JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate, who appears along with Mr. T. Sequeira for the Petitioner, Mr. Andrade for respondent no.2 and Mr. Vilas Thali for respondent no.3.

2. By order dated 05.05.2022, notices were issued to the respondents indicating that this petition will be finally disposed of at the admission stage. Accordingly, we issue Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. On 26.04.2022, the Petitioner filed a complaint to respondent no.2 (Panchayat) about the commencement of illegal construction in Survey No.274/15 by respondent no.3. The Petitioner enclosed coloured photographs of the ongoing construction and requested appropriate action to stop/demolish the illegal construction.

4. On receipt of the complaint, the acting Sarpanch, on 26.04.2022, issued a stop work notice under Section 64(J) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (said Act), requiring respondent no.3 to stop the illegal activity of construction immediately and to present himself in the office within three days along with all the documents to prove that the construction undertaken is not unlawful or is backed by permissions from various departments. This stop work notice stated that if respondent no.3 failed to produce the necessary documents, it would be presumed that he has nothing to say in the matter, and further action in terms of Section 66 of the said Act will be initiated against the said construction.

5. The Petitioner has pleaded, and with some justification, that after issuing the above stop work notice dated 26.04.2022, the Panchayat did not bother to ensure its implementation. Additionally, the Petitioner has pleaded that the construction continued on a war footing despite service of stop work notice on respondent no.3. Therefore, the Petitioner instituted this petition on 02.05.2022 and obtained circulation on 05.05.2022.

6. In writing on 02.05.2022, the Petitioner informed the Panchayat about the institution of the petition and its hearing on 05.05.2022. In this communication, the Petitioner pointed out that even though the Petitioner was made to believe that a stay notice was issued to respondent no.3, the construction continued. Additionally, the Petitioner pointed out that the Panchayat had taken no steps to enforce its stop work notice, no panchanama was drawn, and the matter was not taken to its logical conclusion. The Petitioner also enclosed new photographs of the ongoing construction.

7. On 05.05.2022, this Court, upon hearing the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, made the following order:-

"1. Heard Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel who appears along with Mr. Terence Sequeira, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Priolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appears for respondent no.1.

2. Issue notice to respondent nos.2 & 3, returnable on 07.06.2022. The notice to indicate that this petition will be finally disposed of at the stage of admission.

3. Mr. Lotlikar points out that acting Sarpanch has already issued a Stop Work Order dated 26.04.2022. He, however, submits that respondent no.3 continues with the work.

4. Since, the Stop Work Order has already been issued, it is the duty of the Panchayat to enforce the same. Therefore, until the Stop Work Order is in operation the respondent no.3 shall not undertake any further construction at the site and maintain status quo in all respects.

5. The respondent no.2 should visit the site and make a record of the status quo. The Panchayat should ensure compliance of its own Stop Work Order as well as the restraint order now made by this Court.'

8. By communication dated 06.05.2022, the Petitioner forwarded the above order to the Panchayat and requested the Panchayat to ensure compliance with its stop work notice. On 19.05.2022, the Petitioner once again requested the Panchayat to provide an upda