The Act of 2016 does not provide for the applicability of any provision of the Limitation Act, including Sec. 5, which would empower Respondent No.3 to condone the delay in filing the Appeal.

JUDGMENT

1. This Writ Petition was originally ordered to be heard along with Writ Petition No.1389 of 2021 (F) as the parties were the same. However, all parties have agreed that Writ Petition No.1947 of 2021 (F) be heard first and disposed of and thereafter Writ Petition No.1389 of 2021 (F) be taken up. Accordingly, Rule is issued in the above Writ Petition. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. Writ Petition No.1947 of 2021 (F) [the above Writ Petition] was originally disposed of by a Judgment and Order dtd. 3/8/2022. After this order was passed, the Petitioner herein, preferred a Review Application to review/set aside the said order inter alia on the ground that the said order did not take into consideration the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2015) 7 SCC 58], and neither did it consider or deal with the arguments canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner [on the basis of the said Judgment]. This Court, after hearing the parties, by its order dtd. 10/1/2023, allowed the Review Application and set aside the order dtd. 3/8/2022. Consequently, it was directed that the Writ Petition be placed on board for admission once again. This is how the matter has come up before me today.

3. The above Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 25/8/2021 [for short the "impugned order"] passed by Respondent No. 3, which is Appellate Authority under Sec. 7 of The Goa Regularization of Unauthorized Construction Act, 2016, (for short the 'Act of 2016'). The short point involved in this Writ Petition is whether Respondent No.3, while exercising appellate powers under Sec. 7 of the Act of 2016, has the power to condone the delay in case the Appeal is filed beyond the period sixty days from the date the Authorized Officer passed his order [under Sec. 3 of the Act].

4. Since this is the limited issue raised in this Writ Petition, very few facts need to be noted. In the Writ Petition it is stated that the Predecessor of the Petitioner filed a complaint dtd. 13/9/2006 with Respondent No. 5 against the illegal construction of a RCC structure carried out by Respondent No.1 on property bearing Survey No. 166/1 of Village Borim of Ponda. It was the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No.1 illegally constructed the RCC structure under the garb of repairs.

5. Due to the inaction of Respondent No.5, the Petitioner filed an Application [dtd. 3/10/2006] under Sec. 66(5) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 before the Deputy Director of Panchayats. The Deputy Director of Panchayats, by his order dtd. 19/7/2010, allowed the Application and directed Respondent No.1 to demolish the illegal construction, failing which, Respondent No. 5 was directed to demolish the illegal structure and file a compliance report.

6. It appears that thereafter, there were several cross litigations between the parties [as set out in the Petition], but which are not really germane for the purpose of deciding the issue raised in the present Petition. Suffice it to state, that on 16/10/2018, Respondent No.1 filed an application for regularization under the Act of 2016 before Respondent No.4. The said application was filed under Sec. 3(1) of the Act of 2016. On 6/12/2018, Respondent No.4 rejected the application filed by Respondent No.1 [dtd. 16/10/2018] seeking regularization. It is to challenge this order of Respondent No.4 that Respondent No.1 filed an Appeal before Respondent No.3 under Sec. 7 of the said Act of 2016. This Appeal was filed on 22/3/2021 i.e. after a delay of approximately two years and four months from the date of the order passed by Respondent No.4 on 6/12/2018. This Appeal was entertained by Respondent No.3 and the impugned order came to be passed, which is challenged in this Petition.

7. In this factual backdrop, Mr. Gaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that Respondent No.1 filed an application seeking r