Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith.
2. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to stop the illegal construction carried on by respondent No.8. By an ad interim order dated 22.4.2010, we restrained respondent No.8 from carrying out any further work on the premises, in view of the statement made on behalf of respondent No.5, 3the Block Development Officer that notice under Section 66(6) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 had been issued, calling upon respondent No.8 to stop the construction work.
3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.8 has filed an affidavit stating, inter alia, that in view of the notice under Section 66(6) of the Act, respondent No.8 has stopped further construction. He further undertakes on behalf of respondent No.8 to this Court also not to carry on any further construction till the proceedings adopted by respondent No.8 before the Deputy Director of Panchayats in case No. DDPN/Saligao/Bar/38/2010 are finally disposed off. In view thereof, the petitioner's grievance in the writ petition, at this stage at least, stands redressed.
4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed off with a further direction that in the event of the decision of the Deputy Director of Panchayats being in favour of respondent No.8, respondent No.8 shall not commence the construction for a period of 4 weeks from the date of a copy of the order being served on the petitioner's Advocate. All the rights and contentions of the parties, including as against the order 4that may be passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, are kept open.
5. The Rules is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. U.D. SALVI, J. ssm.
Comments