Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 1147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
M.S. Sonak, M.S. Jawalkar, JJ.
Village Panchayat Of Quelossim - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Movaj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1288 of 2021
Decided On : 05-07-2021
Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate, Raunak Kantak, Advocate, D.J. Pangam, Advocate, Deep Shirodkar, Advocate
The need for brief reasons for granting ex parte interim relief and the importance of a short returnable date for the affected party to be heard.
Headnote:
Panchayat Appeal - Stay Order - Panchayat Raj Act - [Panchayat Appeal, Stay Order, Panchayat Raj Act] - The court set aside the ex parte interim relief granted by the Additional Director of Panchayats, emphasizing the need for brief reasons for granting such relief and the importance of a short returnable date for the affected party to be heard. The court directed Respondent No.1 to refrain from illegal construction until the proceedings before the Additional Director are disposed of, and instructed the Additional Director to expedite the disposal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The Petition challenges the Order granting an ex parte stay on a stop notice issued by the Village Panchayat of Quelossim.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the ex parte interim relief and directed Respondent No.1 to refrain from illegal construction until the proceedings before the Additional Director are disposed of.
Issues: Challenge to ex parte stay order, continued construction despite court order, and apology tendered by Respondent No.1.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned ex parte interim order was set aside due to lack of reasons and the grant of final relief at the interim stage. Respondent No.1 was directed to refrain from illegal construction until the proceedings before the Additional Director are disposed of.
Final Decision: Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
M S Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias for the Petitioner, Mr. Raunak Kantak for Respondent No.1 and Mr. D. J. Pangam, the learned Advocate General with Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4.
2. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. The challenge in this Petition is to the Order dated 7th June, 2021, made by the Addl. Director of Panchayats at Margao, Goa , granting an ex parte stay on the stop notice dated 2nd June, 2021, issued by the Village Panchayat of Quelossim.
4. On 19th June, 2021, we made the following order in this matter :
"Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 21/6/2021. In addition to the usual mode of service, private service is also permitted.
3. Mr. Deep Shirodkar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appears and waives service on behalf of the respondents no.2, 3 and 4.
4. In this case, the Additional Director of Panchayat has stayed the notice and stop work order issued by the petitioner/panchayat. From the perusal of the order dated 7/6/2021 which is to be found at Annexure "H" page 49 of the paper book, there appears to be no reason as to why such ex parte relief has been granted. Further, the returnable date, is indicated as 24/6/2021, which means that the respondent no.1 can continue with the construction in the meanwhile.
5. Mr. Costa Frias, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the respondent no.1, relying on the ex parte order dated 7/6/2021 even refused to attend the site inspection which was scheduled on 7/6/2021.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid, we stay the impugned order dated 7/6/2021 till the next date i.e 21/6/2021.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid, we stay the impugned order dated 7/6/2021 till the next date i.e 21/6/2021.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid, we stay the impugned order dated 7/6/2021 till the next date i.e 21/6/2021.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid, we stay the impugned order dated 7/6/2021 till the next date i.e 21/6/2021.
7. This means that at least up to 21/6/2021, the respondent no.1 shall stand restrained from proceeding with any construction activity and will have to comply with the stay notice dated 2/6/2021 issued by the petitioner/panchayat.
8. The petitioner to take immediate steps to serve the respondent no.1.
9. Stand over to 21/6/2021."
5. Further, on 21st June, 2021, we made the following order :
"We have perused the affidavit in reply by the respondent No.1. To the affidavit is annexed the roznama as also the typed copy of the order by which ex-parte stay was granted by the Director on 07/06/2021. On perusing the typed copy, again, we find that only contentions have been recorded but there are no reasons given for grant of exparte stay order. Further, there is no justification or ground whatsoever as to why after grant of ex-parte stay order the hearing was fixed after 22 days i.e. on 24/06/2021.
2. Mr. Nigel Costa Frias, learned Advocate points out that even after service of the stay order by this Court on 20/06/2021, the respondent No.1 continued with the work. He submits that necessary affidavit alongwith photographic evidence will be filed in this Court by the next date.
3. The connected Writ Petition challenging the grant of permission in favour of the respondent No.1 is now posted for hearing on 05/07/2021. In the said petition, already, the statement has been made on behalf of the respondent No1 that no work of desilting will be carried out at the site till the next date.
4. Having regard to the copy of the order now placed before us, ad-interim order made by us which was to be continued till today is directed to continue until further orders.
5. Mr. Kantak, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 states that the respondent No.1/ their representatives will attend the site inspection which is scheduled on 24/06/2021. This statement i
