PANJIM: "CRZ Regulation doesn't provide for classification of CRZ II area or CRZ III area only on the ground whether the area is situated within the Municipal limits or not. A area within Municipal limits, if not substantially developed will not be classified as CRZ II only on the ground that the area is within municipal limit, vice versa, an area outside municipal limit, if substantially developed and has been legally designated as urban area, is classified as CRZ II notwithstanding the fact that it is outside municipal limits."
This submission by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority Member Secretary to the High Court in a petition filed by Carlos Noronha challenging the construction plan of a hotel project by Fomento resorts on the ground that the re-classification of certain areas from CRZ III to II in 2001, is illegal, points to a simple fact.
According to GCZMA, the relevant aspect while deciding whether the area is CRZ II or CRZ III is not just whether it is in the municipal area or not, but whether it is substantially built up and has been provided with drainage, approach roads and other infrastructural facilities such as water supply and sewerage system.
To substantiate their stand that the area where the proposed hotel is coming up is rightfully designated as CRZ II, GCZMA has stated that the Dona Paula stretch was notified as part of Panjim municipal area in 1970 and although Taleigao was included in Panjim municipal area only in the year 1995, it was already designated as urban area since 1970, vide the following:
* Designated as one of the urban areas (census town) of North Goa district in 1991 census year.
* Notified as art of Panaji City Planning areas vide notification dated 19/11/1996, issued under the provision of Goa, Daman and Diu TCP Act, 1974.
Further to justify their stand, MS GCZMA has stated that the area is urban because of the buildable 69 plots, 52 plots have been built up, having 135 structures and the percentage of built up plots to buildable plots was 75.36 percent. Further, it is also stated that drainage has been provided, approach roads and main roads are existing, water supply through pipelines is available and sewerage scheme is under execution by Goa government and septic tanks are provided for each house/ building complex.
Requesting that the ad-interim relief to the petitioners should be vacated, GCZMA has stated that the distance of the proposed construction from the bank of the river is 86.23 mt, of the landward side of an existing authorized structure, which is within the permissible distance of 100 mts.
* CRZ II : The area that have already been developed upto or close to the shore line. For this purposed "developed" area is referred to as that area within municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which is already substantially built up and which has been provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructural facilities, such as water supply and sewerage mains."
* CRZ III: Areas that are relatively undisturbed and those, which don't belong to either category I or II. These include coastal zones in the rural areas (developed and undeveloped) and also areas within municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which are not substantially built up.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Meditab Specialties Pvt Ltd SEZ in Keri
PANJIM: Meditab Specialties Pvt Ltd, which has been allotted land at Keri, Ponda, for setting up Pharma park/SEZ has approached the High Court of Bombay at Goa, stating that the Chief Secretary has threatened them.
MSPL has submitted that in view of the threat of the Chief Secretary, they are compelled to approach the Court by way of the present petition as they have invested huge sums of money.
They have further submitted that contrary to Chief Minister Digambar Kamat's statement on December 8, 2007 that MSPL has voluntarily stopped the work, they have not voluntarily stopped work but forced to do so by the Ponda Deputy Collector and Ponda PI and they desire to continue the work as they are duly authorized to do so.
It is alleged that on December 8, 2007, the Chief Secretary JP Singh in a "very high handed manner" instead of supporting them, orally instructed them to stop the work voluntarily and threatened that if the work is not stopped, the police will not protect the petitioner's workers, its machinery etc.
This instruction was given to the petitioner by the CS when MSPL officials met the CS to apprise him of the situation and to inform him that a mob of people had entered their property and tried to vandalize it on December7, 2007, even as the Ponda deputy Collector and Ponda PI who came to the site, supported the unlawful assembly and instructed the MSPL to stop the construction/ development activities. Incidentally, no order was served to the petitioner under any law for stoppage of the work.
The petitioner wanted to know whether the state government is entitled to stop them working at its duly authorized site at Keri, Ponda and whether the state government can refuse police protection to them for conducting its activities after they have got all necessary permissions and is duly legal. The state of Goa through the Chief Secretary, the Chief Secretary JP Singh, Secretary (Home), GIDC, GSPCB, Ponda Deputy Collector and Ponda PI have been made respondents in the petition.
MSPL was allotted 12,32,000 sq mts land by Goa Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) on April 28, 2006 and a year later, on April 10, 2007, the Development Commissioner, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, GoI notified the area as SEZ for sector specific industries – pharmaceutical industries. By May 2007, the petitioner starts the development activities in the SEZ area and incurs crores of rupees expenditure in developing the SEZ area.
In May 2007, MSPL allots two plots of land to M/s Cipla Ltd to set up its units for manufacturing aerosol. The said units also get permission from Pollution Control Board for establishing its units.
However, trouble started from November 22, 2007, when a mob of about 20-25 people came to MSPL SEZ, threatened the security men and entered the leased area of the petitioner, wanting to inspect what was happening in the said area and to check whether there were any bore wells or tube wells constructed therein.
MSPL has submitted that in view of the threat of the Chief Secretary, they are compelled to approach the Court by way of the present petition as they have invested huge sums of money.
They have further submitted that contrary to Chief Minister Digambar Kamat's statement on December 8, 2007 that MSPL has voluntarily stopped the work, they have not voluntarily stopped work but forced to do so by the Ponda Deputy Collector and Ponda PI and they desire to continue the work as they are duly authorized to do so.
It is alleged that on December 8, 2007, the Chief Secretary JP Singh in a "very high handed manner" instead of supporting them, orally instructed them to stop the work voluntarily and threatened that if the work is not stopped, the police will not protect the petitioner's workers, its machinery etc.
This instruction was given to the petitioner by the CS when MSPL officials met the CS to apprise him of the situation and to inform him that a mob of people had entered their property and tried to vandalize it on December7, 2007, even as the Ponda deputy Collector and Ponda PI who came to the site, supported the unlawful assembly and instructed the MSPL to stop the construction/ development activities. Incidentally, no order was served to the petitioner under any law for stoppage of the work.
The petitioner wanted to know whether the state government is entitled to stop them working at its duly authorized site at Keri, Ponda and whether the state government can refuse police protection to them for conducting its activities after they have got all necessary permissions and is duly legal. The state of Goa through the Chief Secretary, the Chief Secretary JP Singh, Secretary (Home), GIDC, GSPCB, Ponda Deputy Collector and Ponda PI have been made respondents in the petition.
MSPL was allotted 12,32,000 sq mts land by Goa Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) on April 28, 2006 and a year later, on April 10, 2007, the Development Commissioner, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, GoI notified the area as SEZ for sector specific industries – pharmaceutical industries. By May 2007, the petitioner starts the development activities in the SEZ area and incurs crores of rupees expenditure in developing the SEZ area.
In May 2007, MSPL allots two plots of land to M/s Cipla Ltd to set up its units for manufacturing aerosol. The said units also get permission from Pollution Control Board for establishing its units.
However, trouble started from November 22, 2007, when a mob of about 20-25 people came to MSPL SEZ, threatened the security men and entered the leased area of the petitioner, wanting to inspect what was happening in the said area and to check whether there were any bore wells or tube wells constructed therein.
IT park Zuari versus DLF in Goa:DLF's mega foray
PANJIM: While Taleigao residents are engaged in a battle with the government against the establishment of an IT park at Dona Paula, in nearby Sancoale, two corporate giants are battling it out to set up an IT park. However, the irony is that the government is acquiring land from one corporate giant to give it to another to set up an IT park.
With no solution at hand, the battle has now reached the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The petitioner, Zuari Industries Ltd, has alleged that the government is discriminating between two private parties and seeking to favour one -- DLF Commercial Development. Zuari Industries Ltd has further alleged that the government is acquiring their land at throw away prices to give it to DLF Commercial Development to set up an IT park.
The story goes like this. Zuari Industries Ltd proposed to establish a sector specific SEZ dedicated to the development of IT and IT enabled services sector, in the land they had acquired from the Communidade of Sancoale on March 31, 1971. The IT SEZ project worth Rs 730 crores was proposed to be established on 40 acres ( 16.20 hectares) land owned by Zuari Industries Ltd.
For the same, they submitted an application to the Ministry of Industries, GoI on December 27, 2006, for establishment of a sector specific SEZ dedicated to the development of IT and IT enabled services in Goa. They did this because they had to seek approval of the proposal from GoI and then obtain the concurrence of the State government.
Meanwhile, the state government issued a notification on February 5, 2007, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, wherein it was mentioned that the land (which was owned by Zuari Industries Ltd, on which they proposed to set up an IT SEZ) is likely to be needed for "public purpose", viz land acquisition for expansion of Sancoale Industrial Estate, Phase V.
In other words, Zuari Industries Ltd alleged that the government was proposing to acquire more than 18 hectares of land on which the IT SEZ was to be established, thus reducing the land available for SEZ less than 10 hectares. With the land available with Zuari Industries Ltd being less than 10 hectares, the plans of Zuari Industries Ltd to have an IT SEZ would become infractuous.
Even as on February 15, 2007, GoI addressed a letter to the state government for its comments on Zuari Industries Ltd proposal to set up an IT SEZ, which the petitioners allege the state government has failed to consider, the government allegedly transpired to proceed with the acquisition for establishment of IT park by DLF Commercial Development.
Zuari Industries Ltd has alleged in the Court that the government is not acquiring the land for "public purpose" but to facilitate DLF Commercial Development to set up an IT park. The government's intention, Zuari Industries Ltd alleged, is revealed in the minutes of the 291 st Board meeting of Goa Industrial Development Corporation, which states that DLF Commercial Development had given a proposal to set up an IT park on the land belonging to
Zuari Industries Ltd.
With no solution at hand, the battle has now reached the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The petitioner, Zuari Industries Ltd, has alleged that the government is discriminating between two private parties and seeking to favour one -- DLF Commercial Development. Zuari Industries Ltd has further alleged that the government is acquiring their land at throw away prices to give it to DLF Commercial Development to set up an IT park.
The story goes like this. Zuari Industries Ltd proposed to establish a sector specific SEZ dedicated to the development of IT and IT enabled services sector, in the land they had acquired from the Communidade of Sancoale on March 31, 1971. The IT SEZ project worth Rs 730 crores was proposed to be established on 40 acres ( 16.20 hectares) land owned by Zuari Industries Ltd.
For the same, they submitted an application to the Ministry of Industries, GoI on December 27, 2006, for establishment of a sector specific SEZ dedicated to the development of IT and IT enabled services in Goa. They did this because they had to seek approval of the proposal from GoI and then obtain the concurrence of the State government.
Meanwhile, the state government issued a notification on February 5, 2007, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, wherein it was mentioned that the land (which was owned by Zuari Industries Ltd, on which they proposed to set up an IT SEZ) is likely to be needed for "public purpose", viz land acquisition for expansion of Sancoale Industrial Estate, Phase V.
In other words, Zuari Industries Ltd alleged that the government was proposing to acquire more than 18 hectares of land on which the IT SEZ was to be established, thus reducing the land available for SEZ less than 10 hectares. With the land available with Zuari Industries Ltd being less than 10 hectares, the plans of Zuari Industries Ltd to have an IT SEZ would become infractuous.
Even as on February 15, 2007, GoI addressed a letter to the state government for its comments on Zuari Industries Ltd proposal to set up an IT SEZ, which the petitioners allege the state government has failed to consider, the government allegedly transpired to proceed with the acquisition for establishment of IT park by DLF Commercial Development.
Zuari Industries Ltd has alleged in the Court that the government is not acquiring the land for "public purpose" but to facilitate DLF Commercial Development to set up an IT park. The government's intention, Zuari Industries Ltd alleged, is revealed in the minutes of the 291 st Board meeting of Goa Industrial Development Corporation, which states that DLF Commercial Development had given a proposal to set up an IT park on the land belonging to
Zuari Industries Ltd.
Dona Paula hawkers
PANJIM: The 64-odd hawkers, who occupy the Dona Paula jetty, have sought time from the High Court to file an application or writ petition to ensure that the City Corporation of Panaji doesn't remove them from the spot without rehabilitating them.
It must be recalled that the High Court of Bombay at Goa has taken suo moto cognizance of an anonymous letter written by a "concerned citizen" pertaining to encroachments on the pathway at Dona Paula Jetty and converted the letter into Public Interest Litigation. The letter was send on October 10, 2007
In the letter, "the concerned citizen" said that though it was submitted in the High Court in 1993 that the stall owners, hawkers would shift from the jetty to a place near NIO junction, they continue to encroach upon the pavements to the jetty thereby causing inconvenience to the public and making it difficult for the tourists to visit the place.
