Bombay High CourtWP/1001/2019disposed of

Claudio Marques., v. The State Of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary And 7 ORS.,

2019-12-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice M. S. Sonak,Hon'Ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 1001 OF 2019 CLAUDIO MARQUES., ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF GOA, THR. CHIEF SECRETARY AND 7 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. D. Lawande with Mr. P. Dangui and Mr. Jay Mathew, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. Shailesh Redkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.

Mr. S.D. Padiyar, Advocate for Respondent No. 4. Mr. J. Abreu Lobo, Advocate for Respondent No. 6. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Advocate for Respondent No. 7. Coram:- M. S. SONAK & SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ.

Date:- 20th December, 2019 P.C.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The allegation in this Petition is that the respondent no. 7 is undertaking construction in property bearing survey no. 22/4 at Sanquelim, despite the fact that this property is a government property and further, there being stop work order issued by the Sanquelim Municipal Council and the Deputy Collector.

3. On behalf of the respondent no. 7, an affidavit has been filed, in which, a categorical statement is made that no construction

WP/1001/2019 has been undertaken in property bearing survey no. 22/4 and further, there is no intention to carry out construction in survey no. 22/4. The affidavit points out that the chapel has been reconstructed on the plinth.

4. Initially, this Court was inclined to impose costs upon the petitioner. However, Mr. Lawande the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even the authorities were prima facie of the opinion that there is some construction undertaken on the government property bearing survey no. 22/4 and therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations made by the petitioner in the Petition were extremely frivolous. He states that an inquiry may be initiated to look into such allegations.

5. Accordingly, directions are issued to look into the stop work order in accordance with law and after affording opportunity to all the parties. However, we have to note that the approach of the petitioner to this Court is not at all candid. There was no sufficient disclosure of relation between the petitioner and the respondent no. 7. Secondly, it was sought to be contended in this Petition that there is a way through the government property bearing survey no. 22/4. This means that on one hand an impression was sought to be created that the petitioner intends to protect government property and on the other hand an issue of the petitioner's private access came to be raised. We find that on

WP/1001/2019 the basis of this Petition, the petitioner cannot claim any kind of right or interest in this government property, if the petitioner has Necessary correction carried out in terms of Order dated 06.01.2020 no otherwise any right or interest. No such claim or right can be claimed on the basis of such Petition. The aforesaid reason was sufficient to impose some costs on the petitioner. However, it is possible that the petitioner, who is 75 years of age, may not have been properly advised in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On this occasion, we will leave the matter at this end.

6. With the aforesaid observations, this Petition is disposed off.

7. Mr. Lawande, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the petitioner may be now returned to the petitioner. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to return the same.

SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.

M. S. SONAK, J.