Bombay High Court

TRUPTESH DATTARAM GAONKAR AND ANRversusSIDDHIVINAYAK S NAIK, THE CHIEF OFFICER

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The Court dismissed the review application, holding that there was no error in the contempt order and the application was frivolous and an abuse of process.

Summary

The applicants, representing an unregistered devotees' association, sought a review of the High Court's contempt order dated 19‑08‑2026 directing demolition of a shed they occupied on land belonging to the Mormugao Port Authority. They also requested permission to hold a public Ganeshotsav in the shed from 14‑09‑2026 to 22‑09‑2026 and a deferment of demolition after 01‑10‑2026. The Court examined the procedural history, noting that the Municipal Council had issued a demolition order in May 2020, which was upheld by the Goa Municipalities Appellate Tribunal and later affirmed by the High Court in a writ petition, with costs imposed on the petitioners. Despite these orders, the demolition had not been carried out, leading to contempt proceedings. The Court found no error in the original contempt order, held the review application to be frivolous and an abuse of process, and dismissed it with costs of Rs.10,000.

Issues considered

Whether the review application challenging the contempt order dated 19‑08‑2026 is maintainable.
Whether there is any apparent error in the contempt order that warrants review or modification.
Whether the applicants can be permitted to conduct a public Ganeshotsav in the shed and defer demolition.
Whether costs should be imposed for filing a frivolous and dilatory application.

Subjects

contempt of court
demolition order
municipal authority
review petition
abuse of process
public festival
costs

Judgment

                          MCA 2408-2026 (F).docx



Meena



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

     MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2408 OF 2026 (FILING)
                           IN
            CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 21 OF 2026

TRUPTESH DATTARAM GAONKAR
AND ANR                   ... APPLICANTS
        Versus
SIDDHIVINAYAK S. NAIK,
THE CHIEF OFFICER         ...RESPONDENT

Mr. Vithal Naik, Advocate for the Applicants.

Mr. Y.V. Nadkarni with Ms. Simran Khadilkar, Advocate for the
Respondent.
                CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES &
                            S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.

                  DATED :- 27th AUGUST, 2026
P.C.:

1.      his Application has been iled by two of the original
Petitioners in a disposed of Writ Petition No.LDC-VC-CW-
142/2020, seeking intervention in Contempt Petition No.21 of
2026, and further seeking review, recall and modiication in order
dated 19.08.2026 passed by this Court in the Contempt Petition; in

                                   1/5
                           MCA 2408-2026 (F).docx



addition, the Applicant seeks permission of this Court to allow the
Applicants, devotees and residents of Mormugao village to celebrate
“Sarvajanik Ganeshotsav” in the suit shed from 14.09.2026 to
22.09.2026 and to defer demolition of the said shed after
01.10.2026.

2.     On going through the entire records of previous orders passed
by this Court and the original proceedings from which the
Contempt Petition No. 21 of 2026 emanates, we dismiss the
application for the following reasons:

     a. he present Applicants claim to be representatives of an
       unregistered society/association which claim that they, as
       devotees had raised and maintained a shed structure in which
       the devotees were conducting certain acts of worship. Since
       on a complaint made by the Mormugao Port Authority
       (MPA) to the Mormugao Municipal Council (MMC), no
       action was been taken by the Council, a Writ Petition
       No.815 of 2010 came to be iled for a mandamus to the
       MMC which came to be disposed of by this Court on
       28.03.2011, recording an undertaking from the MMC that
       the complaint would be disposed of after issuing a Show
       Cause Notice to the occupants of the land under Chalta
       No.1, PT Sheet No.7 of Mormugao taluka where the suit
       shed admeasuring 80.84 sq.mtrs. had been constructed.
                                    2/5
                     MCA 2408-2026 (F).docx



b. he MMC thereafter heard the present Applicants and some
  20 other persons and passed a demolition order on
  20.05.2020 for removal of the shed admeasuring 80.84
  sq.mtrs. on the said land belonging to the MPA; this order
  was challenged before the Goa Municipalities Appellate
  Tribunal by the Applicants towards Appellant No.1, amongst
  21 appellants which came to be dismissed by a detailed order
  of 06.08.2020.     he order of the Tribunal was further
  challenged by the Applicants before this Court in a writ
  petition bearing No. LDC-VC-CW-142/2020 which was
  dismissed   on   13.10.2020          after   imposing   costs   of
  Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees hree Lakhs only) on the Petitioners.

c. he present Applicants preferred Special Leave to Appeal
  (Civil) No. 14967/2020 which was rejected on 15.12.2020,
  reducing the costs imposed to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
  lakh only). Despite all these litigations, the MMC did not
  act upon its demolition order and the MPA was forced to ile
  a Writ Petition No. 1265/2025 F in which the Applicant No.
  1 was arrayed as Respondent No.2. his petition came to be
  disposed of by this Court on 09.09.2025 recording the
  statement of the Chief Oicer of the MMC that the shed
  structure would be demolished pursuant to directions of this
  court in its order of 20.05.2020 within a period of 6 weeks.

                              3/5
                        MCA 2408-2026 (F).docx



   Despite the undertaking the Chief Oicer failed to carry out
   the demolition compelling the MPA to ile Contempt
   Proceedings bearing No. 21/26, in which this Court passed a
   detailed order on 19.08.2026 directing the Chief Oicer of
   the MMC to personally ensure that the demolition was
   complete and the structure be removed on 28.08.2026, when
   the demolition squad, under the Deputy Collector, Vasco Da
   Gama was scheduled to carry out the demolition. he
   Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Vasco-da-Gama was also
   directed to disconnect electricity supply to the ofending
   structure within three days of that order.

d. It is in the aforesaid background that the Applicants had now
   approach this Court with the present Review Application and
   an application for modiication of the order of 19.08.2026.
   here is absolutely no error apparent of the face of the record
   to justify review or modiication of this Court’s order of
   19.08.2026. he Contempt Proceedings are pending against
   the Chief Oicer who is bound to report compliance of the
   demolition order by 01.09.2026. In fact, this is a complete
   abuse of the process of the Court by the Applicants, who have
   failed in atleast four for a, including the Supreme Court and
   now attempting to further delay the inevitable demolition.
   his Court is therefore fully justiied in imposing cost on the

                                 4/5
                                                     MCA 2408-2026 (F).docx



                                 Applicant for iling the present application which is frivolous,
                                 dilatory and nothing but an abuse of the process of the
                                 Court, as there is absolutely no ground for reviewing the
                                 order in the aforementioned circumstances.

                       3.        he application stands dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-
                       (Rupees Ten housand only).




                       S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J                        VALMIKI MENEZES, J




                                                              5/5


Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR
Designation: Private Secretary
Date: 28/08/2026 15:09:55

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…