IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 811 OF 2009 MR. ANTONIO I. J. D'SOUZA THROUGH P.O.A. MR. PIEDADE BAPTISTA ... Petitioner Versus VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF MAJORDA-UTORDA-CALATA THROUGH SARPANCH AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. Seth, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Zeller D'souza, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Karpe, Advocate for respondent no.2. Ms. S. Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 5th January, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. S. Seth, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D'Souza, learned Counsel for respondent no.1, Mr. Coleho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.2 and Ms. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.3 and 4. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 4th November, 2009 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayat, Margaon dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 66(7) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('The Act' for short). 3. Mr. Seth, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Section 201(B) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 which has been introduced with effect from 15th October, 2010, the petitioner desires to avail of remedy of revision before the District Court, South Goa, Margao. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw the petition and further submits that interim protection granted by this Court be continued for a period of three weeks. 4. Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.2 submits that since the petition was filed on 1st December, 2009, the petitioner is not entitled to avail of the remedy of revision under Section 201(B) of the Act which has come into force with effect from 15th October, 2010. 5. In view of the leave sought by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn. In view of specific objection taken by Mr. Coelho Pereira regarding the maintainability of the revision application before the District Court, the issue of maintainability of revision application is kept open. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to continue status-quo order passed on 4th December, 2009 for a period of three weeks only. Upon expiry of the period of three weeks, the interim order shall stand vacated. It is also made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits on the rival claims of the parties. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA