FRANCIS ESTROCIO Vs. THE STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 9 and 10 at great length. Perused with their assistance the petition, annexures thereto and all the affidavits on record. The petitioner has approached this Court in public interest and prays that a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to respondent nos. 1 to 6 to take appropriate action against respondent no.7 in accordance with law. The further prayer is that direction be issued to respondent nos. 1 to 6 to decide the petitioner's application dated 15.4.2010 and conduct an Inquiry. The next prayer is that direction be issued to respondent nos. 1 to 6 to revoke the permission of construction in respect of P. T. Sheet No. 42, Chalta No. 157 to 162 of Panaji City, Goa. Rest of the prayers are interim reliefs prayed in this Writ Petition.

(2.) THE petition has been amended extensively. What we have on record is a petition styled as Public Interest Litigation impleading not only statutory Authorities but also certain private parties. There are in all thirteen respondents. The petitioner claims to be resident of State of Goa and particularly of Caranzalem. He takes part in social activities. He is regularly visiting Panaji city. He claims that he has, therefore, filed this petition in genuine public interest to bring to the notice of this Court serious violation and breaches committed while developing and constructing a building in the above mentioned land/property.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he became aware of the construction and permission in relation thereto in February, 2010. He made an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 and obtained information and documents. The plan for construction of building of this property was approved on 25.1.2010 for the year 2009 -10. The approval by North Goa Planning and Development Authority has been relied upon by the Corporation of the City of Panaji and that approval is stated to be issued on 28.8.2009. The plan is signed by Uday A. Kamat as an owner and one Mr. Dattaprasad A. Kamat as an Engineer. The permission was granted to construct a commercial/residential building. After referring to the requisite licence and permission issued by respondent nos.1 to 6, it is stated that construction commenced. Relying upon letter which letter does not have any date and power of attorney issued by Dr. Manohar Tamba, some allegations are made even the contents thereof are commented upon. However, what is material to notice is that the petitioner emphasizes that he made an complaint with regard to this construction on 15.4.2010 to the Corporation of the City of Panaji which complaint is still pending and no decision has been taken thereon.