Green Goa Foundation, Rep.By Its Chairman Mr.Raison Almeida. v. Umakant N. Korkankar, Deputy Collector And Sub Divisional Officer, Margao.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 27 OF 2015 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WP NO. 8 OF 2014 GREEN GOA FOUNDATION, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR.RAISON ALMEIDA.

... Petitioner

Versus

UMAKANT N. KORKANKAR, DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MARGAO., ... Respondent Mr. Ryan Da Piedade Menezes, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pravin N. Faldessai, Addl. Government Advocate for the respondent.

Coram:- F. M. REIS & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

Date:- 4th April, 2016 P.C.

Heard Mr. R. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

2. This Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner is on the ground that despite of orders passed by this Court on 30.06.2014 to decide on the allegation of illegalities, by the Dy. Collector, on a specific date and if not possible on such date, as expeditiously as possible, the respondent has deliberately allowed the construction to be completed and disposed of the complaint only on 27.07.2015.

3. Mr. Menezes, learned counsel further points out that during this interregnum the private respondent completed the construction

CP/27/2015 thereby frustrating the order of this Court on account of the inaction on the part of the respondent. The learned counsel further points out that this would amount to deliberately disobedience of the directions issued by this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent however submits that the proceedings were not decided immediately on account of administrative and other functions and duties assigned to the respondent. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was not the original complainant which also caused further delay in proceeding with the matter.

4. Though the time ultimately taken for a decision prima facie appears to be excessive but however, as a decision has already been taken, we find that there is no need of proceeding with the Contempt Petition. We, however, record that the respondent shall ensure that henceforth whenever directions are issued by this Court to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously, it is expected that such matters are disposed of within a reasonable time.

5. With the aforesaid directions, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of.

NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.

F. M. REIS, J.

at*