The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Deputy Director to direct the grant of permission based on relevant documents and clearances, especially in cases where the Panchayat fails to communicate its decision within the specified time.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri Simoes, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of respondent no. 1. None for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. Heard finally by consent.

2. By this petition, the Village Panchayat of Betqui-Candola is challenging the judgment and order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3, thereby confirming the order dated 08.07.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2, directing the petitioner to grant permission/renewal of the construction license to the respondent no. 1.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus:

That, respondent no. 1 had applied for a license for construction of residential cum commercial complex and compound wall in Survey No. 112 (part) of village Candola, Ponda, Goa. That license, was issued by the petitioner on 10.02.2012. That license, was signed by the Sarpanch of the petitioner-Village Panchayat. The said license was valid for a period of three years.

On 07.02.2015, the respondent no. 1 applied for renewal of the license and submitted a revised plan. According to the petitioner, the revised plan showed the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) in the proposed complex. However, the respondent no. 1 had not produced the consent from the Goa State Pollution Control Board.

On 26.05.2015, the respondent no. 1 sought return of the proposal/file stating that, it would be re-submitted after obtaining the approval of Primary Health Centre. It appears that on 28.05.2015 the application/proposal for renewal/approval of the revised plan was re-submitted alongwith No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Health Officer. On 15.06.2015, the petitioner passed a resolution seeking clarification from respondent no. 1 on certain aspects. The respondent no. 1 instead of replying the same, filed an appeal under Section 66(2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act of 1994, for short) before the Deputy Director on 15.06.2015. On 07.07.2015, a joint site inspection was proposed. Ultimately, the Appellate Authority by order dated 08.07.2015 directed the petitioner to grant renewal of the construction license dated 10.02.2012 for residential cum commercial complex (revised plan) as per technical clearance dated 06.02.2015 issued by the Town and Country Planning Department, Ponda, Goa. The petitioner was directed to grant the renewal within six days from the date of the order. Incidentally, the order stipulates that the Secretary of the Village Panchayat shall execute the order in terms of Section 47-B of the Act of 1994. It is undisputed that in pursuance to the said order dated 08.07.2015, the petitioner had granted permission on 11.08.2015, which is signed by the Secretary of the Panchayat. Feeling aggrieved, by the order of the Deputy Director, the petitioner challenged the same before the Additional Director of Panchayat in an appeal under Section 66(7) of the Act of 1994. The learned Additional Director of Panchayat by judgment and order dated 07.08.2015 has dismissed the appeal and that is how, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. I have heard Shri Frias, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 1. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.

5. It is submitted by Shri Frias, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the technical clearance, granted by the Town and Country Planning Department, the Village Panchayat has to ensure about requirement of the availability of Power and other infrastructure. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 has not given any satisfactory reply about compliance of the said requirement. Thus, the petitioner could not have been directed by the learned Deputy Director to issue the license. The learned Counsel would submit that in an appeal under Section 66(2) of the Act of 1994, at the most, the petitioner could have been asked to consider the grant of license on its own merits.

6. It is next