Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Umesh Pundlik Pednekar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court at Goa, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Village Panchayat of Calangute to recall and cancel a licence dated 31/5/2008 and an NOC dated 8/5/2009 granted to respondent no.5, Mrs. Ruth Fernandes, for construction of the first floor on an existing ground floor in property surveyed under no.229/33 at Calangute village. The petitioner also sought a direction to the Panchayat to take action against the construction, including stoppage and demolition under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of adjacent property surveyed under no.229/25 and alleged that the original licence issued on 29/3/1995 had expired within three years, and its renewal on 31/5/2008 was illegal. The respondents, including the State of Goa, Director of Panchayats, Village Panchayat, Town and Country Planning Department, and respondent no.5, opposed the petition. The court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Ashwin D. Bhobe, the Advocate General Mr. D. Pangam, and counsel for respondent no.5, Mr. Preetam Talaulikar. The court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory provisions or bye-laws, and did not establish a legal right or corresponding duty to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had not made out a case for interference.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Conditions for Issuance - The petitioner sought mandamus to cancel a licence and NOC for construction, but failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory provisions or bye-laws. Held that mandamus cannot be issued without establishing a legal right and corresponding duty, and the petition was dismissed as the petitioner did not make out a case for interference. (Paras 1-4) B) Panchayat Law - Licence Renewal - Validity of Renewal After Expiry - The original licence dated 29/3/1995 expired within three years, but was renewed on 31/5/2008. The court did not find any illegality in the renewal as the petitioner failed to show any bar under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or bye-laws. Held that mere expiry does not automatically invalidate a renewal if permitted by law. (Paras 3-4) C) Town and Country Planning - NOC - Challenge to NOC - The petitioner challenged the NOC dated 8/5/2009 granted by the Town and Country Planning Department for construction of the first floor. The court held that the petitioner did not provide any evidence of violation of planning regulations. Held that the NOC stands valid unless proven otherwise. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Village Panchayat to recall and cancel the licence dated 31/5/2008 and the NOC dated 8/5/2009 granted to respondent no.5 for construction of the first floor, and whether the construction carried out by respondent no.5 is illegal and liable to be demolished.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for issuance of a writ of mandamus as no legal right or corresponding duty was established.
Law Points
- Mandamus
- Licence Renewal
- NOC
- Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- 1994
- Bye-Laws
- Construction
- Expired Licence
- Renewal Validity
