Mangala Chandrakant Parvatkar v. State Of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary And 4 ORS

2025:BHC-GOA:2434

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.486 OF 2025 Mangala Chandrakant Parvatkar, Aged 65 years, H.no. 53, Curca Cantulim, Tiswadi-Goa.

.... Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Goa, Through its Chief Secretary, Having its office at Secretariate, Porvorim, Goa.

2. The Village Panchayat of Curca, Through its Secretary, Having its office at Curca, Bambolim, TiswadiGoa.

3. Additional Director of Panchayats-I, Through its Director, Having its office at Myles High Building, 4th floor, Patto, Panaji-Goa

4. The Directorate of Panchayats, Through its Director, Having its office at Myles High Building, 5th floor, Patto, Panaji-Goa

5. Dattaram K. Khandeparkar, Major of Age, Resident of H. no.54, Curca Canturlim, Tiswadi-Goa .... Respondents Mr. Prasheen Lotlikar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr Tukaram Gawas, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.1, 3 and 4.

Mr Vineet Surlakar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr Ketan Morajkar, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

DATED: 08th DECEMBER, 2025.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Registry to waive office objections and register the matter. 1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the Petition is disposed of finally.

2.

The only question before me in this Petition is whether the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 remanding the case back to the Panchayat could have been passed by the Director of Panchayats without affording the complainant/Petitioner herein, an opportunity of being heard. It is the Petitioner's case, which is not in dispute, that he is the original complainant and had filed an application for impleadment in the Appeal No.251/2024 before the Director of Panchayats filed by the Respondent No.5. Admittedly, without hearing the complainant or even allowing the application for impleadment, the Appeal came to be allowed and the matter remanded back to the Panchayat. The impugned order is, therefore, in contravention of the principles of natural justice and has not considered the complainant's contention. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 stands quashed and set aside.

3.

Learned Advocate for Respondent No.5, the original Appellant, submits that they have no objection to the Petitioner being impleaded in the Appeal. In this view of the matter, the Director of Panchayats is directed to permit the

application for impleadment filed by the Petitioner and the cause-title of the Appeal be amended.

The parties shall appear before the Additional Director of Panchayats-I, North Goa, on 13.01.2026 at 03:00PM, before whom Appeal No.251/2024, which now stands restored, shall be taken up for hearing, the impleadment application be allowed, cause-title amended to include the name of the Petitioner and the matter be thereafter heard and disposed of. The Directorate of Panchayat may fix such date as is convenient to it, for hearing of the Appeal on merits and dispose of the same, preferably within three months from the date of the first appearance, i.e. on 13.01.2026. 4.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 10/12/2025 10:38:18