LEANDRO CARDOZO Vs. INDACIO CARDOSO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. Rule. The Advocates for the respective respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is finally heard at this stage.

(2.) IT is not in dispute before me that the order passed by the Additional Collector, north Goa, Panaji on 1. 8. 2001 in Case No. MCA/ac/rev/1/2000 was not amenable to revision before the State Government. The order dated 29. 4. 2005 rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner before the State Government against the order dated 1. 8. 2001 as not maintainable thus, cannot be faulted. Though in the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29. 4. 2005 passed by the Secretary (Revenue) whereby the revision was held not maintainable, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the revision preferred by the petitioner before the secretary (Revenue) was not maintainable.

(3.) THE challenge in the writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted, is to the order dated 1. 8. 2001 passed by the Additional Collector, North Goa, Panaji. The delay in filing the writ petition in challenging the order dated 1. 8. 2001 is explained in paragraph 11 of the writ petition.