← Library
Bombay High CourtCP/23/2025disposed of

Zarina Nagarwala And 3 ORS v. Melvyn Vaz

2026-02-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam , Hon'Ble Shri Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar3 pages

Andreza

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.23 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.53 OF 2025 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.23 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.53 OF 2025 ZARINA NAGARWALA AND 3 ORS ... PETITIONERS

Versus

MELVYN VAZ ... RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.53 OF 2025 ZARINA NAGARWALA AND 3 ORS ... PETITIONERS

Versus

THE STATE OF GOA, THR. ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS ... RESPONDENTS Ms. Annelise Fernandes, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Parag S. Rao, Advocate (through V.C.) with Mr. Akhil Parrikar, Advocate, for Margao Municipal Council.

CORAM:- SUMAN SHYAM & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 16th February, 2026 P.C.

Heard Ms. Fernandes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Alleging wilful disobedience of the Order dated 11.03.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 53/2025, whereby the Margao Municipal Council, was directed to dispose of the Appeal filed by the Petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of the Order, the present

Contempt Petition has been instituted alleging willful non-compliance with the aforesaid directions of this Court.

2. During the pendency of this matter, on the request of this Court, Mr. Parag Rao, learned Counsel, who usually appears for the Margao Municipal Council, has obtained instructions from the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council and submits that although the Appeal of the Petitioners have been disposed off by Resolution no. 5556 of the Special Meeting of the Council held on 11.06.2025, yet, in his usual fairness, Mr. Rao has submitted that in all probability, the Petitioners were neither put to notice nor heard before the Appeal was rejected. To that extent, Mr. Rao does not oppose the submission of the Petitioners' Counsel that the impugned Order, rejecting the Appeal(s), is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, is liable to be set aside on such counts alone.

3. If that be so, we do not find any justifiable ground either to enter into the merit of the impugned Order/Resolution dated 11.06.2025 or to keep the Contempt Petition pending any further before this Court. Taking note of the concession made by Mr. Parag Rao, we dispose off this Contempt Petition by setting aside the Order/Resolution No. 5556 dated 11.06.2025, passed by the Margao Municipal Council, qua the Petitioners and direct that the Appeal(s) filed by the Petitioners be heard afresh and disposed off by a reasoned Order, within a period of four weeks from the date of appearance of the Petitioners before the

concerned Authority.

4. The Petitioners are directed to appear before the Chief Officer of the Margao Municipal Council, on 18.02.2026 at 10.30 a.m. and furnish a copy of this Order. Upon receipt of the same, the Chief Officer of Margao Municipal Council would do the needful for hearing of the Appeal(s) afresh in terms of this Order. Accordingly, a date of hearing be fixed, with prior intimation to the Petitioners. Thereafter, a reasoned order, as directed by this Court, be passed within a period of four weeks.

5. Contempt Petition is disposed off accordingly. AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.

SUMAN SHYAM, J.

Signed by: ANDREZA RODRIGUES EPEREIRA Designation: Senior Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Judge Date: 17/02/2026 10:52:43