The letter further states that in the year 1993 the Panjim Municipal Council (now CCP) had issued notice to the hawkers, stall owners occupying the Dona Paula jetty pursuant to the direction given by the Tourism Department to vacate.
Aggrieved by the notice, one Nazareth Cabral, had approached the High Court, challenging the action of the authorities and the petition was disposed once an agreement was arrived upon between all concerned parties. According to the agreement, an alternate arrangement was to be made for the stall owners and hawkers, which cost about Rs 50 lakh, near NIO junction.
The letter informed that till date the concerned authorities have made no such arrangements and therefore the "concerned citizen" has written to the High Court.
Further, the letter also draws the Court's notice to the fact that a lot of garbage is accumulated due to the functioning of the stall owners and hawkers, which has made the area prone to rat infections. This is allegedly due to the food and drinks that is served to the tourist.
However, senior counsel Surendra Dessai appearing on behalf of the hawkers said that they shouldn't be removed without being rehabilitated. The rehabilitation has been stalled due a writ petition pending in the High Court.
The matter will come up for hearing next week.
It must be recalled that the High Court of Bombay at Goa has taken suo moto cognizance of an anonymous letter written by a "concerned citizen" pertaining to encroachments on the pathway at Dona Paula Jetty and converted the letter into Public Interest Litigation. The letter was send on October 10, 2007
In the letter, "the concerned citizen" said that though it was submitted in the High Court in 1993 that the stall owners, hawkers would shift from the jetty to a place near NIO junction, they continue to encroach upon the pavements to the jetty thereby causing inconvenience to the public and making it difficult for the tourists to visit the place.
The letter further states that in the year 1993 the Panjim Municipal Council (now CCP) had issued notice to the hawkers, stall owners occupying the Dona Paula jetty pursuant to the direction given by the Tourism Department to vacate.
Aggrieved by the notice, one Nazareth Cabral, had approached the High Court, challenging the action of the authorities and the petition was disposed once an agreement was arrived upon between all concerned parties. According to the agreement, an alternate arrangement was to be made for the stall owners and hawkers, which cost about Rs 50 lakh, near NIO junction.
The letter informed that till date the concerned authorities have made no such arrangements and therefore the "concerned citizen" has written to the High Court.
Further, the letter also draws the Court's notice to the fact that a lot of garbage is accumulated due to the functioning of the stall owners and hawkers, which has made the area prone to rat infections. This is allegedly due to the food and drinks that is served to the tourist.
However, senior counsel Surendra Dessai appearing on behalf of the hawkers said that they shouldn't be removed without being rehabilitated. The rehabilitation has been stalled due a writ petition pending in the High Court.
The matter will come up for hearing next week.
Health in Goa
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa wanted to know from the advocate general Subodh Kantak, if all major government hospitals in Goa have a housekeeping department. If such a department doesn't exist, then the Court wanted the AG to state on affidavit that they will have a housekeeping department soon.
The Division bench of Justice D B Bhosale and Justice NA Britto observed that cleanliness is a major problem in the government hospitals and there is a need to set up a separate housekeeping department. Unhygienic conditions in the rooms, toilets etc. is what disappoints general public, the Court observed.
The Court made this observation while hearing a petition filed in public interest, which raises a grievance about the standard of health care in the state, including facilities for treatment in all fields of medical science and super-specialties.
Further, not impressed with the State government's tall claims that the there is an Advisory board, consisting of reputed doctors from Delhi and Mumbai, to look into the functioning of government hospitals, the Court orally asked the Amicus curiae, senior counsel Saresh Lotlikar to suggest names of 4 or 5 persons—lawyer, doctor, architect, engineer or social worker—who can inspect the government hospitals.
Referring to the affidavit filed by Joint Secretary (Health), indicating the present status and of improvements to be made – adequacy of staff, medicine, equipment for surgery, aftercare and available beds – in respect of each of the 3 government hospitals, Goa Medical College at Bambolim, Asilo Hospital in Mapusa and Hospicio hospital at Margao, the Court observed that the affidavit doesn't mention the doctor- patients and nurse- patients ratio nor does it mention whether there is adequate staff in the hospitals.
The Division bench of Justice D B Bhosale and Justice NA Britto observed that cleanliness is a major problem in the government hospitals and there is a need to set up a separate housekeeping department. Unhygienic conditions in the rooms, toilets etc. is what disappoints general public, the Court observed.
The Court made this observation while hearing a petition filed in public interest, which raises a grievance about the standard of health care in the state, including facilities for treatment in all fields of medical science and super-specialties.
Further, not impressed with the State government's tall claims that the there is an Advisory board, consisting of reputed doctors from Delhi and Mumbai, to look into the functioning of government hospitals, the Court orally asked the Amicus curiae, senior counsel Saresh Lotlikar to suggest names of 4 or 5 persons—lawyer, doctor, architect, engineer or social worker—who can inspect the government hospitals.
Referring to the affidavit filed by Joint Secretary (Health), indicating the present status and of improvements to be made – adequacy of staff, medicine, equipment for surgery, aftercare and available beds – in respect of each of the 3 government hospitals, Goa Medical College at Bambolim, Asilo Hospital in Mapusa and Hospicio hospital at Margao, the Court observed that the affidavit doesn't mention the doctor- patients and nurse- patients ratio nor does it mention whether there is adequate staff in the hospitals.
Hoardings in Goa
PANJIM: If everything goes fine, then anyone who wants to advertise on the highways need to take permission of the local authority (under the relevant Act) and of the Collector (under the Goa Prevention of Defacement of Property) Act.
Further, the person who has erected hoardings would have to produce permissions obtained by them from the Collector in terms of clause (1) and if no permission has been obtained, either from the local Authority or from the Collector or from both, the concerned person shall immediately apply for such permission.
Accordingly, an application for license has to be made to the Collector within a period of 90 days and any such application must be accompanied by a license from the local authority and shall, be in accordance with procedure laid down in the rules framed under the Goa Prevention of Defacement of Property Act. The Collector shall dispose of the application within a period of 6 months from receipt of the same.
Further, if no application is made then the Collector shall direct removal of those hoardings at the cost of such person who is put the hoarding and if the Collector refuses any application for license, then Collector shall follow the same procedure for its removal as given in clause (8) above.
These were some of the suggestions made by the state government to the Division bench of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, while hearing a suo moto writ petition to examine the legality and propriety of hoardings in the state.
Further, it was also recommended that the Collector (North) and Collector (South) shall prepare list of hoardings existing within their respective jurisdiction. The Court while hearing these suggestions also asked for the suggestions of the All Goa Hoarding Owner's Association
.
It must be recalled that the High Court had taken suo moto cognizance to a news item published in GT under the heading, "Drive cautiously, Billboard may…" on June 5, 2007. Reacting to the news item, the court had stated that this shows that billboards are being erected without obtaining NOCs from local authorities and in violation of the 40 metre set back rule set out by the Indian Road Congress and without the NOC's of Traffic cell as well.
According to the Court, it is in public interest that the local authority exercise proper control with the said billboards and order their removal wherever the rules and regulations are not being adhered to.
Further, the person who has erected hoardings would have to produce permissions obtained by them from the Collector in terms of clause (1) and if no permission has been obtained, either from the local Authority or from the Collector or from both, the concerned person shall immediately apply for such permission.
Accordingly, an application for license has to be made to the Collector within a period of 90 days and any such application must be accompanied by a license from the local authority and shall, be in accordance with procedure laid down in the rules framed under the Goa Prevention of Defacement of Property Act. The Collector shall dispose of the application within a period of 6 months from receipt of the same.
Further, if no application is made then the Collector shall direct removal of those hoardings at the cost of such person who is put the hoarding and if the Collector refuses any application for license, then Collector shall follow the same procedure for its removal as given in clause (8) above.
These were some of the suggestions made by the state government to the Division bench of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, while hearing a suo moto writ petition to examine the legality and propriety of hoardings in the state.
Further, it was also recommended that the Collector (North) and Collector (South) shall prepare list of hoardings existing within their respective jurisdiction. The Court while hearing these suggestions also asked for the suggestions of the All Goa Hoarding Owner's Association
.
It must be recalled that the High Court had taken suo moto cognizance to a news item published in GT under the heading, "Drive cautiously, Billboard may…" on June 5, 2007. Reacting to the news item, the court had stated that this shows that billboards are being erected without obtaining NOCs from local authorities and in violation of the 40 metre set back rule set out by the Indian Road Congress and without the NOC's of Traffic cell as well.
According to the Court, it is in public interest that the local authority exercise proper control with the said billboards and order their removal wherever the rules and regulations are not being adhered to.
Night Market Goa
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has asked the Chief Secretary to hear the organizers of Saturday Evening Fair/Market (popularly known as Ingo Saturday Nite Market) and decide the matter before December 14, 2007.
The Division bench, while hearing a petition filed by Clive Braganza, challenging the revocation of the NOC/permission to run the market by the Arpora – Nagao village panchayat, asked the petitioner not to operate the market till the matter is decided.
Braganza had approached the Court stating that he along with his mother Preciosa Braganza are co-owners of property surveyed under NO.55/0 at Xim Waddo, Arpora, Bardez and were running the market since the year 2001, after taking necessary permissions from the Panchayat.
This year also they as usual applied for permission vide application dated August 7, 2007 and the permission was granted for the same by the village panchayat. A rmed with permission dated August 23, 2007, they commenced the activity of holding "Saturday Evening Fair/Market" from the month of October 2007. However, on November 12, 2007, the Arpora – Nagao village panchayat revoked the NOC/permission dated as per the circular of the Director of Panchayats without any show cause notice.
The Director of Panchayat circular states: "it has been decided that the village p anchayats henceforth shall submit all such proposals to Government through the Directorate of Panchayats for issue of permission."
However, the counsel for the Petitioner Mahesh Sonak stated that it is clear that the impugned circular is prospective in nature and shall apply in the matter of issuance of permissions after 20/9/2007 or for that matter 8/10/2007, and not to the permissions already granted before the said date and Panchayat has clearly misconstrued the circular.
Further, the petitioner upon receipt of the Impugned Revocation Order had addressed a representation to the Director of Panchayats on November 16, 2007, pointing out that "Saturday Evening Fair/Market" provides for highly rated cultural entertainments and is a tourist attraction to tourists from all over the world visiting Goa each year and should be allowed to operate. But there was no response.
Advocate SR Rivonkar appeared on behalf of the state government.
The Division bench, while hearing a petition filed by Clive Braganza, challenging the revocation of the NOC/permission to run the market by the Arpora – Nagao village panchayat, asked the petitioner not to operate the market till the matter is decided.
Braganza had approached the Court stating that he along with his mother Preciosa Braganza are co-owners of property surveyed under NO.55/0 at Xim Waddo, Arpora, Bardez and were running the market since the year 2001, after taking necessary permissions from the Panchayat.
This year also they as usual applied for permission vide application dated August 7, 2007 and the permission was granted for the same by the village panchayat. A rmed with permission dated August 23, 2007, they commenced the activity of holding "Saturday Evening Fair/Market" from the month of October 2007. However, on November 12, 2007, the Arpora – Nagao village panchayat revoked the NOC/permission dated as per the circular of the Director of Panchayats without any show cause notice.
The Director of Panchayat circular states: "it has been decided that the village p anchayats henceforth shall submit all such proposals to Government through the Directorate of Panchayats for issue of permission."
However, the counsel for the Petitioner Mahesh Sonak stated that it is clear that the impugned circular is prospective in nature and shall apply in the matter of issuance of permissions after 20/9/2007 or for that matter 8/10/2007, and not to the permissions already granted before the said date and Panchayat has clearly misconstrued the circular.
Further, the petitioner upon receipt of the Impugned Revocation Order had addressed a representation to the Director of Panchayats on November 16, 2007, pointing out that "Saturday Evening Fair/Market" provides for highly rated cultural entertainments and is a tourist attraction to tourists from all over the world visiting Goa each year and should be allowed to operate. But there was no response.
Advocate SR Rivonkar appeared on behalf of the state government.
Dumping of Construction material in Goa
PANJIM: The government should ensure a method by which the panchayat is informed by the builder where he is going to dump the construction debris before issuing any commencement certificate.
The Division bench of High Court of Bombay at Goa made these observations while hearing a PIL on dumping of debris into the mangroves.
It must be recalled that the High Court had taken suo motto cognizance of a complaint made by the English news channel Goa 365 regarding dumping of debris into the mangroves to the Court.
