-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.862/2009 Mr. Paul J. Mendes, R/o. House no. 396, Povocao, Opp. Moira Club, Moira, Bardez, Goa. …....... Petitioner. Versus 1 The State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary, Porvorim, Bardez Goa. 2 The Town Planner, The Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Goa, Mapusa, Goa. 3 The Secretary, Village Panchayat of Moira, Bardez, Goa. 4 Director of Panchayat, 4th Floor, Junta House, Panaji Goa. 5 Block Development Officer, Mamlatdar Building, Mapusa Goa. 6 The Assistant Engineer, Sub Division III, Works Division 5, Public Works Department, Mapusa Goa. 7 Mr. Floriano C. Lobo, Proprietor of Landmark Construction, Pirazona, Moira, Bardez Goa. …....... Respondents. -2- Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. Bandodkar, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6. Respondent no.7 in person. CORAM :- S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. U. D. SALVI, J. DATE : 29th March, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT Rule, returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner challenges the construction put up by the respondent no. 7, on the grounds that it is contrary to the various rules and regulations. It is also contended that the respondent no. 7 does not have necessary sanction from the authority and/or that the construction is contrary to the sanction plan/approval. 3. The respondent no. 7 who appears in person makes a statement that no further construction is to be put up. He states that no further work in respect of the construction remain to be done. He further states that he is not going to put up any construction or carry -3- out any further construction work in respect of the said structure. The respondent no. 7, further states that he will put the purchasers in possession only after obtaining the occupation certificate and necessary permission. These statements are accepted. 4. There is nothing to indicate that the concerned authorities are not taking action in accordance with law. In fact, a copy of a letter dated 5.3.2010 tendered by the petitioner's counsel indicates the contrary. The same is taken on the record and marked as “X”. The respondent no. 7 on the other hand states that the petitioner has been illegally harassing him in respect of the said construction with a mala- fide intention. Parties namely the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 are at liberty to approach the appropriate authorities in respect of their grievances. 5. The prayer to restrain the authority from granting the occupancy certificate is rejected. The concerned authority will consider the same. -4- 6. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is discharged. S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. U. D. SALVI, J. vn*