IMPORTANT POINT
Panchayats have locus to file writ petition.

JUDGMENT

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Whether a Village Panchayat established under Section 3 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’) or any other statutory dispensation existing prior to the enactment of the Act has the locus to file a petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution for setting aside an order passed by the designated officer exercising the power of an appellate authority qua the action/decision/resolution of the Village Panchayat is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals filed against order dated 18.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench in Writ Petition Nos. 16 and 312 of 2010.

3. M/s. Kay Jay Constructions Company Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter described as, ‘the company’) (respondent No.4 in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.1758 of 2011) was granted permission by the appellant in 2006 for raising construction on property bearing Survey No. 362/12 and part of Survey No. 362/10 at Porbawado, Calangute, Bardez. The company is said to have illegally constructed a wall and thereby blocked access to the water well situated in Survey No.362/10 and the chapel situated beyond Survey No.362/12 as also the existing water drains. When the local residents complained against the illegal construction, the appellant passed resolution dated 24.03.2008 for revocation of the occupancy certificate, which was issued by the Secretary on the basis of what were termed as manipulated resolutions passed on 22.12.2007 and 28.02.2008. The appellant passed another resolution dated 25.3.2009 and revoked the permission granted to the company. The latter challenged the same by filing Panchayat Petition No.6/2009 on the ground that the decision taken by the appellant was contrary to the rules of natural justice. On realizing that the action taken by it was not proper, the appellant revoked resolution dated 25.03.2009. Thereafter, the Sarpanch issued notice dated 29.7.2009 under Section 64 of the Act and directed the company to stop further construction. Simultaneously, he fixed 4.8.2009 as the date for inspection of the site. The company challenged the notice in Panchayat Appeal No.12/2009. Respondent No.1 - the Additional Director of Panchayat entertained the appeal and passed an ex-parte interim order dated 3.8.2009.

4. In the meanwhile, application dated 24.7.2009 was made on behalf of the company for grant of permission to use the property for running a guest house. The same was rejected by the appellant vide resolution dated 4.8.2009. The Managing Director of the company challenged the decision of the Gram Panchayat in Panchayat Appeal No.174/2009. On being noticed, the appellant made a request that hearing of Panchayat Appeal No. 174/2009 may be deferred till the disposal of Panchayat Appeal No. 12/2009 and it may be permitted to inspect the construction made by the company. Respondent No.1 rejected the appellant’s request and fixed Panchayat Appeal No.174/2009 for final hearing.

5. It is borne out from the record that some residents had also filed complaint before Block Development Officer, Bardez, Goa against the illegal construction raised by the company and the consequential blockage of access to the well and change of the natural flow of rain water resulting in water logging. Initially, the Block Development Officer passed an injunction order against the company but after considering the latter’s reply, he dismissed the complaint by observing that the construction made by the company was not illegal and any restriction on the use of property would seriously prejudice its cause.

6. The appellant challenged orders dated 3.8.2009 and 30.11.2009 passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 19.10.2009 passed by the Block Development Officer in Writ Petition No.16/2010 on the ground that respondent No.1 did not have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the notice issued under Section 64 of the Act and, in any case, such notice co