In the letter, a grievance was made about the environment degradation caused by builders and contractors who are dumping construction debris by the roadside on Panjim-Ponda road. It further alleged that the authorities mow the debris into the mangroves, which are the lungs of the State and there by encourage the builders to carry out the activity of dumping.
The Court observed that they have seen the footage of the alleged dumping in the CD, which was enclosed with the letter. "We feel that matter of dumping construction debris on the side of the major roads is a matter of grave concern. Similarly, filling of mangroves by such construction debris is also matter of grave concern", the Court noted.
The Division bench of High Court of Bombay at Goa made these observations while hearing a PIL on dumping of debris into the mangroves.
It must be recalled that the High Court had taken suo motto cognizance of a complaint made by the English news channel Goa 365 regarding dumping of debris into the mangroves to the Court.
In the letter, a grievance was made about the environment degradation caused by builders and contractors who are dumping construction debris by the roadside on Panjim-Ponda road. It further alleged that the authorities mow the debris into the mangroves, which are the lungs of the State and there by encourage the builders to carry out the activity of dumping.
The Court observed that they have seen the footage of the alleged dumping in the CD, which was enclosed with the letter. "We feel that matter of dumping construction debris on the side of the major roads is a matter of grave concern. Similarly, filling of mangroves by such construction debris is also matter of grave concern", the Court noted.
Aldei de Goa case
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has placed a petition against Goa Real Estate and Construction Ltd (GRECL, popularly known as Aldeia de Goa ) for stay on December 17.
It must be recalled that two NGOs -- People's Movement for Civic Action and Goa Foundation—had approached the High Court challenging the permissions granted by the Curca panchayat to GRECL.
The Curca panchayat had granted permission to GRECL to construct a hotel cum residential project at Bambolim village, part of which falls within the 100 mt "no development zone" of the CRZ notification as per the order of the Supreme Court dated April 18, 1996.
The petitioners submitted that the area has been zoned as CRZ III in the approved Goa Coastal Zone Management Plan approved by the Central government on September 27, 1996 and sought to seek stay of the developments in the 100-mt zone on the ground that the proposed construction is in violation of CRZ.
It must be recalled that two NGOs -- People's Movement for Civic Action and Goa Foundation—had approached the High Court challenging the permissions granted by the Curca panchayat to GRECL.
The Curca panchayat had granted permission to GRECL to construct a hotel cum residential project at Bambolim village, part of which falls within the 100 mt "no development zone" of the CRZ notification as per the order of the Supreme Court dated April 18, 1996.
The petitioners submitted that the area has been zoned as CRZ III in the approved Goa Coastal Zone Management Plan approved by the Central government on September 27, 1996 and sought to seek stay of the developments in the 100-mt zone on the ground that the proposed construction is in violation of CRZ.
landfill sites in Goa
PANJIM: Taking serious note of the increasing garbage menace in the state, the High Court of Bombay at Goa has asked the two municipal councils – Curchorem and Cuncolim – to call a meeting of the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, Director of Municipal Administration and a officer of Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) to select the landfill site. This has to be done within 10 days.
Further, the Court also recorded that in respect of the 11 municipal councils, sites have been identified and approved, while in respect of 2, the approved sites for garbage treatment in a scientific manner and in accordance with Municipal Solid Waste Rules was rejected by the Gram sabha.
Of the 11 sites, which were identified, in 3 of the sites the acquisition has been complete, in 3 acquisition has to be initiated and in 4 other, the acquisition is still to be initiated.
The High Court has asked the government to initiate and complete acquisition in respect of the seven municipal councils.
It must be recalled that majority of proposals for landfill sites were pending either on account of public opposition or opposition of panchayat or rejection of the permission from Goa State Pollution Control Board.
While the Chief Officer of Mormugao Municipal Council stated that they have already set up a waste treatment plant at Sada, Vasco for composting of municipal waste through microbial composting method, Chief Officer of Bicholim Municipal Council had submitted that they have identified a landfill site at Bordem, Bicholim. Deputy Collector of Ponda stated that they have identified land at Keriyan, Khandepar village and the Chief Officer of Mapusa Municipal Council said that they have selected a site at Cuchelim village. Even the case of Panjim is no different. Land acquisition at Bainguinim has been kept on hold due to people's opposition.
Further, the Court also recorded that in respect of the 11 municipal councils, sites have been identified and approved, while in respect of 2, the approved sites for garbage treatment in a scientific manner and in accordance with Municipal Solid Waste Rules was rejected by the Gram sabha.
Of the 11 sites, which were identified, in 3 of the sites the acquisition has been complete, in 3 acquisition has to be initiated and in 4 other, the acquisition is still to be initiated.
The High Court has asked the government to initiate and complete acquisition in respect of the seven municipal councils.
It must be recalled that majority of proposals for landfill sites were pending either on account of public opposition or opposition of panchayat or rejection of the permission from Goa State Pollution Control Board.
While the Chief Officer of Mormugao Municipal Council stated that they have already set up a waste treatment plant at Sada, Vasco for composting of municipal waste through microbial composting method, Chief Officer of Bicholim Municipal Council had submitted that they have identified a landfill site at Bordem, Bicholim. Deputy Collector of Ponda stated that they have identified land at Keriyan, Khandepar village and the Chief Officer of Mapusa Municipal Council said that they have selected a site at Cuchelim village. Even the case of Panjim is no different. Land acquisition at Bainguinim has been kept on hold due to people's opposition.
His age and his newly acquired job saved Rejo Raphael
PANJIM: His age and his newly acquired job saved Rejo Raphael convicted under NDPS Act from spending six months in prison. And with the state not objecting, in case the sentence imposed against the accused is reduced to the period of detention undergone by the accused, his route to freedom was faster.
Single judge of High Court of Bombay at Goa observed that the sentence should always be proportionate to the crime. "Considering the quantity involved, the age of the accused as well as the employment now secured by him, it would be in the interest of justice in case the period of detention undergone by the accused from November 28, 2003 to September 24, 2004 is considered as substantive sentence imposed upon the accused", the Court stated. In other words, the accused will not be required to undergo any further sentence.
Rejo Raphael had filed a criminal appeal in the High Court after the Trial Court sentenced him undergo R.I. for a term of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for a further term of 2 months under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. Raphael was found in possession of 1.17 kgs of ganja and arrested on November 28, 2003 and was in detention for nearly till he was released on bail after a period of 9 months 26 days, on September 24, 2004.
Though the accused didn't contest his conviction, it was submitted that the sentence imposed upon him is rather severe considering his age and the quantity of ganja found with him. On the date of the incident Raphael was 22 years of age.
Counsel for Raphael submitted to the Court that presently the accused is employed as a Marketing Executive and in case the accused is required to undergo the remaining sentence, the same will come in the way of his employment and the accused will loose his newly acquired job.
The single judge Justice NA Britto observed that admittedly, ganja in quantity of less than 1000 gms has been declared to be small quantity and the punishment provided is RI for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine, which may extend to Rs.10,000/-, or with both.
The Court further observed that the accused was found with 1.17 kgs, which is little over a small quantity but much less than commercial quantity and for which punishment provided is RI for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine which may extend to Rs.1,00,000.
Single judge of High Court of Bombay at Goa observed that the sentence should always be proportionate to the crime. "Considering the quantity involved, the age of the accused as well as the employment now secured by him, it would be in the interest of justice in case the period of detention undergone by the accused from November 28, 2003 to September 24, 2004 is considered as substantive sentence imposed upon the accused", the Court stated. In other words, the accused will not be required to undergo any further sentence.
Rejo Raphael had filed a criminal appeal in the High Court after the Trial Court sentenced him undergo R.I. for a term of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for a further term of 2 months under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. Raphael was found in possession of 1.17 kgs of ganja and arrested on November 28, 2003 and was in detention for nearly till he was released on bail after a period of 9 months 26 days, on September 24, 2004.
Though the accused didn't contest his conviction, it was submitted that the sentence imposed upon him is rather severe considering his age and the quantity of ganja found with him. On the date of the incident Raphael was 22 years of age.
Counsel for Raphael submitted to the Court that presently the accused is employed as a Marketing Executive and in case the accused is required to undergo the remaining sentence, the same will come in the way of his employment and the accused will loose his newly acquired job.
The single judge Justice NA Britto observed that admittedly, ganja in quantity of less than 1000 gms has been declared to be small quantity and the punishment provided is RI for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine, which may extend to Rs.10,000/-, or with both.
The Court further observed that the accused was found with 1.17 kgs, which is little over a small quantity but much less than commercial quantity and for which punishment provided is RI for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine which may extend to Rs.1,00,000.
Calangute Case
PANJIM: There are more than 60 to 70 cases filed prior to the year 2000 pending for final hearing in the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
The Division bench of Justice D B Bhosale and Justice NA Britto made this observation while rejecting an application filed by the panch member of Calangute, Joseph Sequeira for early hearing.
Sequeira had filed an application seeking for a direction to fix a preemptory date for the final hearing of a petition seeking direction to refrain Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch of Calangute village panchayat from posing or continuing to act as Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch of the village panchayat. As interim relief he had also prayed that the Sarpanch and deputy Sarpanch should be refrained from taking any major policy decision and from issuing any permission, NOC for construction within the limits of Calangute panchayat.
It must be recalled that the Court had earlier granted interim relief in the nature of restraining the Calangute Sarpanch and deputy Sarpanch from taking any decision involving financial implication as well as grant of license from construction activity, while admitting the petition. The Court had made rule returnable on November 21.
However, the matter didn't come up on the Board on November 21, 2007 and when the matter finally came up for final hearing a week later, it was shown at serial number 56. Therefore, the petitioner made an application praying to fix the preemptory date in view of the circumstance of the case, in as much as the minority group of the present Sarpanch and his deputy, was allegedly ruling the panchayat. Even the respondents didn't object to the early hearing of the petition.
But the Court rejected to entertain it, orally observing that it is not the question of opposition, but the question is whether we should give priority to the matter. The matter will now be heard on December 10, 2007.
The Division bench of Justice D B Bhosale and Justice NA Britto made this observation while rejecting an application filed by the panch member of Calangute, Joseph Sequeira for early hearing.
Sequeira had filed an application seeking for a direction to fix a preemptory date for the final hearing of a petition seeking direction to refrain Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch of Calangute village panchayat from posing or continuing to act as Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch of the village panchayat. As interim relief he had also prayed that the Sarpanch and deputy Sarpanch should be refrained from taking any major policy decision and from issuing any permission, NOC for construction within the limits of Calangute panchayat.
It must be recalled that the Court had earlier granted interim relief in the nature of restraining the Calangute Sarpanch and deputy Sarpanch from taking any decision involving financial implication as well as grant of license from construction activity, while admitting the petition. The Court had made rule returnable on November 21.
However, the matter didn't come up on the Board on November 21, 2007 and when the matter finally came up for final hearing a week later, it was shown at serial number 56. Therefore, the petitioner made an application praying to fix the preemptory date in view of the circumstance of the case, in as much as the minority group of the present Sarpanch and his deputy, was allegedly ruling the panchayat. Even the respondents didn't object to the early hearing of the petition.
But the Court rejected to entertain it, orally observing that it is not the question of opposition, but the question is whether we should give priority to the matter. The matter will now be heard on December 10, 2007.
Health facilities in Goa
PANJIM: Not impressed with the State government's tall claims that the state has excellent health facilities, the High Court has orally asked the Amicus curiae, senior counsel Saresh Lotlikar, and petitioner Prakash Sardessai, to make suggestions to improve the health facilities in the government hospitals in the state.
Further, the Division bench of Justice D B Bhosale and Justice NA Britto has also recommended that they look into the aspect of setting up a committee with a lawyer, doctor and architect—to inspect the hospital buildings in the State. The Court also orally observed that in the government hospitals the equipments don't function and the even the doctor, nurses and patient ratio is not adequate.
The Court made this observations in a petition filed in public interest and raises a grievance about the standard of health care in the state, including facilities for treatment in all fields of medical science and super-specialties.
This despite the fact that the Joint Secretary (Health) Dattaram Sardessai in the affidavit filed in the Court, as per the High Court order of August 27, 2007 directing the government to file an affidavit indicating the present status and of improvements to be made – adequacy of staff, medicine, equipment for surgery, aftercare and available beds – in respect of each of the 3 government hospitals, Goa Medical College at Bambolim, Asilo Hospital in Mapusa and Hospicio hospital at Margao, present a rosy picture.
Here is what the affidavit states:
GMC
* Bed strength of 1030
* An additional hospital building being constructed, which will have bed strength of 450.
