1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Writ Petition No.5/2008. AND Writ Petition No.226/2008. 1. Mr. Anacleto D'Souza, Sarpanch of V.P. Chicalim, major in age, business, C/o Panchayat Ghor, Chicalim, Goa. 2. V.P. Chicalim, through its Secretary, Panchayat Ghor, Chicalim, Goa. ... Petitioners. V/s 1. Mr. Alberto Fernandes, s/o late Pascoal Fernandes, major in age, service, r/o H.No. 164(A), Penta Ward, Chicalim, Goa. 2. Mr. Arthur Fernandes s/o late Jose Fernandes, r/o H.No. 163, Penta Ward, Chicalim, Goa. ... Respondents. Mr. Zeller D'Souza, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Michael Fernandes, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: R. C. Chavan, J. DATE: 13th August, 2008. 2 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, Village Panchayat has filed these two petitions challenging the grant of injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs by the learned Civil Judge in Regular Civil Suit No.35/2007 and by the learned District Judge­ 2 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.29/2007. 2. The respondents came up with a case that there was a public road from one corner of the Panchayat's compound which provided access to the villagers. This way was sought to be blocked by the Panchayat by raising a compound wall. The plaintiffs came with the case that they are unrestricted users of access in question and sought temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit, to restrain the respondents from obstructing their usage of the access in question. They had also sought mandatory injunction to have the compound wall demolished and to restrain appellant from causing any obstacles to the motorable access. The learned Civil Judge granted temporary injunction permitting motorable access, but rejected prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the compound wall. 3. Both the parties appealed before the District Court. Misc. Civil Appeal no.29/2007 by the plaintiffs was allowed and the respondent Gram Panchayat was directed by temporary mandatory injunction to demolish portion 3 of the wall which was obstructing motorable access. The appeal of Gram Panchayat, being Misc. Civil Appeal No.45/2007, was dismissed by Judgment dated 29.1.2008. These orders have been challenged by the present petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Gram Panchayat at adequate length. There can be no doubt that the High Court in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution could look into errors which require correction by examining of records of Courts and Tribunals below. The extent of this power has been elaborated by Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai V/s Ram Chander Rai & Ors reported at (2003) 6 SCC 675 on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance. It does not however follow that because the High Court has the power to look into the errors by Courts and Tribunals below, it must examine every error, which may better be corrected by an appellate forum. Just because the powers to issue writs are unrestricted, writ jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be invoked for correcting view taken by both the lower Courts on the basis of facts unfolded before them. Unless it is shown that it leads to an injury which cannot be remedied, a writ Court may not interfere at interlocutory stage of a proceedings. 5. The facts unfolded in these two petitions however show that far from there being any error, the Courts below have come to the only conclusion that 4 they could have drawn. The learned Counsel for the petitioner himself submitted that the portion of the wall in question which the Panchayat sought to construct did not exist for a number of years. Inspite of an adjournment, giving him almost two days to make inquiries, the learned Counsel for the Panchayat could not provide information as to for how many years the wall did not exist. From the permission sought from the Town and Country Planning Authorities, which is placed on record at page 147, it is clear that permission was sought for the first time from 2.7.2007. There is no hint in the document that a wall which existed was demolished and therefore had to be reconstructed. This would indicate that the appellant was trying to erect a wall where none existed, blocking the access. On the face of these facts the Courts below could not have come to the conclusion that the path in question did not exist, or was not used by the villagers. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner about the location of the house of plaintiffs and necessity to use the access is irrelevant. In a village, the villagers are not expected to walk only towards to their fields or schools or places where they are employed. They may walk to a neighbour's house as well. Therefore the question as to where the houses of the plaintiffs are located and how the plaintiffs will not be affected by the construction of wall are utterly irrelevant. Since the learned Trial Judge had permitted use of access, it would logically follow that wall blocking the access had to be demolished. Therefore temporary mandatory injunction was rightly granted by the learned District Judge 5 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.29/2007. 6. In this view of the matter, no case for invocation for writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution has been made out by the petitioners. Both the petitions are therefore summarily dismissed. R. C. Chavan, J. cg/­