w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Kenilworth Beach Resort, (Hospitality Resorts Ltd), through Indrajit Ray, Financial Controller v/s State of Goa, Through Secretary, Secretariat & Others

    WRIT PETITION NO. 197 OF 2010
    Decided On, 18 March 2010
    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
    For the Petitioner : S.G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1 & R2, S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. M. Salkar, Addl. Government Advocate, R3, Ryan Menezes, Advocate.

Judgment Text
Oral Judgment: (S. J. Vazifdar, J.)

Rule, is made returnable and heard forthwith.

2. The Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 16.02.2010, passed by the Respondent no.3-Village Panchayat of Majorda-Utorda-Calata. The Petitioner had sought permission to put up a shack in accordance with a policy of erection of such shacks dated 14.08.2008. The Tourism Department granted its NOC to the same on 02.11.2009. The Petitioner thereafter applied to the Village Panachayat on 23.11.2009 for the said permission. Respondent no.3, instead of deciding the application, stated thus:

?With reference to the above, I am to inform you that your above mentioned application dated 21.12.2009 was placed before the Panchayat body meeting held on 30.12.2009 and decided by the Panchayat body to refer the same to Village Panchayat Advocate for legal advice. On the above matter legal advice has been received from Adv. Zeller C. D' Souza stating that no erection of any temporary shack can take place in any part of the said survey bearing No. 42/1. For your reference herewith this Panchayat enclosed copy of the legal opinion given by the Advocate dated 01/02/2010 received by this office on 12/2/2010.?

3. The Respondent no.3 ought to have decided the application itself independently, without being bound by a legal opinion. The Order contains no reasons whatsoever. It is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

4. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of by the following order :


The impugned Order dated 16.02.2010 is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.3 shall decide the matter afresh after giving the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The applicant for intervention before us is at liberty and shall be entitled to be heard by the Respondent no.3 in respect of the Petitioner's application. All the questions are kept open. Considering the urgency in the matter, the parties shall appear before Respondent no.3 in the first instance at 11.00 a.m. on 22.03.2010 and thereafter as they may be directed by the Respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 is requested to decide the application and communicate the decision t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
o the Petitioner and the intervenor on or before 05.04.2010. 5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 6. All the parties are directed to act upon a copy of this Order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar.