IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 200 OF 2009 SHRI. MAHADEV N. NAIK ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. V. R. Thamba , Advocate with Mr. Dhaval D. Zaveri, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for Respondent no.3. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 29th June, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Considering the controversy, the matter is taken up for final disposal. The grievance of the Petitioner is that competent Authority i.e. respondent no.3-Municipal Council is not taking any steps to remove encroachments and illegal constructions which have come up on his property. 3. Advocate Mr. Padiyar for respondent no.3-Municipal Council has filed an affidavit today mentioning that the appropriate notices have already been issued by respondent no.3-Municipal Council. He points out that as per Exhibit-A with said affidavit, show cause notices were issued on 05.01.2009 and 09.04.2009. Final notices have been issued on 09.04.2009 and 22.05.2009. He further states that recipients of those notices have approached Municipal Council Appellate Tribunal and obtained stay Orders on various dates as mentioned in that exhibit. 4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner states that Tribunal has permitted Petitioner to intervene in some matters and Petitioner proposes to intervene in all appeals. He further prays that proceedings before Tribunal should be made time bound. 5. Government Advocate Mr. Rodrigues for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 states that expeditious disposal of the appeals should be left to the discretion of the Tribunal as some old matters may be pending. 6. In view of this position, it is apparent that respondent no.3-Municipal Council has already discharged its obligation and now the issue is sub-judice before the Municipal Appellate Tribunal. We, therefore, permit the Petitioner to request to said Tribunal for expeditious and time bound disposal of his appeals and we hope that said Tribunal may, in accordance with its calendar, give due urgency to the appeals pending before it. 7. With these observations, present Writ Petition is disposed off with no Order as to costs. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. U. D. SALVI, J. arp/*