its clause 1(ii) specifically permits the ground of violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules. 2. Advocate Lawande has contended that the petitioner was never heard and was always kept under the impression that without hearing him, nothing would happen. 3. In view of the remedy of appeal available to the Petitioner, we are not considering the said stand in the present Writ Petition. Petitioner is free to raise the same before District Court in accordance with law. If the Petitioner filed his appeal within a period of seven days from today, the District Court shall consider his prayer for condonation of delay sympathetically in accordance with law. It is made clear that our Order shall not prejudice the rights and defences available to the respondents in the matter. Petition is accordingly disposed off with liberty to Petitioner. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. U. D. SALVI, J. arp/*