DEVENDRA KUNDAIKARversusSTATE OF GOA THR CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS

2026:BHC-GOA:1907
                                               (1)                         wp-959-2026.odt



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                                WRIT PETITION NO.959 OF 2026

                                 MR. DEVENDRA KUNDAIKAR
                                             VERSUS
                                    STATE OF GOA AND ORS
                                                 …
               Ms. Ankita Kamat, Advocate for Petitioner.
               Ms. Samiksha Vaigankar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
               Mr. L. Joseph Deva, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
               Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.4 (through V.C.)
                                                …
                                         CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                         DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
               FINAL ORDER:-

               1.    The petitioner impugns order dated 07.07.2026 passed by

               respondent no.2/Commissioner, Corporation of City of Panaji revoking

               work stoppage order-cum-show cause notice dated 14.05.2026.


               2.    The petitioner contends that on 12.05.2026 he had made

               complaint    to   Corporation         of   Panaji   regarding   unauthorized

               repair/alteration work carried by respondent no.3 beyond Repair

               Licence     bearing    No.F15/CCP/ENG/RPL/25/2025-2026                    dated

               06.10.2025. Accordingly, site inspection was carried, wherein it was

               observed that repair works were carrying in violation of work permit.

               Further Mr. Clare Godinho had pointed out cracks developed in his wall

               due to use of breaker machine for repair work. It was also observed that

               additional walls were constructed touching to neighbouring walls of

               both sides. Even roofing height was not maintained as per original

               approved height. Accordingly, work stoppage order-cum-show cause
                                (2)                     wp-959-2026.odt



notice dated 14.05.2026 was given to respondent no.3. However, same

has been withdrawn without hearing to petitioner.       It is urged that

impugned order is contrary to procedure established under law as well

as principles of natural justice. The petitioner had made fresh complaint

and representation. However, same has been ignored and impugned

order dated 07.07.2026 has been passed, thereby revoking show cause

notice dated 14.05.2026. Even at this time, petitioner was not heard or

given opportunity of hearing.


3.       Per contra, Mr. L. Joseph Deva, learned Advocate appearing for

respondent no.3 supports impugned order.        He would submit that

previously petitioner had made complaint on the basis of which work

stoppage order-cum-show cause notice was given to respondent no.3 on

12.01.2026, which was withdrawn on 12.02.2026. The petitioner has

not challenged said order. Later on, respondent no.3 was served with

work stoppage order dated 14.05.2026 on the basis of complaint made

by Clare Godinho and same has been withdrawn vide impugned order

dated 07.07.2026 by putting certain conditions. Hence, there is no

illegality requiring interference under Article 227 of Constitution of

India.


4.       Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates

appearing for respective parties and on perusal of record tendered into

service before this Court, it can be observed that petitioner represented
                               (3)                      wp-959-2026.odt



respondent-Corporation regarding illegal construction at house under

Chalta No.169 of P.T. Sheet No.45 bearing House No.4-225.                 The

Corporation took cognizance of said complaint, caused inspection and

issued work stoppage order. However, it was withdrawn vide order

dated 12.02.2026 under pretext that petitioner and Clare Godinho have

voluntarily and unconditionally withdrawn their complaints dated

12.11.2025.     The petitioner as well as Clare Godinho submitted

representation dated 16.03.2026 to Corporation and reiterated their

complaint and also denied that they have withdrawn their complaint.

Accordingly, re-inspection was carried and deficiencies were noted in

work carried by respondent. Eventually, order dated 14.05.2026 was

issued for stoppage of work alongwith show cause notice to respondent

no.3.


5.      It appears that, by impugned order dated 07.07.2026, order dated

14.05.2026 has been revoked subject to certain conditions. Perusal of

order shows that petitioner was never given opportunity of hearing

before passing revocation order. Although order is administrative in

nature, action of stoppage of work was initiated by Corporation on the

basis of complaint given by petitioner.       In this backdrop, it was

necessary to atleast hear petitioner or grant opportunity of making

representation before restoration of repair licence or withdrawal of work

stoppage order-cum-show cause notice. Hence, following order:
                                 (4)                        wp-959-2026.odt



                                   ORDER

a.       Writ Petition is partly allowed in terms of prayer Clause (A).


b.       The impugned order dated 07.07.2026 passed by respondent

no.2/Commissioner, Corporation of City of Panaji is quashed and set

aside and matter is relegated back for consideration afresh.


c.         Parties to appear before respondent no.2 on 05.10.2026, who

shall pass fresh order after hearing petitioner and respondent no.3 on the

basis of work stoppage order-cum-show cause notice dated 14.05.2026.




                                           (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                    JUDGE
Devendra/September-2026