SHAILESH VERNEKAR Vs. CANACONA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.S. Kantak, the learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Preetam Talaulikar and Mr. D. Vernekar, the learned Counsels for the petitioners, Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar with Ms. R. Pereira, the learned Counsels for the respondent no.1 and Ms. Priyanka Kamat, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent no.2.

(2.) The petitioner by instituting this petition, challenges the Order/decision dated 1.1.2013 made/taken by the respondent no.2 keeping in abeyance its earlier Office letter dated 3.1.2012 granting technical clearance for the construction proposed to be put up by the petitioner in the property bearing survey no.52/1-A at Chaudi, Canacona. This impugned communication dated 1.1.2013 is based upon the Resolution of the respondent no.1 dated 3.10.2012, in which, the respondent no.1, resolved and directed its Chief Officer to write to the respondent no.1, basically, objecting to the grant of technical clearance to the construction proposed by the petitioner.

(3.) There is no dispute of whatsoever that the petitioner, is the owner of the property bearing survey no.52/1-A at Chaudi Village, Canacona, upon which, he proposes to put up a construction. Accordingly, the petitioner, applied to both the respondents for permissions under the respect of enactments which govern their functioning. The respondent no.2, upon examining the application as well as the Plans accompanying the same issued Technical Clearance Order on 3.1.2012 in respect of the proposed construction. The matter was then referred to the respondent no.1 for issuance of construction license, as is required under the provisions of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968. Since for a long time there was no decision coming from the respondent no.1, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition no.453/2012, seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondent no.1. This petition was disposed of by directing the respondent no.1 to take a decision on the petitioner's application and to communicate, the same to the petitioner on or before 6.11.2012.