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 PARTNER MR. TAHIR V. ISANI VERSUS THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR BARDEZ AND 4 ORS ... PETITIONER ... 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 2026:BHC-GOA:1824-DB 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