* Staff strength as per the sanctioned strength and is as per the guidelines of Medical Council of India and Nursing Council of India. Further, additional staff -- doctors, nurses, ward boys, attendants, drivers -- will be recruited for the new hospital block.
* Equipped with all up to date and efficient surgical equipments and other facilties like X-Rays, CT Scanning, Ultrasound etc.
* Patients are supplied medicine free of costs.
* From January to December 2006 there were 4,36,152 outpatients, 50,397 admission and 17,628 operations. For the period from January 2007 to June 2007, there were 2,01,663 outpatients, 25,776 admission and 8,085 operations.
* Hygiene is well maintained with mechanized swiping and sopping
Hospicio Hospital
* Has the sanctioned staff strength and periodical review carried out to assess the staff requirement.
* Proposal with the Government to construct new district hospital at Margao, which will have a capacity of 450 beds.
* Medicines supplied free of cost
* Provided with all required equipments for surgery in all departments.
* Testing machine like X-Ray, Ultrasound, C.T. Scanning available in the hospital
* Bed strength is 250 beds.
Asilio Hospital
* Staff strength as per sanctioned and there is periodical review to assess the staff strength.
* Asilio Hospital has bed strength of 190.
* Another new District Hospital will be constructed in Mapusa. It will be made operational by end of this year. Steps are already taken to recruit the staff. It will have a bed strength of 30.
* Has necessary surgical equipment facilities as well as CT scan, X-Ray, ultra sound etc
HEALTH CENTRES
* One Cottage Hospital at Chicalim, 5 community health centers at Sanvordem Curchorem, Canacona, Ponda, Valpoi and Pernem and 13 primary health centers are well staffed and for every PHC there is a doctor and nurses besides the attendant and compounders.
Further, the Division bench of Justice D B Bhosale and Justice NA Britto has also recommended that they look into the aspect of setting up a committee with a lawyer, doctor and architect—to inspect the hospital buildings in the State. The Court also orally observed that in the government hospitals the equipments don't function and the even the doctor, nurses and patient ratio is not adequate.
The Court made this observations in a petition filed in public interest and raises a grievance about the standard of health care in the state, including facilities for treatment in all fields of medical science and super-specialties.
This despite the fact that the Joint Secretary (Health) Dattaram Sardessai in the affidavit filed in the Court, as per the High Court order of August 27, 2007 directing the government to file an affidavit indicating the present status and of improvements to be made – adequacy of staff, medicine, equipment for surgery, aftercare and available beds – in respect of each of the 3 government hospitals, Goa Medical College at Bambolim, Asilo Hospital in Mapusa and Hospicio hospital at Margao, present a rosy picture.
Here is what the affidavit states:
GMC
* Bed strength of 1030
* An additional hospital building being constructed, which will have bed strength of 450.
* Staff strength as per the sanctioned strength and is as per the guidelines of Medical Council of India and Nursing Council of India. Further, additional staff -- doctors, nurses, ward boys, attendants, drivers -- will be recruited for the new hospital block.
* Equipped with all up to date and efficient surgical equipments and other facilties like X-Rays, CT Scanning, Ultrasound etc.
* Patients are supplied medicine free of costs.
* From January to December 2006 there were 4,36,152 outpatients, 50,397 admission and 17,628 operations. For the period from January 2007 to June 2007, there were 2,01,663 outpatients, 25,776 admission and 8,085 operations.
* Hygiene is well maintained with mechanized swiping and sopping
Hospicio Hospital
* Has the sanctioned staff strength and periodical review carried out to assess the staff requirement.
* Proposal with the Government to construct new district hospital at Margao, which will have a capacity of 450 beds.
* Medicines supplied free of cost
* Provided with all required equipments for surgery in all departments.
* Testing machine like X-Ray, Ultrasound, C.T. Scanning available in the hospital
* Bed strength is 250 beds.
Asilio Hospital
* Staff strength as per sanctioned and there is periodical review to assess the staff strength.
* Asilio Hospital has bed strength of 190.
* Another new District Hospital will be constructed in Mapusa. It will be made operational by end of this year. Steps are already taken to recruit the staff. It will have a bed strength of 30.
* Has necessary surgical equipment facilities as well as CT scan, X-Ray, ultra sound etc
HEALTH CENTRES
* One Cottage Hospital at Chicalim, 5 community health centers at Sanvordem Curchorem, Canacona, Ponda, Valpoi and Pernem and 13 primary health centers are well staffed and for every PHC there is a doctor and nurses besides the attendant and compounders.
Ferry-boat Goa
Panjim: The ferryboats in the run by the State government would soon be registered registration under the Inland Vessels Act, 1917. The State government presently has 38 ferries, of these 28 are required for operation and 10 are spare. The process of surveying and registration will now be undertaken immediately pursuant to the government decision to implement the provisions of Inland Vessels Act.
The entire process of registering all the 38 ferry will take about 18 months and no new ferryboat purchased hereinafter will be operated without they being surveyed and registered as required under the Inland Vessels Act, according to an affidavit filed by the Captain of Ports, Government of Goa in the High Court in a PIL.
The petitioner in this public interest had raised the grievance about plying of ferries even when such ferries are not properly maintained. The Captain of Ports maintained that the department taking care of the safety aspects and every care is being taken to ensure that the ferry boats operate only when they are fit for plying.
Petitioner later submitted that the ferryboats required registration under the Inland Vessels Act, 1917 and that the ferries operated by River Navigation Department are not registered under the said Act. Petitioner also sought an additional relief to direct the Captain of Ports, Government of Goa to ensure that all the ferries operated by the River Navigation are registered under chapter II-A of the Inland
Vessels Act, 1917.
The State government on November 19, 2007 took a decision to implement the provisions of the
Inland Vessels Act and Rules so far as government ferryboats are also concerned. The procedure for registration is provided under chapter II and II-A of the said Act. Under chapter II, an Inland Vessel is required to be surveyed in the manner provided and thereafter a certificate of survey is required to be issued.
The entire process of registering all the 38 ferry will take about 18 months and no new ferryboat purchased hereinafter will be operated without they being surveyed and registered as required under the Inland Vessels Act, according to an affidavit filed by the Captain of Ports, Government of Goa in the High Court in a PIL.
The petitioner in this public interest had raised the grievance about plying of ferries even when such ferries are not properly maintained. The Captain of Ports maintained that the department taking care of the safety aspects and every care is being taken to ensure that the ferry boats operate only when they are fit for plying.
Petitioner later submitted that the ferryboats required registration under the Inland Vessels Act, 1917 and that the ferries operated by River Navigation Department are not registered under the said Act. Petitioner also sought an additional relief to direct the Captain of Ports, Government of Goa to ensure that all the ferries operated by the River Navigation are registered under chapter II-A of the Inland
Vessels Act, 1917.
The State government on November 19, 2007 took a decision to implement the provisions of the
Inland Vessels Act and Rules so far as government ferryboats are also concerned. The procedure for registration is provided under chapter II and II-A of the said Act. Under chapter II, an Inland Vessel is required to be surveyed in the manner provided and thereafter a certificate of survey is required to be issued.
sponge iron case in Goa
PANJIM: Unhappy with the administrative tribunal, which quashed and set aside the order of the High Court, as well as a sponge iron plant which recommenced the operation of the plant without leave of the court, the High Court has asked for the closure of the unit within a week.
Petitioner Goa Foundation had filed an application in the High Court after the administrative tribunal not only heard an appeal filed by the sponge iron plant-- Jain Udyog Pvt Ltd -- in December against the order of closure passed by the High Court, but also quashed and set aside the order of the High Court. Thereupon, Jain Udyog Pvt Ltd in a letter dated January 18, 2007 informed the GPCB that pursuant to the order of the administrative tribunal, the company had recommenced operation of the plant.
Counsel for the petitioner, Norma Alvares, brought to the notice of the Court that the affidavit of GPCB didn't d isclose any steps taken by the Board to prevent Jain Udyog Pvt Ltd from resuming operations without the leave of the High Court.
In its order dated October 10, 2006 the Court had stated: "In the event the GSPCB seeks to modify or recall the aforesaid stay order dated 6 October 2006, the same shall be done only with prior leave of this court."
The petitioners had demanded for immediate stay of the operation of the sponge iron plant of Jain Udyog Pvt Ltd as they had re-commenced operation of the plant without prior leave of the court as required by the order of the High Court on October 10, 2006. The Court in its order of October 10 had issued closure orders to five existing sponge iron plants in the state on account of non-compliance with consent terms.
Two other sponge iron plants which were also stopped were allowed to resume operations after they were able to satisfy Goa Pollution Control Board on compliance and moved the Court for leave to resume operations, which was granted by a separate order on November 8, imposing detailed conditions and restrictions on the two units.
However, while disposing of the application, the Court observed the respondent is open to make application for appropriate relief.
Petitioner Goa Foundation had filed an application in the High Court after the administrative tribunal not only heard an appeal filed by the sponge iron plant-- Jain Udyog Pvt Ltd -- in December against the order of closure passed by the High Court, but also quashed and set aside the order of the High Court. Thereupon, Jain Udyog Pvt Ltd in a letter dated January 18, 2007 informed the GPCB that pursuant to the order of the administrative tribunal, the company had recommenced operation of the plant.
Counsel for the petitioner, Norma Alvares, brought to the notice of the Court that the affidavit of GPCB didn't d isclose any steps taken by the Board to prevent Jain Udyog Pvt Ltd from resuming operations without the leave of the High Court.
In its order dated October 10, 2006 the Court had stated: "In the event the GSPCB seeks to modify or recall the aforesaid stay order dated 6 October 2006, the same shall be done only with prior leave of this court."
The petitioners had demanded for immediate stay of the operation of the sponge iron plant of Jain Udyog Pvt Ltd as they had re-commenced operation of the plant without prior leave of the court as required by the order of the High Court on October 10, 2006. The Court in its order of October 10 had issued closure orders to five existing sponge iron plants in the state on account of non-compliance with consent terms.
Two other sponge iron plants which were also stopped were allowed to resume operations after they were able to satisfy Goa Pollution Control Board on compliance and moved the Court for leave to resume operations, which was granted by a separate order on November 8, imposing detailed conditions and restrictions on the two units.
However, while disposing of the application, the Court observed the respondent is open to make application for appropriate relief.
National Highway –17B
PANJIM: There is good news for the resident of Chicalim and Vasco. The problem of congestion on the streets of Chicalim and Vasco due to heavy port traffic movements maybe over by 2009, what with the High Court ensuring that the National Highway –17B project is no more delayed.
With the advocate general Subodh Kantak appearing on behalf of the state government accepting the Border Roads Organization (BRO) report, it won't be long before the highway becomes a reality. Already the High Court of Bombay at Goa has asked the concerned parties to strictly maintain a time schedule. The Court has also made it clear that having regard to the importance of the project no application for extension of time will be made to the Court.
BRO was approached by MPT to carry out the feasibility study of four-lane highway for a stretch of 2.30 kms to be constructed between Tariwada and Sada junction in Phase-IV of NH 17-B as per the High Court order, in its report stated that it is feasible for construction and a loaded truck would be able to negotiate the road if constructed as per recommended design and specifications.
While the state government would complete all the necessary work -- the removal of encroachments and the relocation of public utilities -- on Phase I, Phase II and Phase III of the project, and hand over the land on which NH-17-B is to be constructed to the National Highway Authority by April 2008. Upon receiving possession of the land, free from all encumbrances the work of completing the road on Phase I, Phase II and Phase III would be completed within a period of 18 months. Further, the government has to had over the land for Phase IV after completing all necessary work within four months (by August 2008), after the work on Phase I, II and III is finished as per the orders of the Division bench led by Justice D B Bhosale.
Construction of NH 17B from Verna junction to Varunapuri (13.10 kms) was completed in May 2004. The construction of road from Varunapuri to Sada junction ( 5.2 km) was to be constructed in four phases. Phase I of 1.1 km would be constructed from Varunapuri to Gandhinagar, phase II of 1 km would be constructed from Gandhinagar to Baina, phase III of 0.8 km would be constructed from Baina –Tariwada and phase IV would be constructed at a stretch of 2.3 km from Tariwada to Sada junction. Mormugao Port Trust (MPT) has already deposited an amount of Rs 4.55 crores for resettlement and rehabilitation of the affected people with the Goa government in 2001.
With the advocate general Subodh Kantak appearing on behalf of the state government accepting the Border Roads Organization (BRO) report, it won't be long before the highway becomes a reality. Already the High Court of Bombay at Goa has asked the concerned parties to strictly maintain a time schedule. The Court has also made it clear that having regard to the importance of the project no application for extension of time will be made to the Court.
