SHRI SATISH KASHINATH PARAB. Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that presence of Respondent no.5 is not necessary for deciding the controversy in the manner as indicated. He seeks leave to delete Respondent no.5. Leave to amend for that purpose is granted.

(2.) Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

(3.) The Petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Deputy Town Planner, Health Officer and the Registration Authority Department of Foods and Drugs Administration dated 25 September 2017, 17 October 2017 and 21 November 2017. According to the Petitioner, a construction licence was issued to the predecessor of the Petitioner and the Petitioner purchased the property in the year 2011. It is contention of the Petitioner that the main order passed of revoking building construction is on the ground that the Petitioner is carrying out hill cutting activity. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that this hill cutting activity if at all carried out it is in the corner of the larger property with which the Petitioner has no concern, however, based on the same, several licences by other Authorities have been cancelled.