IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 348 OF 2010 MR. SURESH ANANT MIRASHI AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus STATE OF GOA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.D. Padiyar, Advocate for Respondent no.3. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.D.Naik, Advocate for Responsive no.4. Mr. M. Salkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mr. M. Pereira, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 24th June, 2010 P.C: We have heard the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the Learned Government Advocate for Respondent no.1, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents nos.2 and 3. The Learned Senior Cousnel appearing for Respondent no.4 is also heard. 2. The substantive prayer made in the writ petition is for issue of writ of mandamus or any other writ for a direction to the Respondents nos.1,2 and 3 to forthwith withdraw revoke and cancel the development permisison granted by the second respondent by order dated 22nd May, 2007 to the fourth respondent for construction of a temple. 3. The order dated 29th April, 2010 passed by this Court records that the second respondent has already issued stop work notices dated 15th April, 2009 and 16th April, 2009 directing the fourth respondent to stop construciton work. Grievance of the petitioner recorded in the said order was that despite the said stop work orders, the construction work was continued by the fourth respondent. This Court directed the fourth respondent to comply with the said stop work notices and not to carry on any construction activities till the disposal of the replies to stop work notices. This Court directed the Bailiff attached to the Civil Court at Margao to take photographs and to make a report as regards the present state of the construction. 4. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent has tendered an Affidavit of one Sandeep P. Surlakar on behalf of Respondent no.2. In the said Affidavit it is stated that in a meeting held on 14th June, 2010, a resolution was passed rejecting the submissions made on behalf of the fourth respondent and it has been resolved to revoke the permission. It is stated in the said affidavit that the minutes of the meeting dated 14th June, 2010 are to be confirmed in the next meeting of the second respondent. It is further stated in the said affidavit that after the minutes are confirmed a show cause notice will be issued to the respondent no.4, calling upon to show cause as to why the development permisison dated 22nd May, 2007 should not be revoked. We accept the statements made on oath on behalf of the second respondent. 5. The stop work notices are still in operation and the fourth respondent has acted upon the stop work notices and has stopped the construction work. The Learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent has stated that now a decision has been taken by the second respondent to issue show cause notice to the fourth respondent calling upon the said respondent to show cause as to why the development permission issued should not be revoked. We find that at this stage, the grievance of the petitioner has been substantially taken care of. The learned Cousnel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that action of the second respondent is illegal in as much as even before issuing show cause notice, the decision to revoke permisison has been taken. 6. In this petition we are not dealing with the merits of the show cause notice proposed to be issued. It is obvious that the parties to the petition will be free to challenge the decision taken by the second respondent. 7. It is also obvious that the so long as the stop work notices are not revoked, the fourth respondent cannot carry out any further construction. We direct the second respondent to issue show cause notice expeditiously and to conclude the proceedings on the basis of the show cause notices as expeditiously as possible. 8. The petition is accordingly disposed of by keeping the contentions of the parties open. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. ap/-