IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 690 OF 2010 MR. DOMNIC FERNANDES AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF CANA BENAULIM THROUGH ITS SARPANCH AND 6 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. B. Rodrigues, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No. 2,3,4,5 and 7. Mr. M.S. Sonak, Advocate for Respondent No. 6. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 26th October, 2010 P.C. Heard Mr. Frias, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B. Rodrigues, learned Counsel for respondent no. 1, Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no. 2,3,4,5 and 7 and Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel for respondent no. 6. 2. By this petition, the petitioners has sought the following reliefs: (a) For a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropirate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the impugned order dated 20-07-2010 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayat-I (South) at Margao in Panchayat Appeal No. 37/10. (b) For a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the construction licence dated 23-06-2010 bearing No. VPCB/16/2010-11 issued by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 6 and the NOC dated 29-04-2010 bearing no. TPM/CONST/BEN/268/6/09/1575 issued by respondent no. 4 to respondent no. 6. (c) For interim relief's restraining respondent no. 6 from carrying out further construction in the property bearing survey no. 26/8 (plot B) of village Benaulim, Salcete, Goa pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition. (d) For a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby to direct respondent no. 5 and 7 to take action as per law in regards issues raised by the petitioners the school under the Goa Education school act after hearing the petitioners. 3. Affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent no. 6 is taken on record. 4. Mr. Rodrigues fairly concedes that the impugned order dated 20-07-2010 passed by respondent no. 2 is without jurisdiction and the issue is squarely covered by the judgement delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 02-03-2006 in Writ Petition no. 7/2006. In almost similar circumstances the learned Single Judge has held that appeal under Section 66(7) of the Panchayat Raj Act was not maintainable. 5. In view of the above, order dated 20-07-2010 passed by respondent no. 2 in panchayat appeal no. MAR-I 37/2010 is quashed and set aside. In so far as relief (b) is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to avail of an appropriate remedy as may be available in law. Further, the respondent no. 6 is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy available in law against the order passed by respondent no. 1 or its Sarpanch. I have not expressed any opinion in the merits of the rival claims. 6. Writ Petition stands disposed of. Parties to act on the copy duly authenticated. A. P. LAVANDE, J. EV