Bharti Cellular Ltd. vs Village Panchayat Of Navelim And ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 600 Bom

JUDGMENT

Lavande A.P., J.

1. Heard Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Coutinho, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 7. Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 though served are absent. Rule. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice. By consent, heard forthwith.

2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 30-11-2004, passed by Additional Director of Panchayats, Panaji, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 178 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act', for short), challenging the orders dated 25-5-2004 and 20-7-2004, issued by respondent No. 1 Village Panchayat of Navelim, Salcete, directing the petitioner to dismentle cellular based station erected in the village at Buticas Navelim, Salcete. By the impugned judgment and order, the petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. According to Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Additional Director of Panchayats while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 178 of the Act could have only made a report and, thereafter, ought to have placed the matter before the Government for further appropriate steps. According to the learned Counsel, on that count itself the impugned judgment and order is without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court dated 17-12-2004 in Writ Petition No. 181/2004, in which this Court has held that the Director of Panchayats, by exercising jurisdiction under Section 178 of the Act, can only make his report and place the same before the Government for further appropriate steps. According to the learned Counsel, on this count alone the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. I find considerable merit in the submission of the learned Counsel in view of the judgment dated 17-12-2004, passed in Writ Petition No 181/2004. At this stage Mr. Nadkarni seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the Panchayat Petition No. 26/2004 filed under Section 178 of the Act. Mr. Nadkarni states that the petitioner would like to file an application for regularisation of the structure, which is ordered to be demolished by respondent No. 1, as permissible under the Village Panchayat Regulations. Mr. Nadkarni makes a statement that such an application will be filed within a period of one week from today. According to the learned Counsel, it would be just and proper that upon such an application being made by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 is directed to dispose of the said application in terms of the relevant rules. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 states that, in case the petitioner chooses to file such an application respondent No. 1 shall decide the same in accordance with the rules, after following the procedure laid down under the Rules.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30-11-2004 and permit the petitioner to withdraw the Panchayat Petition No. 26/2004, filed under Section 178 of the Act. Accordingly the impugned judgment and order dated 30-11 -2004 is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw Panchayat Petition No. 26/2004. In case the petitioner chooses to file an application for regularisation within one week from today, respondent No. 1 shall decide the same in accordance with the rules, after following the procedure laid down by the Rules, by giving opportunity of being heard to respondents Nos. 3 to 6 herein. In the event, the application for regularisation is made by the petitioner, within one week from today, order dated 25-5-2004 and 20-7-2004 shall not be implemented by respondent No. 1, until the application of the petitioner for regularisation is finally decided. In the event, such an application is not filed by the petitioner within one week, liberty to respondent No. 1 to implement orders dated 25-5-04 and 20-7-2004.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.