JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waive notice.

2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Block Development Officer, Respondent no.2, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa, and the Resolution dated 25.09.2021 passed by the Village Panchayat-Respondent no.3, of Arpora, Nagoa, by which an Order passed by the Block Development Officer on 01.12.2020 was restored. The Petitioners are tenants of Respondent no.1 who seek to carry out repairs of the tenanted premises being House no. 220 at Arpora Bardez, Goa.

3. The first Respondent, herein after referred to as the Landlord, is opposed to the Petitioners. The second Respondent, is the Block Development Officer (BDO) and the third Respondent is the Village Panchayat. The allegation in the Petition is that the Landlord is “managing authorities” into passing orders without hearing the Petitioners and, as a result of which, the Petitioners are required to file multiple Petitions and engage in litigations running from pillar to post only to carry out certain repairs to their structures.

4. The main ground of challenge to the impugned orders and as canvassed by Ms. Agni, learned Senior Counsel representing the Petitioners, is that the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. No hearing was granted to the Petitioners prior to passing the impugned orders. Therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated and non est; that having been said that it is not seriously disputed that the order of the BDO could have been challenged before the District Court under Section 201 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and Rules (Panchayat Raj Act, for short) but since it is allegedly in breach of principles of natural justice. Ms. Agni submitted that it is appropriate that this Court examined the conduct of the authorities and grant relief.

FACTS IN BRIEF

5. It is the Petitioners' case that on 15.08.2019, a portion of the northern side wall of the house was endangered upon some mud falling out. The southern side wall also had developed cracks and therefore, these two walls required repairs. It is contended that Respondent no.1 constructed sheds made of mild steel poles covered with acrylic sheets and galvanized sheets to both northern and southern sides of the tenement which had caused damage to the load bearing walls of the tenement. The Petitioners apparently served a notice calling upon the landlord to carry out the repairs to the walls. The Petitioners contended that the damage was caused due to the putting up of sheds by the landlord. They proceeded to get the premises inspected through the Architect one Mr. Dhuri, who opined that the walls had been affected on account of the sheds erected by the landlord. Apparently, the sheds were erected by the landlord without any permission from the Village Panchayat.

6. It is contended that the landlord having failed to carry out the repairs despite requests, the Petitioners approached the Rent Tribunal, North Goa, Mapusa, seeking interim relief. However, pending this application, on or about 26.10.2019, a large portion of the southern wall collapsed; that portion was being used by Petitioner no.2. Initially the architect had advised that the wall only required plastering however, before that could be done, part of the southern wall collapsed. Meanwhile, the landlord filed an application under Section 33 of the Rent Control Act proposing to reconstruct the house. In fact, the landlord had mischievously demolished House no. 220 in an attempt to create obstacles in the Petitioners' attempt to repair the wall. Soon thereafter, the pandemic driven lock down frustrated all the attempts to get the walls repaired. The Petitioners approached this Court in the year 2020 and the Court expedited the hearing of the rent application. An application for interim relief sought by the Petitioners was rejected on 27.05.2020; that r