Pramod Pandurang Shinde., v. The State Of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary And 3 ORS.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NOS. 660, 661, 662, 663,664 665, 666 & 667 OF 2018 WRIT PETITION NO. 660 OF 2018 Salim M. G. Shaikh Shri Rajesh Shivolkar, Additional Government Advocate for the WRIT PETITION NO. 661 OF 2018 Salim Sandhi Ms. Neha Kholkar, Additional Government Advocate for the WRIT PETITION NO. 662 OF 2018 Ayub Khan Shri Arun Talaulikar, Additional Government Advocate for the

WRIT PETITION NO. 663 OF 2018 Khurshidahmad Tergaon Ms. Priyanka Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the WRIT PETITION NO. 664 OF 2018 Mehmood A. Ansari Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the WRIT PETITION NO. 665 OF 2018 Pramod Pandurang Shinde Shri Arun Talaulikar, Additional Government Advocate for the

WRIT PETITION NO. 666 OF 2018 Dadapir Lohar Shri Rajesh Shivolkar, Additional Government Advocate for the WRIT PETITION NO. 667 OF 2018 Munna Bepari (Dec.) Thr. LRs.

Shri Vishwadh Sardessai, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.

DATE : 8 th AUGUST 2018 ORAL ORDER:

All these petitions involve a common and connected question and as such, they are being disposed off by this common order.

2.

The petitioner, in each of the petitions, have filed separate civil suits against the respondents, for declaration and

permanent injunction, in which, an application for amendment of plaint came to be filed.

3.

By the impugned order dated 18.06.2011, the entire proposed amendment, except the addition of the following prayer clause (f) has been allowed:

"(f) by way of appropriate judgment and decree direct the defendant no. 2 to consider the case of the plaintiff for regularisation in terms of Article 372-A of the amended Code of Comunidades and consequently direct the defendant no. 2 to regularize the suit structure of the plaintiff, if in case, this court comes to the conclusion that the suit structure of the plaintiff is unauthorized." In other words, the learned Trial Court has disallowed the amendment to incorporate para (f), as above, in the prayer clause. Feeling aggrieved, these petitions are filed. 4.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, submits that the petitioner cannot pray for direction to the respondent no. 2, to regularise the structure. However, it is contended that the Civil Court, in an appropriate case, can direct the respondent no. 2 to decide the regularisation application, as expeditiously as possible and in a time bound

manner.

5.

By the impugned orders, the learned Trial Court has refused to permit the amendment, by addition of prayer clause (f) holding that the Civil Court cannot interfere with the discretion vested in the defendant no. 2 to decide the application for regularisation.

6.

It is evident that the petitioner cannot seek a direction to the respondent no. 2, to allow the application for regularisation, which is essentially to be decided by the respondent no. 2, in accordance with law. In any event, in my considered view, it would not be open to the learned District Judge to impinge on the power of the respondent no. 2 in deciding the application for regularisation, in accordance with law. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, so as to require interference in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

7.

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners will pursue the matter with the respondent no. 2, Collector, for regularisation of the subject structures.

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, on instructions, submits that if, the petitioner approaches the respondent no.2Collector, the respondent no. 2-Collector, shall decide the application for regularisation in accordance with law. Subject to this, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, with no order as to costs.

C. V. BHADANG, J.

EV