Santosh G Naik., v. Goa Industrial Development Corporation Thr. Its Managing Director And 2 ORS.,

1 PILWP 7-18 dt 04 -09-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PIL WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2018 Santosh G. Naik ...

Petitioner

Versus

Goa Industrial Development Corporation Thr. Its Managing Director and others .... Respondents Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Nikhil Pai, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for Respondent no.3. Coram : N.M. Jamdar & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.

Date : 4 SEPTEMBER 2018.

P.C. :

By filing this Public Interest Litigation, the Petitioner has made a grievance that the Respondent no.1 has not taken any action pursuant to the show cause notice dated 5 February 2017. The petition was adjourned to ascertain from Respondent no.1 as to the status of the show cause notice. It is informed that the proceedings are not yet concluded. The learned counsel for the Respondent no.1 states that he has taken instructions from the Managing Director that the

2 PILWP 7-18 dt 04 -09-2018 proceedings initiated pursuant to the show cause notice will be concluded within a period of eight weeks from today. He states that in view of the objection raised by the Respondent no.3, the decision would be taken by the General Manager. The learned counsel for the Respondent no.3 has no objection to this course of action. 2.

The learned counsel for the Respondent no.3 submitted that if the Petitioner is making grievance as made in this petition against the Respondent no.3, it is not that the Respondent no.3 alone is in the same position but there are several other identical plot owners.

3.

Since the petition is moved in public interest and the Statutory Authorities are considering the matter for the sake of uniformity, it is necessary that the Respondent no.1 considers the position as regards all similarly situated allottees within his jurisdiction.

The Respondent no.1 shall do so.

4.

Accordingly, we dispose of this petition recording the above statement of the learned counsel for Respondent no.1, made on instructions of the Managing Director and of the Officer Mr. Kiran Kumar, who is present in the Court. We make it clear that we have

3 PILWP 7-18 dt 04 -09-2018 not considered the merits of the issue. The PIL Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. N.M. Jamdar, J.