IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 104 OF 2010 SHRI VISHRAM KRISHNA KANTAK ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 9 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. Vahidulla, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 3. Coram:- NARESH H. PATIL & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 9th February, 2010 P.C. Heard. The petitioner filed an application, which the petitioner terms it to be a complaint addressed to the Chief Officer, Canacona Municipal Council dated 30.10.2009. In substance, the petitioner contends that the petitioner is owner in possession and in enjoyment of property under Survey No.36/15 and 36/16 situated at Patnem of Nagarsem Pallolem of Canacona Taluka for last 52 years and that the petitioner had issued NOC for installation of shacks and temporary structures to various people of his choice and after obtaining the NOC from the Chief Officer, they had carried out business in the said property for last several years. The petitioner contends that it was informed to him that some strangers were claiming ownership in respect of the subject-property and were trying to give bogus NOCs in the name of some persons to obtain NOC from the Municipal Council. The petitioner ultimately requested the Chief Officer that he is the only owner of the said property and under his NOC, NOCs may be issued to the persons of his choice. 2. By an order dated 13.11.2009, the Chief Officer, Canacona Municipal Council treated this application as complaint No.1/2009, wherein the petitoiner was shown as Party No.1 and some other persons were shown as Party No.2. The Chief Officer reached the conclusion that the complaint filed by the petitioner in respect of he being absolute owner was not acceptable to him. In the order of the Chief Officer, it is mentioned that all the applications of the applicants are allowed. However, grant of permission was subject to NOC from the Tourism Department and Fire Services, documents being in order and payment of fees as applicable. The Municipal Engineer was directed to supervise in the matter. The Chief Officer also observed that the order will not have any bearing on any Court case in respect of ownership of the land. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though civil proceedings are pending, he is not a party to the said proceedings. In the said proceedings, claim of co-ownership by one Warik, was not accepted by the Civil Court. It was further submitted that the third parties, under the NOCs granted by the Municipal Council, have occupied more areas than permissible and have illegally erected structures. The learned Counsel contended that the persons of the petitioner's choice, who were carrying on business of running shacks since last several years, were denied licences. 4. We have considered the submissions advanced before us and perused the order passed by the Chief Officer. This order is invited by the petitioner by filing a complaint before the Chief Officer. The Chief Officer has, in clear words, observed in the order that he is not a competent forum to decide in respect of possession of the property. The Chief Officer, thereafter, proceeded to grant temporary licence for a limited seasonal period. The Chief Officer did not enter into the ownership issue too. 5. Basically, we find that the complaint filed by the petitioner was in respect of grant of NOC to the persons of petitioner's choice. In the order, we find that the Chief Officer, while rejecting the complaint, granted licences in favour of the applicants whose names are Jason, Vivek and Deepak and permitted them to put up their shacks/restaurants in survey No. 36/15 and Santosh and Niki were permitted to put up their shacks in survey Nos.36/16, having frontage of 21 metres facing the Arabian Sea. We do not find any observations or findings of the Chief Officer, specifically dealing with grant or rejection of the NOC in favour of the persons who were nominated by the petitioner. 6. We have even noticed that the Municipal Council has issued notice dated 19.1.2010 to some licence holders for violation of licence conditions. We direct that in case the Municipal Council finds any violation of the licence conditions, immediate action shall be initiated against the erring licence holders, in accordance with law. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, we do not wish to enter into the questions of ownership or possession in respect of the subject-property. In case the petitioner finds that his nominees ought to get licences, the petitioner may resort to alternate remedies, as permissible in law. 7. For the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed. Dismissal of this petition will not affect the petitioner's claim, if the petitioner approaches any other forum for redressal of his grievances. NARESH H. PATIL, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. ssm.