Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Navagauri Appts. Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging the commercial user of premises by Respondent no.9, Mrs. Sanyogita Kashinath Shetye. The main grievance was that the user was impermissible. During the pendency of the petition, Respondent no.5, the Village Panchayat of Pilerne-Marra, passed an order dated 15.03.2010 directing Respondent no.9 to stop the commercial use of the premises. Respondent no.9 filed a statutory appeal against that order. The Court noted that the petitioner's grievance regarding commercial user stood redressed by the Panchayat's order. The Court did not delve into other disputes between the parties, such as issuance of licences and permissions, and kept all rights and contentions open. The Court also allowed the parties to make appropriate applications for intervention before the concerned authorities, including the Director of Panchayats. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Commercial User - Grievance Redressal - The petitioner challenged the commercial user of premises by Respondent no.9. The Village Panchayat passed an order dated 15.03.2010 directing Respondent no.9 to stop commercial use. Respondent no.9 filed a statutory appeal. The Court held that the petitioner's grievance stood redressed and disposed of the petition, keeping other disputes open. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the commercial user of premises by Respondent no.9 was impermissible and whether the petitioner's grievance stood redressed by the Panchayat's order.
Final Decision
Writ Petition disposed of as grievance redressed; other disputes kept open; parties allowed to approach appropriate authorities.
Law Points
- Grievance redressal
- statutory appeal
- keeping rights open
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 123
WRIT PETITION NO. 759 OF 2009
S. J. Vazifdar, U. D. Salvi
Mr. Valmiki Menezes for Petitioner, Mr. M. Salkar for Respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8, Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni for Respondent no.5, Mr. R. Menezes for Respondent no.9
Navagauri Appts. Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
Government of Goa, Town Planner, Deputy Collector, Commissioner of Excise, Village Panchayat of Pilerne-Marra, Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration, Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services, Chief Electrical Engineer, Mrs. Sanyogita Kashinath Shetye
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging commercial user of premises as impermissible.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought redressal against commercial user of premises by Respondent no.9.
Filing Reason
Alleged impermissible commercial user of premises by Respondent no.9.
Previous Decisions
Respondent no.5 (Village Panchayat) passed an order dated 15.03.2010 directing Respondent no.9 to stop commercial use. Respondent no.9 filed a statutory appeal.
Issues
Whether the commercial user of premises by Respondent no.9 was impermissible.
Whether the petitioner's grievance stood redressed by the Panchayat's order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that commercial user was impermissible.
Respondent no.9 filed a statutory appeal against the Panchayat's order.
Ratio Decidendi
The petitioner's grievance regarding commercial user stood redressed by the Panchayat's order, and therefore the court did not need to adjudicate other disputes, keeping all rights and contentions open.
Judgment Excerpts
The main grievance in this Writ Petition pertains to the user for commercial premises which is allegedly impermissible.
Respondent no.5 has in fact taken action in respect thereof against Respondent no.9 by an Order dated 15.03.2010, calling upon Respondent no.9 to stop the user of the premises for commercial purposes.
All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open regarding the same.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 759 of 2009 before Bombay High Court at Goa. During pendency, Respondent no.5 passed order dated 15.03.2010 directing Respondent no.9 to stop commercial use. Respondent no.9 filed statutory appeal. Court disposed of petition on 08.04.2010.
