Bombay High CourtWP/578/2016rule disposed of

Mr. Rudolf Vaz. v. The Director, Directorate Of Fisheries, Govt. Of Goa And 3 ORS.

2016-09-01F. M. Reis,Hon'Ble Kum. Justice Nutan D. Sardessai3 pages

1 WP578-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 578/2016 Mr. Rudolf Vaz, major of age, r/o. H.No.233, Padribhat, Mandur, Post Neura, Tiswadi, Goa.

........ Petitioner.

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Directorate of Fisheries, Government of Goa, Dayanand Bandodkar Marg, Panaji, Goa.

2. The Chairman, Akhil Gomantak Harkari Sahakari Saunstha Goa Ltd., Office at Naik Villa, 1st Floor, (FO5), Dr. Dada Vaidhya Road, Opp. Kundaikar Nagar, Panjim, Goa 403 001.

3. Smt. Rajeshwari Phadte, major of age, r/o Adon Wada, Madki, Ponda, Goa.

4. The police, Police Inspector, Agacaim, Ponda Police Station, Ponda, Goa.

....... Respondents.

Mr. Joaquim Godinho, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. Dangui, Additional Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 4.

2 WP578-16 Mr. S. N. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent No.3. CORAM :- F.M. REIS & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

Date : - 01/09/2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER F.M. REIS, J.) Heard Mr. Joaquim Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P. Dangui, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 & 4 and Mr. S. N. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and on the basis thereof, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that though a fishing stake has been allotted to the petitioner opposite Survey No.198 of Marcaim Village, there is an interference by the respondent No.3 to such activity based on an allotment in respect of the fishing stake opposite Survey No.193.

3 WP578-16

4. Mr. P. Dangui, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 4 confirms that the fishing stake of the petitioner is opposite Survey No. 198 of Marcaim Village.

5. Mr. S. N. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, upon instructions of the respondent No.3, makes a statement that as far as the area opposite property survey No.198 of Marcaim Village is concerned, the respondent No.3 is neither interfering there with, nor she has any intention to interfere in the area opposite property survey no.198 of Marcaim Village.

6. In view of the said statement of Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, upon instructions, which is accepted, we find that the apprehension of the petitioner no longer survives. Rule stands disposed of accordingly. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.

F.M. REIS, J.

ssm.