SANTANA RODRIGUES Vs. FRANCISCO XAVIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition was originally ordered to be heard along with Writ Petition No.1389 of 2021 (F) as the parties were the same. However, all parties have agreed that Writ Petition No.1947 of 2021 (F) be heard first and disposed of and thereafter Writ Petition No.1389 of 2021 (F) be taken up. Accordingly, Rule is issued in the above Writ Petition. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

(2.) Writ Petition No.1947 of 2021 (F) [the above Writ Petition] was originally disposed of by a Judgment and Order dtd. 3/8/2022. After this order was passed, the Petitioner herein, preferred a Review Application to review/set aside the said order inter alia on the ground that the said order did not take into consideration the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2015) 7 SCC 58], and neither did it consider or deal with the arguments canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner [on the basis of the said Judgment]. This Court, after hearing the parties, by its order dtd. 10/1/2023, allowed the Review Application and set aside the order dtd. 3/8/2022. Consequently, it was directed that the Writ Petition be placed on board for admission once again. This is how the matter has come up before me today.

(3.) The above Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 25/8/2021 [for short the "impugned order"] passed by Respondent No. 3, which is Appellate Authority under Sec. 7 of The Goa Regularization of Unauthorized Construction Act, 2016, (for short the 'Act of 2016'). The short point involved in this Writ Petition is whether Respondent No.3, while exercising appellate powers under Sec. 7 of the Act of 2016, has the power to condone the delay in case the Appeal is filed beyond the period sixty days from the date the Authorized Officer passed his order [under Sec. 3 of the Act].