JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr Parikshit Sawant for the Petitioner and Mr Iftikhar Agha for Respondents No.5 and 6. Other Respondents, though served, do not appear at the stage of the final hearing.

2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal considering the order dated 5th December 2014. By this order, Rule was granted in this Petition. Accordingly, the hearing was expedited, and this matter was directed to be placed for a final hearing in February 2015.

3. The Petitioner-Devasthan, under the Devasthan Regulations, challenges the order/report/recommendations dated 4th June 2014 made by the Goa Human Rights Commission (GHRC), primarily on the ground that the GHRC lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints made by Respondents No.5 and 6 about denial of vehicular access through the Devasthan's property to their respective properties.

4. Respondents No. 5 and 6 filed a complaint dated 3rd September 2012, transcribed in paragraph 2 of the impugned order. The complaint reads as follows :

"1) Prakash L. Kauthankar,

2) Keshav V. Panshikar, Malpe-Pernem-Goa

Date : 03/09/2012

To,

The Sarpanch

Village Panchayat Virnoda, Pernem — Goa.

Sub: Request for providing access road to our private property at Mulvir Temple at Malpe, Pedne, Goa.

Sir,

We are a resident malpe pedne Goa, having our ancestral property in the proximity of Mulvir Temple. In the event of untoward incidents and emergencies, we have been facing a number of hardships since generations. It is regrettable to note that even after the period of nearly 50 years of Goa's liberation we have been deprived of our basic right of having the facility for access road to our vehicle to our own property.

I hope you will definitely agree and appreciate our request, to be thoughtful and sympathetic to relieve us from our anguish and provide us with access road to our private property.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

2) Prakash Kauthankar

Sd/-

2) Keshav V. Panshikar.

Copy to

1) The Hon. Chief Minister of Goa Mr. Manohar Parrikar.

2) The Hon. MLA & Speaker of Goa Mr. Rajendra Arlekar.

3) The Hon. Panchayat Minister of Goa Mr. Laxmikant parsekar.

4) The Hon. PWD Minister of Goa Mr. Sudin Dhaviikar.

5) The Hon. Leader of opposition Of Goa Mr. Pratapsing Rane.

6) The president — Devastan Committee — Pedne Goa.

7) The Director Human Resource Development. Human Rights Commission

8) The Director of Panchayat."

5. Mr Agha, however, points out that the complaint incorporated by the GHRC in its impugned order was a complaint made to the Village Panchayat of Virnoda. Further, he submits that another complaint, dated 3/1/2013, was made to the Chairman of the GHRC, and the same is on page 21 of the paper book of this Petition.

6. There is no clarity on whether the GHRC took cognizance of the complaint dated 3/1/2013. However, since the issue of jurisdiction is now raised, even the contents of the complaint dated 3/1/2013 are transcribed below for the convenience of reference :

"1) Prakash L. Kauthankar,

2) Keshav V. Panshikar,

Malpe-Pernem-Goa

Date : 03/01/2013

To,

The Chairman,

Human Right Commission, Panaji-Goa.

Respected Sir,

In continuation to our earlier letter and their after our meeting with you on 06/12/2012, we take this opportunity to elaborate little more on the issue to express our expectations from your good self.

1) The survey plan availed from Directorate of Land Survey does not show any sign of structure, either of steps or of 'pimpal katta' on the road. The relevant copy of the plan is enclosed with this letter for your pertual.

2) The public road, we have been asking for is in "PWD's power which is a government authority, here your interference is most justifiable.

3) The present government road in use, is wide enough for accommodating our vehicles, and as such an alternative arrangement of provisional road is not necessary.

4) You will also agree that the road is one of the basic necessity for our life, which is closely linked with our health, education, transport