AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Reis, J.—Heard Mrs. A. Agni, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. V. Rodrigues, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri P. Arolkar Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 3.
Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the Learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service.
The short point in controversy in the above Petition is that the impugned Order passed by the Goa Municipality Appellate Tribunal, at Panaji, dated 04.10.2011in Municipal Appeal No. 26/05, was passed without giving a hearing to the Petitioners herein. It is not in dispute that the above Appeal was heard by the Tribunal and the matter was posted for Orders on 04.10.2011. The records further reveal that on 30.09.2011, an application was filed by the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 to the effect that they were in the process of seeking regularization of the impugned structures. The said application was not notified or served on the Petitioners herein. But, however, the Tribunal without hearing the Petitioners passed the impugned Order on the basis of the said application and remanded the matter to the Chief Officer to decide the matter afresh and to regularize the impugned structure.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking note of the facts that the Petitioners were parties to the above Municipal Appeal, it was not open to the Tribunal to decide the Appeal without hearing the Petitioners on the application filed by the said Respondents that they were in the process of seeking regularization of the impugned structure. Apart from that, Ms. Agni, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has also pointed out that the Petitioners had raised other grounds in the above Appeal disputing the claims put forward by the Respondents and such submissions, have not been dealt with by the Tribunal whilst passing the impugned Order. Considering the fact that the Petitioners were not heard which is not fairly disputed by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, I find it appropriate that the impugned Order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Tribunal be directed to decide the said Municipal Appeal afresh after hearing all the parties including the Petitioners.
In view of the above, I pass the following :
ORDER
(i) The impugned Order dated 04.10.2011 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The Municipal Appeal no. 26/2005 is restored to the file of The Goa Municipalities Appellate Tribunal at Panaji.
(iii) The Tribunal is directed to decide the said Appeal afresh after hearing all the parties in accordance with law.
(iv) All contentions raised by the respective parties are left open.
(v) The Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the Appeal as expeditiously as possible.
(vi) Rule in the above terms.
(vii) Petition disposed of accordingly.