BRO was approached by MPT to carry out the feasibility study of four-lane highway for a stretch of 2.30 kms to be constructed between Tariwada and Sada junction in Phase-IV of NH 17-B as per the High Court order, in its report stated that it is feasible for construction and a loaded truck would be able to negotiate the road if constructed as per recommended design and specifications.
While the state government would complete all the necessary work -- the removal of encroachments and the relocation of public utilities -- on Phase I, Phase II and Phase III of the project, and hand over the land on which NH-17-B is to be constructed to the National Highway Authority by April 2008. Upon receiving possession of the land, free from all encumbrances the work of completing the road on Phase I, Phase II and Phase III would be completed within a period of 18 months. Further, the government has to had over the land for Phase IV after completing all necessary work within four months (by August 2008), after the work on Phase I, II and III is finished as per the orders of the Division bench led by Justice D B Bhosale.
Construction of NH 17B from Verna junction to Varunapuri (13.10 kms) was completed in May 2004. The construction of road from Varunapuri to Sada junction ( 5.2 km) was to be constructed in four phases. Phase I of 1.1 km would be constructed from Varunapuri to Gandhinagar, phase II of 1 km would be constructed from Gandhinagar to Baina, phase III of 0.8 km would be constructed from Baina –Tariwada and phase IV would be constructed at a stretch of 2.3 km from Tariwada to Sada junction. Mormugao Port Trust (MPT) has already deposited an amount of Rs 4.55 crores for resettlement and rehabilitation of the affected people with the Goa government in 2001.
Hill cutting in Siolim Goa
PANJIM: Observing that prima facie it appears that hill cutting has been going on in a property in Siolim, which may lead to landslide and cause further hindrance to human life, the High Court appointed North Goa Collect to personally visit the site and verify.
The Division bench of Justice D B Bhosale and Justice NA Britto while hearing a Public Interest Litigation complaining about illegal excavation / cutting of hill from the property surveyed under survey no. 189/2 situated at Bamanwada, Siolim , by Goraknath Atmaram Fulari and Shaku Braganza, both partners in BF Builders, which resulted in land slide, observed that the photographs reveal that hill cutting has been going on in the said property.
The letter was written to the High Court on August 21, 2007, by one Satish Banaulikar, resident of Oxel, Siolim, about the alleged illegalities, which was converted into a PIL, with the Court observing that the petitioner has raised an issue of environmental degradation. The petitioner had alleged that the construction had started after illegal excavation/ cutting of portion of hill/ soil, which is geographically, bounded below the property in survey no 190/0 and the illegal work of excavation/ cutting of hill is without any permission from the authorities.
It was also alleged that the duo were selling constructed bungalows in survey no 189/2 by cutting hills to foreigners and also brought to the notice of the authorities that if illegal excavation continues, it will result in soil erosion/ land sliding and effect or damage his property in survey no 190/0 and further severely affect cashew plantation activated by him which is his sole source of livelihood.
Court has asked North Goa Collector to find out whether the there has been any hill cutting and if the retaining wall constructed by the builder is enough to avoid further landslide. The Court has ordered that status quo should be maintained and also appointed Norma Alvares as Amicus curiae.
The Director of Panchayats in his report on the status of the construction activities in the property submitted to the Court stated that presently no excavation or hill cutting is noticed, however it is observed that in the said property towards the Northern side, along the width of the property, a landslide has occurred which is about 78 m in length and a retaining wall has been constructed towards the end of this landslide apparently to arrest further damage.
The Division bench of Justice D B Bhosale and Justice NA Britto while hearing a Public Interest Litigation complaining about illegal excavation / cutting of hill from the property surveyed under survey no. 189/2 situated at Bamanwada, Siolim , by Goraknath Atmaram Fulari and Shaku Braganza, both partners in BF Builders, which resulted in land slide, observed that the photographs reveal that hill cutting has been going on in the said property.
The letter was written to the High Court on August 21, 2007, by one Satish Banaulikar, resident of Oxel, Siolim, about the alleged illegalities, which was converted into a PIL, with the Court observing that the petitioner has raised an issue of environmental degradation. The petitioner had alleged that the construction had started after illegal excavation/ cutting of portion of hill/ soil, which is geographically, bounded below the property in survey no 190/0 and the illegal work of excavation/ cutting of hill is without any permission from the authorities.
It was also alleged that the duo were selling constructed bungalows in survey no 189/2 by cutting hills to foreigners and also brought to the notice of the authorities that if illegal excavation continues, it will result in soil erosion/ land sliding and effect or damage his property in survey no 190/0 and further severely affect cashew plantation activated by him which is his sole source of livelihood.
Court has asked North Goa Collector to find out whether the there has been any hill cutting and if the retaining wall constructed by the builder is enough to avoid further landslide. The Court has ordered that status quo should be maintained and also appointed Norma Alvares as Amicus curiae.
The Director of Panchayats in his report on the status of the construction activities in the property submitted to the Court stated that presently no excavation or hill cutting is noticed, however it is observed that in the said property towards the Northern side, along the width of the property, a landslide has occurred which is about 78 m in length and a retaining wall has been constructed towards the end of this landslide apparently to arrest further damage.
Can stone quarries and crushers be permitted to operate in the orchard zone?
PANJIM: Can stone quarries and crushers be permitted to operate in the orchard zone? Is change of land use from forest or agriculture to industrial permissible? Yes, states the Town and Country Planning department and Secretary (Mines).
TCP department, which had issued NOCs to operate four stone crushing units – M/s Balaji Stone in survey no. 59/1, M/s Rahimania Metal Industry in survey no. 75/1, M/s Madhav Rameshwar in survey no. 62/1 and Supernika Metal in survey no. 73/1 -- in the zone designated as orchard in the Regional Plan of Goa 2001 stated that these unit have been permitted based on the Regional Plan 2001 based on the uses permitted on Special Grounds in orchard Zone/ land uses.
Stating that these units have been permitted as ancillary to stone mining, considering the same to be of a temporary nature, Chief Town Planner Morad Ahmed in his affidavit before the High Court of Bombay at Goa stated that the Regional Plan proposal provided for broad based land use categories. As per uses permitted on special grounds, "any development commensurate with the need of area" can be permitted.
Interestingly, Secretary (Mines) Raajiv Yadhuvanshi who was directed by the Division bench to file an affidavit clarifying and making the State's stand clear in regard to whether change of use of land from forest and/or agriculture to industrial was permissible, accepted that the Director of Mines grants permission for quarrying leases in respect of minor minerals found in government and private lands.
However, he clarified that the license is granted after examining the topography of the area, local geological aspects and the location of the area for which license is sought. Further, before granting lease, various conditions are incorporated.
Some of these conditions include:
* Minerals should be extracted and removed in such a manner that no damage is done to any highways, roads, agricultural lands or trees or other places or public utility or public property
* Pay reasonable compensation to the owner or tenant or occupant of the land or property comprised in the leased area or in the vicinity of the leased area which is damaged or injured or disturbed as a result of quarrying operations or due to the flow or rejects
* Ensure that extraction of minor minerals will not affect the environment and ecology adversely
* Before the commencement of quarrying operation, prepare an environmental management plan to the satisfaction of the competent officer.
But this clear cut conditions were violated by the stone crusher operators as can be seen from the affidavit submitted by Bicholim SDM Arvind Bugde.
No wonder on October 29, 2007, the SDM issued directions to the owners of the stone crushing units to restore the affected nallah, Devachi Toli by removing the silt under the supervision of Canal Officer and remove large heaps of reject material in the form of fine white stone powder which is carelessly dumped near the stone crushing units thereby stopping the same to be flown in the fields and blown in the air.
Further, they have been directed to regulate their timing of operations to avoid sound pollution as well as submit the fresh Environment Impact Assessment Plan containing short-term and long-term precautionary measures to suppress noise, dust pollution to the satisfaction of Goa State Pollution Control Board.
TCP department, which had issued NOCs to operate four stone crushing units – M/s Balaji Stone in survey no. 59/1, M/s Rahimania Metal Industry in survey no. 75/1, M/s Madhav Rameshwar in survey no. 62/1 and Supernika Metal in survey no. 73/1 -- in the zone designated as orchard in the Regional Plan of Goa 2001 stated that these unit have been permitted based on the Regional Plan 2001 based on the uses permitted on Special Grounds in orchard Zone/ land uses.
Stating that these units have been permitted as ancillary to stone mining, considering the same to be of a temporary nature, Chief Town Planner Morad Ahmed in his affidavit before the High Court of Bombay at Goa stated that the Regional Plan proposal provided for broad based land use categories. As per uses permitted on special grounds, "any development commensurate with the need of area" can be permitted.
Interestingly, Secretary (Mines) Raajiv Yadhuvanshi who was directed by the Division bench to file an affidavit clarifying and making the State's stand clear in regard to whether change of use of land from forest and/or agriculture to industrial was permissible, accepted that the Director of Mines grants permission for quarrying leases in respect of minor minerals found in government and private lands.
However, he clarified that the license is granted after examining the topography of the area, local geological aspects and the location of the area for which license is sought. Further, before granting lease, various conditions are incorporated.
Some of these conditions include:
* Minerals should be extracted and removed in such a manner that no damage is done to any highways, roads, agricultural lands or trees or other places or public utility or public property
* Pay reasonable compensation to the owner or tenant or occupant of the land or property comprised in the leased area or in the vicinity of the leased area which is damaged or injured or disturbed as a result of quarrying operations or due to the flow or rejects
* Ensure that extraction of minor minerals will not affect the environment and ecology adversely
* Before the commencement of quarrying operation, prepare an environmental management plan to the satisfaction of the competent officer.
But this clear cut conditions were violated by the stone crusher operators as can be seen from the affidavit submitted by Bicholim SDM Arvind Bugde.
No wonder on October 29, 2007, the SDM issued directions to the owners of the stone crushing units to restore the affected nallah, Devachi Toli by removing the silt under the supervision of Canal Officer and remove large heaps of reject material in the form of fine white stone powder which is carelessly dumped near the stone crushing units thereby stopping the same to be flown in the fields and blown in the air.
Further, they have been directed to regulate their timing of operations to avoid sound pollution as well as submit the fresh Environment Impact Assessment Plan containing short-term and long-term precautionary measures to suppress noise, dust pollution to the satisfaction of Goa State Pollution Control Board.
Supreme Court has stayed the order regarding Congress MLA Mauvin Godinho
PANJIM: The Supreme Court has stayed the order of the High Court of Bombay at Goa which had ordered the accused Congress MLA Mauvin Godinho to appear before the Trial court on November 30, 2007.
Godinho had approached the Division bench of Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice DK Jain with a special leave petition for stay of the trial.
The High Court had found sufficient prima facie material against Godinho to frame charges against him for corruption and conspiracy in a multi-crore power rebate scam. While partly allowing the revision petition, the Court observed that charge shall be framed as under section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 120 B of IPC and the accused tried in accordance with law.
A criminal revision application was filed in the High Court after the Sessions judge on December 8, 2006 ordered framing of charges against all the accused for offences punishable under section 120-B, 409, 420, 465,468, 471 of the IPC and section 13 (1)(d)(i) and section 13 (1)(d)(ii) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Senior counsel KTS Tulsi and Shailendra Bhobe appeared for Godinho
Godinho had approached the Division bench of Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice DK Jain with a special leave petition for stay of the trial.
The High Court had found sufficient prima facie material against Godinho to frame charges against him for corruption and conspiracy in a multi-crore power rebate scam. While partly allowing the revision petition, the Court observed that charge shall be framed as under section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 120 B of IPC and the accused tried in accordance with law.
A criminal revision application was filed in the High Court after the Sessions judge on December 8, 2006 ordered framing of charges against all the accused for offences punishable under section 120-B, 409, 420, 465,468, 471 of the IPC and section 13 (1)(d)(i) and section 13 (1)(d)(ii) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Senior counsel KTS Tulsi and Shailendra Bhobe appeared for Godinho
Cuncolim Market
PANJIM: An expert appointed to examine whether the project of Market Complex cum Community hall in Cuncolim is feasible or not has submitted a report in favour of the project to the Court.
Jose F.F. de Albuquerque, Retired Chief Engineer, PWD was asked to look into the said area vis-a-vis flow and discharge of water and whether work planned and executed by the Goa State Urban Development Agency (GSUDA) is effective in the matter of discharge and flow of water by the High Court.
