Bombay High Court
Village Panchayat Of Sernabatim Thr. ... vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayats And 2 ... on 13 February, 2025
2025:BHC-GOA:215
2025:BHC-GOA:215 WP 398.2024 & WP 399.2024
Sonam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 399 OF 2024
Village Panchayat of Sernabatim
Vanelim-Colva-Gandaulim,
Salcete, Goa.
Through its Sarpanch
Mr. Suzie Fernandes,
47 years of age,
R/o H. No. 24, Pequeno Vanelim,
...Petitioner
Colva-Goa 403708.
Versus
1. The Deputy Director of Panchayats,
South Goa District,
Matanhy Saldanha
Administrative Complex,
2nd Floor, Room No. 228,
Margao, Goa.
2. The Block Development Officer-I,
Matanhy Saldanha
Administrative Complex,
2nd Floor, Room No. 228,
Margao, Goa.
3. Mr. Baltazar Rodrigues,
48 years,
R/o H. No. 297, 4th Ward,
Colva, Salcete, Goa. ...Respondents
Mr. Anthony Joe Dsilva, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Page 1 of 5
13th February, 2025
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2025 18:16:39 :::
WP 398.2024 & WP 399.2024
Mr. Shivdatt P. Munj, Additional Government Advocate for,
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Balkrishna Sardessai with Ms. Ashwini Bandekar, Advocates
for Respondent No. 3
CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
2. Rule.
3. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the
parties.
4. These petitions arise from two separate orders both dated
22.12.2023, passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats,
South Goa, Margao allowing two separate Appeals filed by
Respondent No. 3, purporting to be in terms of Section
201(A)(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act. Respondent No.3 had
originally applied through two separate applications for a
licence to use two premises constructed in Survey No. 16/14 of
13th February, 2025
WP 398.2024 & WP 399.2024
village Colvale, the first licence being one for use of the
structure for a Bakery and second for running a Restaurant.
5. The Colva Panchayat did not act upon these applications
and under the provisions of Section 70(2)A of the Act. On
expiration of 30 days from applying for the licence, it was
incumbent upon the Secretary of the Panchayat to forward these
applications to the Block Development Officer (BDO) for
exercising jurisdiction under Section 70(2A) of the Act to
consider the applications and grant or reject these applications.
Under this provision, the Applicant also has a right to file an
Appeal to the BDO, for the grant of the licence based upon the
applications which were pending before the Panchayat.
Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 filed an Appeal before the
BDO.
6. The BDO, on considering the applications has rejected
the same mainly, on the ground that the structures within which
the activity was to be conducted of the Bakery and Restaurant
was itself unauthorised and without required licences and
13th February, 2025
WP 398.2024 & WP 399.2024
permissions. Against the rejection of the applications by the
BDO, Respondent No. 3, preferred an Appeal before the
Deputy Director, purporting to be one in terms of Section
201(A)(2) of the Act, when such Revision was otherwise not
maintainable in terms of the provisions of Section 72(2)(A)
read with Section 72(3). In terms of Section 70(3) of the Act,
an Appeal is provided against the rejection of the applications
for licence under Section 70(2)(A) to the Director of the
Panchayats, which was the proper course to be filed by
Respondent No. 3 but, instead erroneously filed a Revision
under Section 201(A) of the Act.
7. Since the Deputy Director obviously has acted without
jurisdiction vested under provisions of the Act, the impugned
orders are required to be quashed and set aside. However,
following this course could leave Respondent No. 3 with no
remedy, as otherwise, he would be entitled to file an Appeal
under provisions of Section 72(3) of the Act, which he is
entitled now to file, subject to the Rules of limitation. In the
13th February, 2025
WP 398.2024 & WP 399.2024
event, such Appeal is filed, which the learned Advocate for
Respondent No.3 submits would be filed within 10 days from
today. The Director of Panchayats shall consider these Appeals
and to condone delay in filing the same after considering the
fact that Respondent No. 3 had erroneously approached the
wrong forum (Deputy Collector).
8. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders stand
quashed and set aside with the observations made above.
9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
13th February, 2025
