MUKUND JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P. Dangui, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. D. Gaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.

(2.) Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel.

(3.) The above petition takes exception to an order dated 9th December, 2015 passed by the respondent No.2. Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that based on a complaint lodged by the respondent No.4, the respondent No.2 proposed to take action against the petitioner in respect of the subject construction put up by the petitioner in the property surveyed under Nos.116/40 and 116/41 of Village Morjim. Mr. Pangam further points out that though a reply came to be filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice, but, however, the matter was posted on 23/11/2015 for hearing. The learned Counsel further points out that on the said date, the petitioner nor his Advocate was in a position to appear before the respondent No.2 and a request for accommodation was made by a Junior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner which was refused by the respondent No.2. The learned Counsel further points out that the respondent No.2 proceeded to decide the show cause notice and ultimately, by the impugned order directed demolition of the subject-structure belonging to the petitioner. The learned Counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed in gross breach of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity of personal hearing by the respondent No.2. The learned Counsel further submits that a grave injustice would occasion to the petitioner in case the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is not set aside.