IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 479 OF 2008 SRIKRISHNA JAIRAM SHETYE THROUGH ATTORNEY KASHINATH JAIRAM SHETYE ... Petitioner Versus CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PANAJI THROUGH COMMISSIONER ... Respondent Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 6th August, 2008 P.C. 1. The petitioner has filed the petition and seeks a writ of Mandamus to the Corporation directing it to restore a stall which was demolished by the Corporation without any notice and hearing. 2. Annexures to the petition include an agreement by the petitioner Srikrishna Jairam Shetye with Madhumilan Naik who is residing at Ribandar, Goa. The said Madhumilan Naik claims to have been permitted to carry on business of stationery handcart/gada no.276, Registration no.29, ward No.II, near Ribandar hospital. 3. The said Madhumilan Naik entered into an agreement with the petitioner for sale of the handcart/gada alongwith licence for Rs.20,000/-. The schedule to this agreement clearly refers to the ownership of the vendor of the subject handcart. 4. Throughout the petition, the petitioner names this handcart/gada as a structure which he had put up and for which he claims to have been duly issued a No Objection Certificate by the Assistant Divisional Officer, Fire and Emergency Service and Registration under Goa, Daman and Diu Shops and Establishment Rules. 5. When the attention of the petitioner was invited to the agreement and the registration certificate so also the No Objection Certificate of the Officer of Fire and Emergency Service and particularly to the clause with regard to the nature of business "Fast Food Restaurant", the petitioner who is represented through his power of attorney and is present in the Court instructed his Advocate to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Corporation for renewal/issuance of handcart licence in the name of the petitioner. He stated that the structure which was put up having already been demolished, the petitioner will not claim any right, title or interest in the land on which it was constructed. The petitioner will not also seek re-construction of the structure nor take any steps to re-construct or construction of a permanent structure of the nature earlier occupied by him. The petitioner will not put up any temporary structure or stall at that place. All that he seeks is to approach the Corporation for issuance of a handcart licence in his name and the Corporation, if approached, shall consider his application uninfluenced by the fact that the construction of the petitioner has been demolished. 6. Granting this limited liberty, the petitioner is allowed to withdraw the petition and it is dismissed as such. The Corporation to consider the application if made, as expeditiously as possible and within a period of 15 days of its receipt. No costs. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. R.C. CHAVAN, J. lh/.