RAMESH S KERKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to stop the illegal construction carried on by respondent No.8. By an ad interim order dated 22.4.2010, we restrained respondent No.8 from carrying out any further work on the premises, in view of the statement made on behalf of respondent No.5, the Block Development Officer that notice under Section 66(6) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 had been issued, calling upon respondent No.8 to stop the construction work.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.8 has filed an affidavit stating, inter alia, that in view of the notice under Section 66(6) of the Act, respondent No.8 has stopped further construction. He further undertakes on behalf of respondent No.8 to this Court also not to carry on any further construction till the proceedings adopted by respondent No.8 before the Deputy Director of Panchayats in case No. DDPN/Saligao/Bar/38/2010 are finally disposed off. In view thereof, the petitioner's grievance in the writ petition, at this stage at least, stands redressed.