(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 2026:BHC-GOA:1907 (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 However, same has been withdrawn without hearing to petitioner.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on the basis of which work stoppage order-cum-show cause notice was given to respondent no.3 on 12.01.2026, which was withdrawn on 12.02.2026.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was served with work stoppage order dated 14.05.2026 on the basis of complaint made by Clare Godinho and same has been withdrawn vide impugned order dated 07.07.2026 by putting certain conditions.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