Ravindra N. Khandekar v. The State Of Goa, Through The Chief Secretary And 3 ORS.,
2025:BHC-GOA:926-DB Shakuntala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 522 OF 2024 RAVINDRA N. KHANDEKAR ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF GOA, THROUGH THE CHIEF , SECRETARY AND 3 ORS.
...RESPONDENTS Mr. Joel Pinto, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Sulekha Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Gaurish Agni, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.(Through V.C.) CORAM:- BHARATI DANGRE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATED :- 11th June, 2025 P.C.
1.
The grievance of the petitioner revolves around the construction of residential building and compound wall in Survey No. 398/12, Plot No. 23, at Socorro Village, Bardez-Goa, which is alleged to be in violation of Rules and Regulations. In the petition filed, the Chief Town Planner as well as the Senior Town Planner of the Town and Country Planning Department along with the Chief Secretary of Government of Goa,
are impleaded as respondents along with the respondent no. 4, against whom the petitioner has grievance of violating the Rules and Regulations and proceeding with the construction without requisite permissions.
2.
In terms of the order passed by this Court on 03.04.2025, the site inspection was carried out and the report thereof under the signature of the Deputy Tower Planner is placed before us by the learned Additional Government Advocate. Though the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 failed to remain present on the site, on the scheduled date, the site inspection was re-scheduled and conducted on a subsequent date when several discrepancies indicated in the report, were noticed.
3.
In the wake of the discrepancies noted in the inspection report, the Senior Town Planner had issued a show cause notice to the respondent no. 4 on 29/05/2025, as it was noted that she had violated condition no. 2 of the Technical Clearance Order dated 06/12/2021 and she was asked to show cause within 15 working days, as to why action should not be taken on the ongoing construction of the residential building which is under construction.
The notice also directed the noticee to stop the ongoing development in the aforesaid property with immediate effect. 4.
Copies of the site inspection report as well as the show cause notice dated 29/05/2025 are handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner, who expresses his satisfaction upon the action that has been taken as on date.
Needless to state that respondent no. 4, represented by Mr. Agni, is entitled to file a response to the show cause notice issued to her, which would follow by passing final orders, taking the show cause notice to its logical end.
The notice has also directed the noticee to stop ongoing development on site.
5.
In the wake of above, nothing survives in the petition for adjudication including prayer clause (b) which seeks stay on the on going construction being carried out by respondent no. 4. Writ petition stands disposed of.
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. Signed by: SHAKUNTALA ZALMI Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 12/06/2025 18:46:10