Mr. Kashinath @ Vikrant S. Pangam vs The Chief Officer Sanquelim Municipal Council and Another

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.—Pursuant to Court notice, the respondents are served. The service report shows that the order of fresh notice which was issued by this Court has been complied with and the bailiff''s report shows that the respondents are duly served. None has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents nor is anybody present on their behalf. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondent to issue a construction licence in his favour. The petitioner has stated in the petition that construction licence was issued in his favour with regard to the property, more particularly, described in para 2 of the petition. A permission for construction was issued way back on 15/02/2001 and the same was valid for a period of one year.

Application for renewal was filed and that application also was entertained and granted. The renewal was till 15/02/2005.

Thereafter, another application was made on 9/02/2005 along with requisite fees and there is no dispute that the said application was duly received in the office of the Panchayat. The petitioner points out that on several occasions, he personally visited the Panchayat office but none responded to his queries. Aggrieved by this inaction, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Director of Panchayats, North Goa, Panaji u/s 66(7) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act. That appeal was allowed by Deputy Director on 10/05/2005. Aggrieved by this order of the Deputy Director, the Panchayat filed an appeal before the Additional Director of Panchayats. The Additional Director dismissed the application for interim relief therein. It appears that thereafter, there was a change as the Village Panchayat was converted into Municipal Council. Therefore, the Panchayat''s appeal before the Additional Director was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the newly constituted body and requested for issuance of formal licence. The petitioner has been following up the matter with the Technical Engineer of respondent no. 1 and even site inspection was held. Yet, the representation of the petitioner dated 19/09/2007 has not been replied nor the requisitions contained therein are complied with. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot carry out any development or construction activities. In the absence of construction licence, the petitioner is handicapped is the submission.

When this Court issued notice, it called upon the respondents to show cause as to why a direction be not issued to them to consider the petitioner''s representation and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. None have responded to the notice. The averments in the petition have thus remained uncontroverted. In such circumstances, interest of justice would be served if the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner''s request for renewal/issuance of a construction licence, as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the application in that behalf in accordance with law. The respondents are granted 6 weeks time and they shall endeavour to dispose of the said representation/application of the petitioner within the period stipulated above, upon receipt of a copy of the order passed by this Court. Petition allowed in the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.