The expert inspected the site during this monsoon and submitted a report in favour of the project. However, the petitioner Jose Cruz Gomes and five others opposed the report stating that the expert didn't visit the site on the day it was raining. However, the Court rejected the argument, even as the petitioners were asked to make recommendations, if any.
In the past also, Advocate General Subodh Kantak had stated that they have a study, which shows that the construction of the market place will not cause inundation in the area. Then Amicus Curiae submitted that the study does not suit the purpose since it was not done in the monsoon.
According Amicus Curiae, the study is incomplete since it does not take into account the flow of water in the monsoon in the entire area namely Cuncolim market area and had demanded that the study must be done during the monsoon.
Jose F.F. de Albuquerque, Retired Chief Engineer, PWD was asked to look into the said area vis-a-vis flow and discharge of water and whether work planned and executed by the Goa State Urban Development Agency (GSUDA) is effective in the matter of discharge and flow of water by the High Court.
The expert inspected the site during this monsoon and submitted a report in favour of the project. However, the petitioner Jose Cruz Gomes and five others opposed the report stating that the expert didn't visit the site on the day it was raining. However, the Court rejected the argument, even as the petitioners were asked to make recommendations, if any.
In the past also, Advocate General Subodh Kantak had stated that they have a study, which shows that the construction of the market place will not cause inundation in the area. Then Amicus Curiae submitted that the study does not suit the purpose since it was not done in the monsoon.
According Amicus Curiae, the study is incomplete since it does not take into account the flow of water in the monsoon in the entire area namely Cuncolim market area and had demanded that the study must be done during the monsoon.
Curca garbage case
PANJIM: High Court has granted one-week's time to the state government to decide whether they should go ahead with the capping of Curca site or opt for another proposal to shift the garbage to another site before the following monsoon .
The Division bench granted a week's time on Advocate General Subodh Kantak's request.
It must be recalled that on September 25, 2006, in the minutes of order submitted to the Court, all parties concerned with the Curca garbage site - the Curca villagers (petitioners) and respondent state government, Corporation of City of Panjim (CCP) and Goa State Urban Development Authority (GSUDA) – had agreed to go ahead with capping the site. The work was estimated to be completed by May 30, 2007 and the expenditure sanctioned was Rs 1,09,64,625.
Later, GSUDA postponed the work of capping Curca and said that it would be completed by March 31, 2008.
The Division bench granted a week's time on Advocate General Subodh Kantak's request.
It must be recalled that on September 25, 2006, in the minutes of order submitted to the Court, all parties concerned with the Curca garbage site - the Curca villagers (petitioners) and respondent state government, Corporation of City of Panjim (CCP) and Goa State Urban Development Authority (GSUDA) – had agreed to go ahead with capping the site. The work was estimated to be completed by May 30, 2007 and the expenditure sanctioned was Rs 1,09,64,625.
Later, GSUDA postponed the work of capping Curca and said that it would be completed by March 31, 2008.
ANC case:AG seeks time
PANJIM: Advocate General Subodh Kantak has sought two weeks time to file a reply to the petition filed by a lady police sub-inspector, who was dismissed from service for demanding a bribe.
Terming her dismissal as a slur on her career and personal life, the former PSI Sandhya Gupta in her petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenged her dismissal from service by the Director General of Police. Gupta submitted that she was neither caught while accepting bribe nor any trap was laid to catch her nor was she is guilty of any misconduct, even while maintaining that she is innocent and there is a conspiracy behind lodging the complaint as well as registering it.
Gupta was dismissed from service based on a complaint by one Lajwanti Datwani, whose son Sunil was arrested and booked under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Actby Gupta after a raid on a rave party on September 23. At that time she was in charge of ANC police station as the regular incumbent had proceeded on three days leave.
Terming her dismissal as a slur on her career and personal life, the former PSI Sandhya Gupta in her petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenged her dismissal from service by the Director General of Police. Gupta submitted that she was neither caught while accepting bribe nor any trap was laid to catch her nor was she is guilty of any misconduct, even while maintaining that she is innocent and there is a conspiracy behind lodging the complaint as well as registering it.
Gupta was dismissed from service based on a complaint by one Lajwanti Datwani, whose son Sunil was arrested and booked under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Actby Gupta after a raid on a rave party on September 23. At that time she was in charge of ANC police station as the regular incumbent had proceeded on three days leave.
Aldeia de Goa:Files go missing
PANJIM: Calling the disappearance of the documents and files containing details of a construction project at Bambolim, too serious a matter "not to be taken note of" by the High Court, the Court has now asked the Curca- Bambolim village panchayat to file a complaint with the Agacaim police about the missing files.
Acting on the Court's oral instructions on Thursday, the Town and Country department had already lodged a complaint about the missing files and documents in the Panjim police station and issued show cause notice to the Khalasi (read sweeper) of Tiswadi taluka branch office.
The Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto has asked the Police Inspector of Panjim and Agacaim to head the investigations into both the complaints. The PIs will have to submit their first report to the Court within 15 days.
With the panchayat stating that they have not received the files that were forwarded by them to the concerned government department and the TCP submitting that the file is lost/ missing, the Court has now asked the Technical Officer of PWD based in Panjim to deposit with the Registrar of the Court, the development/ construction plans of Goa Real Estate and Construction Ltd (GRECL, popularly known as Aldeia de Goa), by today.
The TCP submitted that the files were given to M/s SPRY Resources India Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad for scanning for record purposes and TCP department has written a letter to M/s SPRY Resources India Pvt Ltd, asking whether they have scanned the files. Responding to this, the Court instructed the Advocate General Subodh Kantak to inform the Court on the next date if the documents were scanned and computerized and to produce the same in the Court.
Further, taking note of the Curca-Bambolim panchayat and TCP department's statement that the files are missing, the Court observed that the two authorities are defeating the provision and objective of Right to Information Act, which is in its initial stage. The objective of RTI Act is to make public life more open and the administration more accountable to citizens by making available information whenever it is sought, the Court observed.
The Court has given time till November 29, 2007 to the state government to file their reply and the matter will be placed on board on November 30.
What does a government department do when a file goes missing and the Chief Secretary is summoned to the Court? The obvious reply is initiate action against the erring officers.
But when it is the TCP department, which is involved in the mystery of the missing files on the GRECL project, then expect the unexpected. Instead of taking the officers involved to task, the TCP Chief Town Planner Morad Ahmad by an office memorandum of November 22, has issued a show cause notice to the Khalasi (sweeper) of the TCP Tiswadi taluka office at Panjim. Show cause notice has been served to Mahadev Morajkar, seeking explanation and reasons for not performing his duties effectively and regarding the loss of the file.
Not impressed with this, the Court stated that though they don't want to comment on the show cause notice served to the Khalasi, they observed that the Khalasi can't act without the connivance of a senior officer and it is for the department to take proper action.
Acting on the Court's oral instructions on Thursday, the Town and Country department had already lodged a complaint about the missing files and documents in the Panjim police station and issued show cause notice to the Khalasi (read sweeper) of Tiswadi taluka branch office.
The Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto has asked the Police Inspector of Panjim and Agacaim to head the investigations into both the complaints. The PIs will have to submit their first report to the Court within 15 days.
With the panchayat stating that they have not received the files that were forwarded by them to the concerned government department and the TCP submitting that the file is lost/ missing, the Court has now asked the Technical Officer of PWD based in Panjim to deposit with the Registrar of the Court, the development/ construction plans of Goa Real Estate and Construction Ltd (GRECL, popularly known as Aldeia de Goa), by today.
The TCP submitted that the files were given to M/s SPRY Resources India Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad for scanning for record purposes and TCP department has written a letter to M/s SPRY Resources India Pvt Ltd, asking whether they have scanned the files. Responding to this, the Court instructed the Advocate General Subodh Kantak to inform the Court on the next date if the documents were scanned and computerized and to produce the same in the Court.
Further, taking note of the Curca-Bambolim panchayat and TCP department's statement that the files are missing, the Court observed that the two authorities are defeating the provision and objective of Right to Information Act, which is in its initial stage. The objective of RTI Act is to make public life more open and the administration more accountable to citizens by making available information whenever it is sought, the Court observed.
The Court has given time till November 29, 2007 to the state government to file their reply and the matter will be placed on board on November 30.
What does a government department do when a file goes missing and the Chief Secretary is summoned to the Court? The obvious reply is initiate action against the erring officers.
But when it is the TCP department, which is involved in the mystery of the missing files on the GRECL project, then expect the unexpected. Instead of taking the officers involved to task, the TCP Chief Town Planner Morad Ahmad by an office memorandum of November 22, has issued a show cause notice to the Khalasi (sweeper) of the TCP Tiswadi taluka office at Panjim. Show cause notice has been served to Mahadev Morajkar, seeking explanation and reasons for not performing his duties effectively and regarding the loss of the file.
Not impressed with this, the Court stated that though they don't want to comment on the show cause notice served to the Khalasi, they observed that the Khalasi can't act without the connivance of a senior officer and it is for the department to take proper action.
Shacks in Goa
PANJIM: Can someone on the presumption that their "legal" temporary structure maybe demolished approach the High Court asking for relief?
The Petitioner, Cruz Cardozo, approached the Court depending on the information he received from Inacio Mariano Fernandes, who had erected a temporary shack, which was demolished that prior to the demolition of the shack, no notice of any nature was served on him, either asking him to show cause as to why the shack being erected by him should not be demolished or to stop the erection of the shack
Cardozo states that the Petitioner has a reasonable apprehension that a similar fate awaits him and his shack would be demolished in a similar fashion
However, the Court refused to entertain the petition and granted permission to the petitioner to withdraw the petition.
The petitioner, based on a notice inviting applications from the residents of Goa for the grant of permission for the tourist season 2007-08 for the installation of temporary shacks of size 14 x 7, in the South Goa Beaches, classified as "A" Stretches and "B" Stretches, had applied for a temporary shack.
The Petitioner states that "A" Stretch Beach amongst others included the beach at Cavelossim. The Petitioner accordingly applied for putting up a temporary shack at Cavelossim Beach under the name and style "Pearl's Beach Café" after paying the necessary fees on account of sale of the form.
The Petitioner furnished a refundable security deposit in terms of Clause 15 of the terms and conditions along with a letter on November 16, 2007. The Petitioner states that the Petitioner then commenced and finally completed the erection of the shack in all after the Petitioner was informed that he was allotted Shack No.1.
The Petitioner, Cruz Cardozo, approached the Court depending on the information he received from Inacio Mariano Fernandes, who had erected a temporary shack, which was demolished that prior to the demolition of the shack, no notice of any nature was served on him, either asking him to show cause as to why the shack being erected by him should not be demolished or to stop the erection of the shack
Cardozo states that the Petitioner has a reasonable apprehension that a similar fate awaits him and his shack would be demolished in a similar fashion
However, the Court refused to entertain the petition and granted permission to the petitioner to withdraw the petition.
The petitioner, based on a notice inviting applications from the residents of Goa for the grant of permission for the tourist season 2007-08 for the installation of temporary shacks of size 14 x 7, in the South Goa Beaches, classified as "A" Stretches and "B" Stretches, had applied for a temporary shack.
The Petitioner states that "A" Stretch Beach amongst others included the beach at Cavelossim. The Petitioner accordingly applied for putting up a temporary shack at Cavelossim Beach under the name and style "Pearl's Beach Café" after paying the necessary fees on account of sale of the form.
The Petitioner furnished a refundable security deposit in terms of Clause 15 of the terms and conditions along with a letter on November 16, 2007. The Petitioner states that the Petitioner then commenced and finally completed the erection of the shack in all after the Petitioner was informed that he was allotted Shack No.1.
Aldeia de Goa
ANJIM: In what could be termed as a major embarrassment to the government, the High Court has directed the Chief Secretary JP Singh to remain present in the Court today, if Town and Country Planning department fails to produce the file containing details of a construction project at Bambolim.
The Court has asked TCP department to produce the file containing Town and Country Planning approvals, plans and No Objection certificates in respect of the construction project coming up at the site of Goa Real Estate and Construction Ltd (GRECL, popularly known as Aldeia de Goa) today in the Court. Further, the Sarpanch and Secretary of Curca-Bambolim panchayat has to remain present in the Court today with all necessary documents.
The Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto passed this order while hearing an affidavit by Patricia Pinto, General Secretary, People's Movement for Civic Action (PMCA), who is one of the petitioner in a petition against GRECL.
The counsel for the petitioner, Norma Alvares, submitted that the Pinto had applied on August 21, 2007 to the Assistant Public Information Officer of the TCP department under the Right to Information Act for inspection of the file containing TCP approvals, plans and No Objection certificates in respect of the construction project coming up at the site in Bambolim, which is the subject matter of a petition filed by PMCA and Goa Foundation against GRECL.
