T.I ENTERPRISES, REP BY ITS AUTHORISED PARTNER MR. TAHIR V. ISANIversusTHE DEPUTY COLLECTOR BARDEZ AND 4 ORS

2026:BHC-GOA:1824-DB


                                         74 WP 962-2026.docx


          Meena
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 962 OF 2026
                                         WITH
                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO.89 OF 2026
                                          IN
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 962 OF 2026
                                         WITH
                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO.44 OF 2026
                                          IN
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 962 OF 2026


          T.I. ENTERPRISES REP BY ITS AUTHORISED ... PETITIONER
          PARTNER MR. TAHIR V. ISANI
                  VERSUS
          THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR BARDEZ AND 4
          ORS                                                    ... RESPONDENTS



          Mr. S.M. Walawaikar with Ms. Sukant Halankar, Advocates for the
          Petitioner.

          Mr.     Prashil    Arolkar,   Additional       Government   Advocate   for
          Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

          Mr. Y.V. Nadkarni with Mr. Sanket Kamat and Mr. N. Noronha,
          Advocate for Respondent No.5.

                                   CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES &
                                                  AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
                                   DATED :- 8th September, 2026

                                               1 of 6
                             74 WP 962-2026.docx



ORAL ORDER: (per Valmiki Menezes,J)


1. By this Writ Petition the Petitioner seeks the following directions:


    (a)     Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent No.1 Deputy

    Collector Bardez Goa to handover possession of premises at

    house No. 435/37, on the ground floor floor of the house

    situated at Porvorum Bardez Goa


    (b) For a Writ of Mandamus to direct Respondent No.1 to

    hold an appropriate inquiry as to the fraudulent conduct of

    Respondent Nos.3 and 5 which resulted in, what the

    Petitioner considers illegal handing over of the possession of

    the said premises to the Respondent No.5 and


    c)     For a direction of this Court to conduct an enquiry into

    the conduct of Respondent No.5 into the circumstances under

    which Respondent No.5 took possession of the premises.


2. The Respondent No.5 has filed an affidavit in which it has disputed

on the factual averments raised by the Petitioners alleging fraud


                                   2 of 6
                             74 WP 962-2026.docx



committed by the Respondent No.5 or fraud committed by the

Respondent No.3 in collusion with Respondent No.5. On this count

alone, since there are disputed questions of fact, the Petitioner ought

to be relegated to its regular remedies of filing a civil suit, more so

since there are serious allegations of fraud which would require

evidence to be led by the parties. Relief clause (b) and (c) therefore

cannot be granted by this Court in these circumstances.


3. Insofar as clause (a) is concerned, we must take note of facts

which have transpired prior to the filing of this petition. Writ Petition

No.674 of 2023 filed before this Court by one Mr Rosario, who was

the Complainant before the Pollution Control Board, who had alleged

that the Respondent No.15 was running a restaurant into the

premises without necessary approvals under the Air Act and Water

Act for conducting such business. This Court directed immediate

closure or sealing of the premi ses, in the absence of any licenses by

Respondent No.15 under the aforementioned statutes. The premises

were sealed by the Deputy Collector, Bardez under the orders of this

Court.




                                   3 of 6
                            74 WP 962-2026.docx



4. Subsequent to these orders being passed, Respondent No.5 filed

MCA No.2602/2025(F), in which Respondent No.15 who claims to be

a sub-licensee of the premises and Respondent No.5 BR Enterprises,

who was the licensee of the premises, came to be heard by Original

Respondent No.3 the landlord thereof. In these proceedings,

Respondent No.15 who is present Petitioner has chosen not to file any

affidavit to bring on record all the facts now alleged in the present

petition. In fact what formed part of that MCA were three documents,

the first which was dated 29.09.2025 (letter written by the Petitioner

herein to BR Enterprises requested desealing of the premises to

remove all his belongings, pursuant to termination notice dated

21.10.2023), the second communication dated 30.09.2025 from B.R.

Enterprises to the landlord to deseal the premises to permit

Respondent No.15/ Petitioner herein to remove his belongings. These

documents having been part of the record, and the present Petitioner

not having responded to them, the MCA came to be disposed of by an

order dated 09.10.2025 by this Court directing the Deputy Collector

to deseal the premises belonging to the Applicant, who is the

Respondent No.5 herein.



                                  4 of 6
                              74 WP 962-2026.docx



5. After having taken such an order from the Court, and not reacting

to that order, the present petition was filed almost three months later

i.e. on 07.01.2026 alleging that under the guise of implementing the

order of 09.10.2025, the Talathi i.e. Respondent No.3 has

fraudulently prepared a report on the basis of which the Respondent

No.1 has handed over the possession of the premises to the

Respondent No.5 herein. We take note that all these facts would

have to be considered by a Civil Court if the petition as drafted is filed

as a Civil Suit, considering the allegations of fraud as seriously

disputed by the parties. We also take note that in the initial order

dated 05.10.2023 in paragraph 28 thereof this Court has successfully

noted that there are disputes amongst Respondent Nos.3, 5, 14 and

15, of which Respondent No.15 therein is the Petitioner here, they

may resort to regular remedies before the appropriate forum to have

their disputes decided. That position is not changed before us even

today, considering the allegations made in this petition. For all the

allegations made in this petition, this petition having serious disputed

questions of facts to be decided and evidence to be recorded, we reject

the same and relegate the petition to its regular remedies to the Civil

Court. No costs.

                                    5 of 6
                                              74 WP 962-2026.docx



                  6. The connected application and contempt Petition stands disposed

                  of in view of the order passed by us in the matter. Interim order, if

                  any, stands vacated.




                  AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.                     VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




                                                    6 of 6

Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR
Designation: Private Secretary
Date: 09/09/2026 18:15:05