1 13-wp-953-2019.edited-final.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION No. 953 OF 2019

Mrs. Sofia Shabnam

wife of Mr. Mohammad Jehangir,

major in age, in business,

Indian National and resident of House No.1623,

Penha De Franca,

Bardez-Goa.

.... Petitioner

V e r s u s

Village Panchayat Salvador-Do-Mundo

represented by its Secretary,

Taluka of Bardez-Goa.

.....Respondent

Mr. Deepak Gaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Gaurish N. Agni, Advocate for the Respondent.

CORAM: M. S. SONAK, J

DATE: 7

th

July 2021

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr. Deepak Gaonkar, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner, and Mr. Gaurish Agni, the learned Counsel for the Panchayat.

2.

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30.08.2019

made by the District Judge, Mapusa acting as Revisional Authority under

the provisions of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (said Act). The

2 13-wp-953-2019.edited-final.doc

petitioner instituted this revision to question the judgment and order dated

17.07.2017 made by the Additional Director of Panchayats, who had

dismissed the petitioner's appeal against order/notice dated 15.12.2014

revoking the construction license issued to the petitioner.

3.

The aforesaid means that the Panchayat, the Additional

Collector, and the District Judge(Revisional Authority) have concluded that

the construction license issued to the petitioner warranted revocation

primarily because the allotment which the petitioner had claimed from the

Communidade of Serula was fraudulent and there was misrepresentation

involved on the part of the Petitioner. Thus, the 3 Authorities have

concurrently held that the revocation of the construction license was

warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

4.

Mr. Gaonkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the show cause notice in the present case was issued by the Sarpanch of

the Village Panchayat of Salvador Do Mundo but the revocation order has

been issued by the Secretary. He submits that in terms of the provisions of

the said Act as also the decision of this Court in Surekha Narayan Kokane

v/s. Reena Raulo Pilernkar & Anr

1, it is impermissible for the Sarpanch to

issue any show-cause notice and this jurisdictional error cannot be corrected

by the Secretary issuing the final order. He also refers to the provision of

Section 47 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, in support of his contention that

only the Secretary has executive powers and therefore, even the show cause

1

Writ Petition No.107 of 2016 decided on 20.04.2016

3 13-wp-953-2019.edited-final.doc

notice had to be issued by the Secretary.

5.

Mr. Gaonkar submits that in any case, there was no

misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner had relied

upon the allotment issued by the Communidade and the allotment letter

also refers to approval from the Appropriate Authority. He submits that

merely because the entire matter is being investigated by the Police or

merely because the Administrator of Communidade wrote to the Panchayat

stating no documents of such allotment are available in its records, the

Panchayat could never have concluded that there was any misrepresentation

or fraud on the part of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that without

prejudice to the jurisdictional issue raised by him, even on merits, the

impugned revocation order dated 15.12.2014 is illegal and void.

6.

Mr. Gaonkar submits that to date the allotment in favor of the

petitioner has not been withdrawn. He submits that the Town & Country

Planning Authorities have not issued any notice to withdraw the technical

clearance. He