However, Pinto was denied access to the information by a letter dated September 18, 2004, (much after the statutory period under the RTI Act) and was informed that the file could not be traced.
Even the effort to get some crucial documents from the Secretary of village panchayat of Curca/ Bambolim under RTI Act didn't materialize. On October 16, 2007, under RTI the petitioner requested for crucial documents listed at I-v so that the file that was told to be not traceable since it was send to the Block Development Officer's office in 2003, could be traced. However, on November 14, 2007, she received a formal letter from the Panchayat stating that neither the memorandum for the BDO's office nor the Panchayat letter sending the file to the BDO's office can be traced.
Not impressed with these submissions the Court observed that it is not possible for the files pertaining to a particular project to disappear overnight and asked the concerned authorities to produce the files today.
The Court has asked TCP department to produce the file containing Town and Country Planning approvals, plans and No Objection certificates in respect of the construction project coming up at the site of Goa Real Estate and Construction Ltd (GRECL, popularly known as Aldeia de Goa) today in the Court. Further, the Sarpanch and Secretary of Curca-Bambolim panchayat has to remain present in the Court today with all necessary documents.
The Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto passed this order while hearing an affidavit by Patricia Pinto, General Secretary, People's Movement for Civic Action (PMCA), who is one of the petitioner in a petition against GRECL.
The counsel for the petitioner, Norma Alvares, submitted that the Pinto had applied on August 21, 2007 to the Assistant Public Information Officer of the TCP department under the Right to Information Act for inspection of the file containing TCP approvals, plans and No Objection certificates in respect of the construction project coming up at the site in Bambolim, which is the subject matter of a petition filed by PMCA and Goa Foundation against GRECL.
However, Pinto was denied access to the information by a letter dated September 18, 2004, (much after the statutory period under the RTI Act) and was informed that the file could not be traced.
Even the effort to get some crucial documents from the Secretary of village panchayat of Curca/ Bambolim under RTI Act didn't materialize. On October 16, 2007, under RTI the petitioner requested for crucial documents listed at I-v so that the file that was told to be not traceable since it was send to the Block Development Officer's office in 2003, could be traced. However, on November 14, 2007, she received a formal letter from the Panchayat stating that neither the memorandum for the BDO's office nor the Panchayat letter sending the file to the BDO's office can be traced.
Not impressed with these submissions the Court observed that it is not possible for the files pertaining to a particular project to disappear overnight and asked the concerned authorities to produce the files today.
democracy can't work until the three arms of the Constitution- judiciary, legislature and executive-- work together in protecting democracy
PANJIM: Drawing the attention of those who are obliged to make laws to prevent illegalities, the High Court observed that with the administration not discharging its duties, it is the Court which is called upon by the citizens to direct the authorities to stop illegalities.
Making it clear that democracy can't work until the three arms of the Constitution- judiciary, legislature and executive-- work together in protecting democracy, the Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto observed that the Court can't substitute itself for the executives but can only express its unhappiness with such happenings.
The Division bench made these observations while disposing off a public interest litigation on illegal shacks on Calangute beach stated that though in this matter there has been compliance, the recurrence of illegal constructions and illegalities in the state is so rampant that it is high time that the executives takes steps to enact laws to prevent such illegal actions, either on public land or coastal belt.
The Court had converted a letter petition by Francisco Fernandes into a PIL. The petition addresses the issue of setting up illegal shacks hardly 50 mts away from water level. It also addresses the issue of non-performance of statutory duties on the part of certain authorities in allowing the same to be erected and/or allowing them to continue throughout the year, in violation of the permissions granted that they should be erected from October to mid-June every year. The petitioner also complained of environmental degradation of burning waste or garbage and/ or burning the same by shack owners.
Making it clear that democracy can't work until the three arms of the Constitution- judiciary, legislature and executive-- work together in protecting democracy, the Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto observed that the Court can't substitute itself for the executives but can only express its unhappiness with such happenings.
The Division bench made these observations while disposing off a public interest litigation on illegal shacks on Calangute beach stated that though in this matter there has been compliance, the recurrence of illegal constructions and illegalities in the state is so rampant that it is high time that the executives takes steps to enact laws to prevent such illegal actions, either on public land or coastal belt.
The Court had converted a letter petition by Francisco Fernandes into a PIL. The petition addresses the issue of setting up illegal shacks hardly 50 mts away from water level. It also addresses the issue of non-performance of statutory duties on the part of certain authorities in allowing the same to be erected and/or allowing them to continue throughout the year, in violation of the permissions granted that they should be erected from October to mid-June every year. The petitioner also complained of environmental degradation of burning waste or garbage and/ or burning the same by shack owners.
non-reservation of seats for OBCs from Goa
PANJIM: The High Court has issued notice to Goa State Commission for OBC, after including them as a respondent in a petition filed by four voters from the OBC community, about non-reservation of seats for OBCs from Goa in the Municipal Council elections to Ponda and Sanquelim
The four voters, two from Nabhik community and the other two from the Bhandari Naik community, registered on the rolls of the Ponda Municipal Council, had approached the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The matter will be heard again on Friday.
The petitioners submitted that in keeping with the constitutional objectives to give representation to the Backward communities in all governmental organizations, institutions and self-governing bodies such as Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Municipalities, the state government introduced an amendment to Section 9 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, thereby reserving seats for OBCs in the Municipal Councils in Goa.
According to them, in the two municipalities of Ponda and Sanquelim, large numbers of voters are from the OBC community, including the Nhabi and Bhandhari community. Relying on figures from the Goa State Commission for OBCs, they said that in Ponda Municipal Council there are about 15,032 voters, out of which about 41 % belong to the OBCs and in Sanquelim Municipal Council, there are about 9254 voters, out of which about 33% belong to the OBC.
The petitioners informed the Court that when they learnt that the respondents – State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, Director of Municipal Administration and the Goa State Election Commission –have initiated the process to conduct elections for the Municipal Councils of Ponda and Sanquelim municipalities, some OBC persons approached Director of Municipal Administration and the Goa State Election Commission to find the number of seats reserved for the OBCs in the proposed elections to said Municipal Councils of Ponda and Sanquelim. It was learnt that no seats are reserved in these two Municipal Councils for the OBCs.
It was further submitted that the respondents are bent on holding the elections for the municipal councils of Ponda and Sanquelim without reserving seats for the other Backward Classes, therein in violation of and/or in contravention of the mandates contained in the said amended provisions of section 9 of the Municipalities Act, 1968.
The four voters, two from Nabhik community and the other two from the Bhandari Naik community, registered on the rolls of the Ponda Municipal Council, had approached the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The matter will be heard again on Friday.
The petitioners submitted that in keeping with the constitutional objectives to give representation to the Backward communities in all governmental organizations, institutions and self-governing bodies such as Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Municipalities, the state government introduced an amendment to Section 9 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, thereby reserving seats for OBCs in the Municipal Councils in Goa.
According to them, in the two municipalities of Ponda and Sanquelim, large numbers of voters are from the OBC community, including the Nhabi and Bhandhari community. Relying on figures from the Goa State Commission for OBCs, they said that in Ponda Municipal Council there are about 15,032 voters, out of which about 41 % belong to the OBCs and in Sanquelim Municipal Council, there are about 9254 voters, out of which about 33% belong to the OBC.
The petitioners informed the Court that when they learnt that the respondents – State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, Director of Municipal Administration and the Goa State Election Commission –have initiated the process to conduct elections for the Municipal Councils of Ponda and Sanquelim municipalities, some OBC persons approached Director of Municipal Administration and the Goa State Election Commission to find the number of seats reserved for the OBCs in the proposed elections to said Municipal Councils of Ponda and Sanquelim. It was learnt that no seats are reserved in these two Municipal Councils for the OBCs.
It was further submitted that the respondents are bent on holding the elections for the municipal councils of Ponda and Sanquelim without reserving seats for the other Backward Classes, therein in violation of and/or in contravention of the mandates contained in the said amended provisions of section 9 of the Municipalities Act, 1968.
Petrol pump in Calangute
PANJIM: There is a ray of hope for the residents in the tourist belt of North Goa. Their demand for a petrol pump in the vicinity may soon become a reality if the Technical Officer, Public Works Department shows the green signal.
The Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto has asked M/S Reira Petro Services Pvt. Ltd, which intends to start a petrol pump at Calangute to make a fresh application to Technical Officer, Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division III, PWD (III), Mapusa, for occupancy certificate. The Technical Officer has to decide the matter within 7 days, the Court added.
The Court passed this order after the counsel for the Technical Officer, SR Rivonkar informed the Court that Calangute panchayat, which had forwarded an application for occupancy certificate made by M/S Reira Petro Services Pvt. Ltd to the Technical Officer, had withdrawn it and therefore they have no application with them.
The residents of Calangute, Candolim, Anjuna, Arpora, Baga and Saligao have been demanding for a petrol pump in the vicinity since 2001. Finally, in 2004, Calangute panchayat passed a resolution to grant provisional permission in survey no. 119/9 in Gaura vaddo, Calangute in the property of the petitioner -- M/S Reira Petro Services Pvt. Ltd.
Soon after, the petitioner is appointed as the franchisee of Essar Oil Limited and obtains no objection certificates from Chief Town Planner, District Magistrate, SP (North), Calangute panchayat and even Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization, Mumbai.
However, soon after the NOCs are obtained, the petitioner alleged that the Calangute MLA writes a letter to the Town and Country Planning minister in July 7, 2005 regarding the petrol pump. The next day, oral instructions are issued to stop work and later various state government and panchayat authorities, which had granted NOCs, keep the same in abeyance.
Giving into the repeated demands made by the people, the Chief Town Planner informs the District Magistrate on December 2006 that the government in public interest has decided to allow the project and the letter asking them to keep NOC in abeyance is withdrawn.
However, due to the delay, the petitioners lost out on the franchise of Essar and later managed to get franchise from BPCL. Though the pump is ready, the petitioner couldn't occupy the pump in the absence of an occupancy certificate from the Technical Officer and therefore approached the High Court.
The Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto has asked M/S Reira Petro Services Pvt. Ltd, which intends to start a petrol pump at Calangute to make a fresh application to Technical Officer, Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division III, PWD (III), Mapusa, for occupancy certificate. The Technical Officer has to decide the matter within 7 days, the Court added.
The Court passed this order after the counsel for the Technical Officer, SR Rivonkar informed the Court that Calangute panchayat, which had forwarded an application for occupancy certificate made by M/S Reira Petro Services Pvt. Ltd to the Technical Officer, had withdrawn it and therefore they have no application with them.
The residents of Calangute, Candolim, Anjuna, Arpora, Baga and Saligao have been demanding for a petrol pump in the vicinity since 2001. Finally, in 2004, Calangute panchayat passed a resolution to grant provisional permission in survey no. 119/9 in Gaura vaddo, Calangute in the property of the petitioner -- M/S Reira Petro Services Pvt. Ltd.
Soon after, the petitioner is appointed as the franchisee of Essar Oil Limited and obtains no objection certificates from Chief Town Planner, District Magistrate, SP (North), Calangute panchayat and even Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization, Mumbai.
However, soon after the NOCs are obtained, the petitioner alleged that the Calangute MLA writes a letter to the Town and Country Planning minister in July 7, 2005 regarding the petrol pump. The next day, oral instructions are issued to stop work and later various state government and panchayat authorities, which had granted NOCs, keep the same in abeyance.
Giving into the repeated demands made by the people, the Chief Town Planner informs the District Magistrate on December 2006 that the government in public interest has decided to allow the project and the letter asking them to keep NOC in abeyance is withdrawn.
However, due to the delay, the petitioners lost out on the franchise of Essar and later managed to get franchise from BPCL. Though the pump is ready, the petitioner couldn't occupy the pump in the absence of an occupancy certificate from the Technical Officer and therefore approached the High Court.
Amona Bachao Andolan and Panchkruti Nagrik Samiti
PANJIM: Even as the High Court admitted that people could protest so long as it is lawful, they made it clear that citizens can't take law in their own hands and obstruct vehicular movement.
The Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto passed this order while disposing off a petition filed by truck owners Claudio Marquis and 12 others, whose truck filled with mineral ore of M/S Sesa Goa Ltd had been blocked by the agitating citizens belonging to Amona Bachao Andolan and Panchkruti Nagrik Samiti.
Villagers are agitating against the pollution caused due to mining activity and has also filed a complaint against the truck owners and others (read the mining companies) under section 133 of CrPC (removal of nuisance) with the Bicholim Deputy Collector. The Court has asked the Deputy Collector to consider the same.
