IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 228 OF 2010 MR. CAMILO DOMINGOS FERNANDES AND ANR. ... Petitioner Versus SOUTH GOA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY AND 2 ORS. ... Respondent Mr. A. F. Diniz,Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.D. Padiyar,Advocate for Respondent no.2. Mr.C.A. Coutinho,Advocate for Respondent no.3. Mr. M. Pereira, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 4th August, 2010 P.C: We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent(South Goa Planning and Development Authority) and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, the Municipal Council. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Planning and Development Authority, on instructions, states that the completion certificate to the structure erected by the third respondent will not be granted, unless a road/access having actual width of 6 metres is found to be on the site in terms of the Regulation no.4(A).4 of the Development and Planning Regulations 2000. We accept the statement. 3. The statement shows that as of today a clear access having width of 6 meters terms of the Regulations is not available. In view of the aforesaid statement, it is very clear that the third respondent will not be entitled to the completion certificate, unless an access/road having the width of 6 metres in terms of the Regulation no.4(A).4 is shown to be existing on the site. It is obvious that unless the completion certificate is issued by the Planning and Development Authority, the second respondent cannot grant occupancy certificate. 4. The basic grievance of the Petitioners is that the construction has been carried out by the third respodnent without making available an access having the width of 6 metres. Now the statement of the Planning and Development Authority, which is recorded above, will take care of the basic grievance of the Petitioners. Unless the requirement of having proper access is complied with, the building erected by the third respondent cannot be occupied. 5. We make it clear that the requirement of Regulation no.4(A).4 is that a clear accesses having the width of 6 metres must be shown to be in existence on the site. 6. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order: a) We accept the statement of the first respondent which is recorded above. b) We direct that the second respondent shall not issue occupancy certificate unless the completion certificate is issued by the first respondent i.e Planning and Development Authority. c) We make it clear that as a consequence of the disposal of the petition, if the third respondent proceeds with the work of construction, the third respondent will not be entitled to claim any equity on the basis of the construction carried out. d) There shall be no orders as to costs. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. ap/-