The Chief Officer's demolition orders under Section 190 of the Goa Municipalities Act are independent and not subject to appeal under Section 293, as affirmed by the court.

1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2.Heard finally with consent.

3.Heard Mr. Parag Rao with Mr. Ajay Menon and Mr. Rishikesh Vazarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Siddharth V. Naik, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr. V. Sardessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent- State in WP No.923/2024(F) and WP No.924/2024(F) and Ms. Sapna Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent- State in WP No.925/2024(F).

4.All the above petitions are concerning with the common order passed by the Chief Officer/respondent No.2 under Section 190 of the Goa Municipalities Act, which was challenged by respondent No.3 by filing three appeals under Section 293 of the Goa Municipalities Act. SUBMISSIONS:

5.Mr. Parag Rao would submit that the appeals filed by respondent No.3 before the Director of Municipal Administration, Panaji under Section 293 of the Municipalities Act challenging the order of the Chief Officer passed under Section 190 of the said Act are not maintainable. He submits that the powers of the Chief Officer are independent and not existing with the powers of the municipal Council. Some of the powers of the Chief Officer are exclusively independent and given to him, which he could utilize without any resolution or reference by the municipal Council. Such powers of the Chief Officer are totally independent and there is no provision of any appeal found in the Municipalities Act which could empower the Director of municipal administration to take up such issue and grant stay.

6.Mr Rao would submit that the petitioner is now the owner of the building in question which is declared as unsafe and dilapidated requiring demolition. The Chief Officer under his independent powers vide Section 190 of the Municipalities Act passed an order directing the owner of the building to demolish it. The respondent No.3 in all these matters claimed to be the occupants of some shops, challenged the order of the Chief Officer before the Director of Municipal Administration in an appeal under Section 293 of the Municipalities Act. He would submit that the respondent No.3 deliberately did not joined the present petitioner as party to such appeal. The Director of municipal administration not only entertained such appeal but passed impugned order dated 01/02/2024 thereby staying the order of the Chief Officer till the disposal of the case on merit. Such order was passed ex-parte and without hearing the Municipal Council and that too till the disposal of the appeal on merits.

7. Mr. Rao would submit that the Director of Municipal Administration is not entitled to entertain any appeal under Section 293 of the said Act since no such appeal is provided thereby challenging the order of the Chief Officer under Section 190 of the said Act. He submits that the provisions of Section 293 of the Act is dealing with a totally different situation and mostly orders passed by the Municipal Council though through the Chief Officer. He submits that the powers of Council are different from the powers of the Chief Officer. He submits that appeal is a creation under statute and if no such right is found in the statute, the appellate authority is not entitled to assume powers and even entertain any appeal by passing impugned order thereby staying the effect and operation of the order of demolition passed by the Chief Officer.

8. While dealing with this subject Mr. Rao have referred to various provisions of the Municipalities Act and also certain authorities and claimed that the observations of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Tukaram K. Naik Kundaikar v/s. The Chief Officer Margao and Anr. [ 2014 (4) ALL MR 55 ) are squarely based on the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Syed Kasim Syed Rustam v/s Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and others ( 2005(1) MhLJ 247 ). He would further submit that the observations of the learned Single Judge in the case of Tukaram(supra) an