IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 720 OF 2010 SHRI LUIS JOSEPH TOSCANO ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 14 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. M. Salkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Agnelo F. Diniz, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. P. Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr. S. Padiyar, Advocate for Respondents Nos.5 to 15. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 28th March, 2011 ORAL ORDER : The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 18/09/2010 and the communication dated 18/10/2010, respectively of the respondents nos.1,2 & 3. 2. Our attention is invited to page 184 of the paper book where under the Health Officer, Urban Health Centre, Panaji-Goa, by the letter dated 18/10/2010 addressed to the Commissioner, Corporation of City of Panaji has revoked the permission dated 23/03/2005. That permission allowed the petitioner to run a restaurant in shop no.3, building no.11 of the respondent no.4, Society. 3. When the petition was called out today, the grievance was made that the notice dated 18/09/2010 is issued by the respondent no.2, the Directorate of Health Services, and without any hearing to the affected party namely, the petitioner, he has straight away informed the Commissioner of the Corporation that the licence stands revoked. This vitally affects the petitioner because he has been carrying on the business of running restaurant and has never encroached on the open spaces or areas as alleged by respondents nos.4 to 15 or conducted a barbeque so as to cause nuisance to the Society or its members. 4. At today's hearing, the learned Additional Government Advocate stated that even if any challenge to the order passed on 18/10/2010 is to be entertained that would not serve any purpose, because, the society had addressed a letter to the Commissioner of the Corporation of City of Panaji and the Deputy Director/Local (Health) Authority, pointing out that there is revocation of 'No Objection Certificate' by the Society. 5. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that an order passed by the Directorate of Health Services on 18/10/2010, in pursuance of show cause notice dated 18/09/2010, ought to have been made only after hearing the petitioner and the affected parties. It is clear that the petitioner's licence issued in the year 2005 stands revoked and the petitioner has no idea about the same because this communication is interse between the Directorate and the Corporation. It is in such circumstances that we have suggested to the Government Advocate that the competent Authority should hear not only the petitioner but the representative of the Co-operative Housing Society and the complainant members and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law afresh. This suggestion was accepted by the learned Additional Government Advocate and he has stated that such a hearing will be held and necessary orders passed as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six weeks from the date of the appearance of parties. 6. In the light of the above, we do not deem it fit to enter into any larger controversy and, particularly, on the merits of the matter. We keep the rival contentions open. It is clarified that no opinion is expressed thereon. The competent Authority should hear the matter and pass final orders within a period of six weeks from the date of appearance of the parties before it. The notices of such a hearing will be given not only to the petitioner but to the Co-operative Housing Society and to respondents nos.5 to 15, who shall designate their representative and whose submissions may be permitted to be canvassed and considered at the hearing. 7. The Writ Petition is therefore disposed of. The order dated 18/10/2010, copy of which is at page 184 of the paper book, stands withdrawn subject to the condition that the petitioner will abide by all terms and conditions of the licence issued on 25/03/2005 and will not carry on any activity contrary thereto. The petitioner's manager Shri Arul Raj is present in Court and he undertakes that the petitioner will not carry on any barbeque activity nor will cause any obstruction or interference or blocking or occupying of the open spaces or open area. The activity permitted under the licence will be carried on within the shop premises and will not be extended beyond the same. It is on this undertaking of the petitioner that we are allowing the petitioner to carry on the business from the shop premises in question, until the final orders in terms of these directions are passed by the competent Authority. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. NH