B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:- With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing, considering the nature of controversy, by making Rule returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioners have purchased the plot of land admeasuring 7031 sq. mts. as 'Palcuta Premiera Adicao' and 'Palcuta Secunda Adicao', having survey no.87114 (part) of revenue Village Orlim, Salcete for the purposes of having a housing Scheme after obtaining necessary clearance from the Revenue Authorities and Town and Country Planning Authorities. On 19.8.08, the petitioners filed an application for issuance of construction licence and the same was issued to them on the payment of necessary fees. Thereafter, the petitioners also obtained No Objection Certificate from Primary Health Centre, Chinchinim, Government of Goa.

3. After this, on 25.11.2008, the petitioners received a show cause notice calling upon them to show cause as to why their licence for construction should not be revoked. The petitioners approached this Court in Writ Petition No.748/2008 and as this Court was not inclined, the petitioners withdrew their Writ Petition and filed the reply to show cause notice on 13.12.2008. After considering the said reply on 2.1.2009, the Secretary of respondent Village Panchayat informed the petitioners that licence issued to them on 19.8.08 has been revoked. The Petitioners have challenged the said order dated 2.1.2009 in the present matter.

4. We have heard the learned Advocate Shri. S. Usgaonkar for petitioners and the learned Advocate Shri. M. S. Sonak for respondent.

5. Learned Advocate Shri. Usgaonkar has after pointing out facts as mentioned above stated that The Goa Panchayat Raj Act. 1994 contemplates Panchayat and the Gram Sabha to be separate and distinct authorities. He has relied upon the provisions of Section 6 to point out the functions entrusted to the Gram Sabha and according to him. the consideration of construction licence given to the petitioners by the Panchayat is not the subject within its jurisdiction. He has also relied upon the provisions of Rule 9 of The Goa Daman & Diu Village Panchayats (Regulation of Buildings) Rules, 1971 to point out that the said Rule contemplates revocation only in circumstances stipulated therein and as no such circumstances are present in the present matter, the impugned order is liable to the quashed and set aside. He has also contended that the objection of alternate remedy raised by respondent in affidavit-in-reply is misconceived because neither Section 178 nor Section 201 (A) enables petitioners to move appeal in such circumstances. He contends that reason of demography given by respondent is misconceived and is contrary to the Rules and Regulations framed under The Goa Panchayat Raj Act. According to him, the entire action is without jurisdiction and as it violates the rights of present petitioners, this Court should interfere in the matter and the construction licence issued to petitioners should be restored by quashing and setting aside the impugned order.

6. Learned Advocate Shri, Sonak on the other hand has contended that this Court should not interfere in the matter as the statute has provided alternate remedy to the respondent. In order to substantiate his contention, he argued that the last part of the said Section 20 I-A which deals with refusal of any request by the authority, etc. cannot qualify earlier part of the said provision and he relies upon the explanation of the said Section to contend that the said explanation itself shows that the refusal contemplated in the said Section is one of the species and genus as such has not been expressly mentioned in it to keep the remedy wide open. According to him, the order passed by Panchayat or any action or the resolution of Panchayat can thus be challenged under Section 201-A. He has invited our attention to the provisions of Section 6 of sub-Section (1) and also Section 6(4) and Section 6(5) that the Gram Sabha is the supreme body an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document