However, Marquis and others approached the Court against the alleged "illegal" action of the two citizen's groups, which had blocked the Sonshi – Amona road from November 13, 2007. The State of Goa, North Goa Collector, Bicholim Deputy Collector, Mamlatdar and Director General of Police (DGP) were also made respondents for the alleged failure to take action against people blocking the road and stopping vehicular movement.
All the 114 trucks were transporting iron ore belonging to M/S Sesa Goa Ltd from Sonshi mines to Amona Bunder were blocked since November 13. The counsel for the petitioners, Atmaram Nadkarni alleged that despite writing to the various government authorities and meeting the Bicholim Deputy Collector and SDPO, they failed to take any action in the matter.
The Court not only directed the state government to give assistance to the petitioners to move the trucks from the place where they currently are, but made it clear that there should be no obstruction on the road and if there is any obstruction is there on the road, it should be removed. The Court issued this order after the counsel for the petitioner pointed out that tents were constructed on the road.
However, counsel for the government, SR Rivonkar, submitted that there are no constructions of the road. The counsel for the two citizen's groups, Vivek Rodrigues, also reiterated this statement.
The Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto passed this order while disposing off a petition filed by truck owners Claudio Marquis and 12 others, whose truck filled with mineral ore of M/S Sesa Goa Ltd had been blocked by the agitating citizens belonging to Amona Bachao Andolan and Panchkruti Nagrik Samiti.
Villagers are agitating against the pollution caused due to mining activity and has also filed a complaint against the truck owners and others (read the mining companies) under section 133 of CrPC (removal of nuisance) with the Bicholim Deputy Collector. The Court has asked the Deputy Collector to consider the same.
However, Marquis and others approached the Court against the alleged "illegal" action of the two citizen's groups, which had blocked the Sonshi – Amona road from November 13, 2007. The State of Goa, North Goa Collector, Bicholim Deputy Collector, Mamlatdar and Director General of Police (DGP) were also made respondents for the alleged failure to take action against people blocking the road and stopping vehicular movement.
All the 114 trucks were transporting iron ore belonging to M/S Sesa Goa Ltd from Sonshi mines to Amona Bunder were blocked since November 13. The counsel for the petitioners, Atmaram Nadkarni alleged that despite writing to the various government authorities and meeting the Bicholim Deputy Collector and SDPO, they failed to take any action in the matter.
The Court not only directed the state government to give assistance to the petitioners to move the trucks from the place where they currently are, but made it clear that there should be no obstruction on the road and if there is any obstruction is there on the road, it should be removed. The Court issued this order after the counsel for the petitioner pointed out that tents were constructed on the road.
However, counsel for the government, SR Rivonkar, submitted that there are no constructions of the road. The counsel for the two citizen's groups, Vivek Rodrigues, also reiterated this statement.
Candolim panchayat to produce all documents and files regarding the alleged "illegal" constructions
PANJIM: The Court has asked Candolim panchayat to produce all documents and files regarding the alleged "illegal" constructions indulged in by Calangute MLA Agnelo Fernandes that were demanded by a commoner Betty Alvares under Right To Information Act today in the Court.
The Division bench Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto directed the panchayat to produce the documents and files after Candolim panchayat refused to give information to the petitioner Alvares, stating that she is a foreigner.
Advocate General Subodh Kantak orally told the Court that if a person has any grievance then they should come to the Court with all the documents rather than direct the Court to inquire into it.
However, the Court observed that a foreign national could ask for documents if any illegality is committed. The petitioner had written to the panchayat informing about illegalities indulged in by the MLA. The Court further made an oral observation that the Panchayat is only raising some technical objections and not looking into the CRZ violations.
It must be recalled that the petitioner has alleged that the MLA in connivance with Candolim panchayat and GCZMA had illegally regularized the illegal structures in violation of Coastal Zone Regulation, Town and Country Planning Act and Panchayat Act. Further, despite the constructions being illegal, no action was taken against Agnelo, she alleged.
The Court has asked Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) to file an affidavit after conducting the inspection and examining the licenses that have been obtained.
The Division bench Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto directed the panchayat to produce the documents and files after Candolim panchayat refused to give information to the petitioner Alvares, stating that she is a foreigner.
Advocate General Subodh Kantak orally told the Court that if a person has any grievance then they should come to the Court with all the documents rather than direct the Court to inquire into it.
However, the Court observed that a foreign national could ask for documents if any illegality is committed. The petitioner had written to the panchayat informing about illegalities indulged in by the MLA. The Court further made an oral observation that the Panchayat is only raising some technical objections and not looking into the CRZ violations.
It must be recalled that the petitioner has alleged that the MLA in connivance with Candolim panchayat and GCZMA had illegally regularized the illegal structures in violation of Coastal Zone Regulation, Town and Country Planning Act and Panchayat Act. Further, despite the constructions being illegal, no action was taken against Agnelo, she alleged.
The Court has asked Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) to file an affidavit after conducting the inspection and examining the licenses that have been obtained.
Garbage problem in Goa
PANJIM: With the municipal councils and corporation failing to comply with the order of High Court of Bombay at Goa, which directed them to commission the landfill sites in 14 municipal areas in a scientific manner and in accordance with Municipal Solid Waste Rules by October.
This was brought to the notice of the Court by Amicus curiae Norma Alvares, to which the Court observed that there appears to be a total failure on the part of the administration. With no solution to Goa's garbage woes, has asked the Advocate General Subodh Kantak to hold a meeting of the counsels of the various municipal corporation and councils.
The Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto suggested this after considering varied positions of the councils and corporation, which revealed that except for Mapusa and Panjim, which has sent their proposal to the government, all other proposals were pending either on account of public opposition or opposition of panchayat or rejection of the permission from Goa State Pollution Control Board.
While the Chief Officer of Mormugao Municipal Council stated that they have already set up a waste treatment plant at Sada, Vasco for composting of municipal waste through microbial composting method, Chief Officer of Bicholim Municipal Council submitted that they have identified a landfill site at Bordem, Bicholim, where they intend to set up a composting plant and the government has initiated land acquisition proceedings in respect of the said land.
While Deputy Collector of Ponda stated that they have identified land at Keriyan, Khandepar village but waiting for construction license from Curti Khandepar panchayat, the Chief Officer of Mapusa Municipal Council said that they have selected a site at Cuchelim village, which has got all necessary permissions and now the North Goa Collector has started the land acquisition process. On the other hand, the Chief Officer of Cuncolim Municipal Council informed that the people of Ambaulim village, where the garbage treatment plant was to be set up, were opposing it and now the Council has identified a new site for treatment and disposal of solid waste in Cuncolim village.
Even the case of Panjim is no different. AG informed the Court that land acquisition at Bainguinim has been kept on hold due to people's opposition. Then the Court wanted to know from the counsel for Corporation of City of Panaji as to why they are trying to set up a landfill site in Bainguinim when the committee appointed by the Court did not suggest the site at Bainguinim.
The Court has asked the government to see immediate action is taken to set up garbage treatment plant and the emergency clause of Land Acquisition Act is made applicable for the same.
This was brought to the notice of the Court by Amicus curiae Norma Alvares, to which the Court observed that there appears to be a total failure on the part of the administration. With no solution to Goa's garbage woes, has asked the Advocate General Subodh Kantak to hold a meeting of the counsels of the various municipal corporation and councils.
The Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto suggested this after considering varied positions of the councils and corporation, which revealed that except for Mapusa and Panjim, which has sent their proposal to the government, all other proposals were pending either on account of public opposition or opposition of panchayat or rejection of the permission from Goa State Pollution Control Board.
While the Chief Officer of Mormugao Municipal Council stated that they have already set up a waste treatment plant at Sada, Vasco for composting of municipal waste through microbial composting method, Chief Officer of Bicholim Municipal Council submitted that they have identified a landfill site at Bordem, Bicholim, where they intend to set up a composting plant and the government has initiated land acquisition proceedings in respect of the said land.
While Deputy Collector of Ponda stated that they have identified land at Keriyan, Khandepar village but waiting for construction license from Curti Khandepar panchayat, the Chief Officer of Mapusa Municipal Council said that they have selected a site at Cuchelim village, which has got all necessary permissions and now the North Goa Collector has started the land acquisition process. On the other hand, the Chief Officer of Cuncolim Municipal Council informed that the people of Ambaulim village, where the garbage treatment plant was to be set up, were opposing it and now the Council has identified a new site for treatment and disposal of solid waste in Cuncolim village.
Even the case of Panjim is no different. AG informed the Court that land acquisition at Bainguinim has been kept on hold due to people's opposition. Then the Court wanted to know from the counsel for Corporation of City of Panaji as to why they are trying to set up a landfill site in Bainguinim when the committee appointed by the Court did not suggest the site at Bainguinim.
The Court has asked the government to see immediate action is taken to set up garbage treatment plant and the emergency clause of Land Acquisition Act is made applicable for the same.
Illegal huts in Arambol: Matter in HC
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has converted a letter, complaining about illegal huts erected within High Tide Line (HTL) in Arambol, which is given on rent to foreigners during tourist season, into public interest litigation. The huts are erected every season since 2004, alleged the petitioner.
One John Fernandes had written a letter to the High Court on September 19, which was converted into a PIL on October 26. Ten illegal hutments were erected within 50 mts of HTL at Arambol beach, besides two illegal houses.
When the matter came up before the Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto they issued notice to Suresh Pai, Yashoda Pai of Khalcha wadda and Nitin Kudov of Girkar waddo from Arambol for illegally erecting the structures in no development zone (NDZ).
The petitioner, who appeared in person, alleged that Pai didn't obtain the construction license and the house number allotted by the village panchayat of Arambol is bogus and illegal. It was issued even as the application didn't comply with the house registration procedures, the petitioner stated.
He also stated that the illegal hutments were erected in October 2006 even though Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) had demolished it earlier. He further submitted that he had approached various authorities for justice but without any avail.
Further, the Court has asked GCZMA to carry out site inspections within 2 weeks.
One John Fernandes had written a letter to the High Court on September 19, which was converted into a PIL on October 26. Ten illegal hutments were erected within 50 mts of HTL at Arambol beach, besides two illegal houses.
When the matter came up before the Division bench of Justice FI Rebello and Justice NA Britto they issued notice to Suresh Pai, Yashoda Pai of Khalcha wadda and Nitin Kudov of Girkar waddo from Arambol for illegally erecting the structures in no development zone (NDZ).
The petitioner, who appeared in person, alleged that Pai didn't obtain the construction license and the house number allotted by the village panchayat of Arambol is bogus and illegal. It was issued even as the application didn't comply with the house registration procedures, the petitioner stated.
He also stated that the illegal hutments were erected in October 2006 even though Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) had demolished it earlier. He further submitted that he had approached various authorities for justice but without any avail.
Further, the Court has asked GCZMA to carry out site inspections within 2 weeks.
British National case in Goa i
PANJIM: A foreigner's attempt to get his money, which was confiscated by the Customs officials, released, through the High Court didn't materialize, as the Court refused to interfere in the matter.
Michael John Holyoake, a British national who had arrived on a tourist visa to Goa for a stay from October 21, 2007 to November 18, 2007 was arrested at Dabolim airport on October 21 by the Customs officials. They also confiscated 8000 UK pounds and Travelers cheques of 60,000 UK pounds under the Foreign Exchange Management Act.
Holyoake submitted to the Court that he was unaware of the legal provisions and procedures in India and was not aware that there are restrictions in carrying Travelers cheques and foreign currency in India. The Custom officials had also attached his passport. He further submitted that he was not aware of the procedure, which required him to declare in a prescribed form.
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa on October 24, 2007, released the accused on bail and then he field an application in the High Court to direct the Commissioner of Customs, Panjim to release the money.
However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Michael John Holyoake, a British national who had arrived on a tourist visa to Goa for a stay from October 21, 2007 to November 18, 2007 was arrested at Dabolim airport on October 21 by the Customs officials. They also confiscated 8000 UK pounds and Travelers cheques of 60,000 UK pounds under the Foreign Exchange Management Act.
Holyoake submitted to the Court that he was unaware of the legal provisions and procedures in India and was not aware that there are restrictions in carrying Travelers cheques and foreign currency in India. The Custom officials had also attached his passport. He further submitted that he was not aware of the procedure, which required him to declare in a prescribed form.
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa on October 24, 2007, released the accused on bail and then he field an application in the High Court to direct the Commissioner of Customs, Panjim to release the money.
However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
non-reservation of seats for OBCs from Goa
PANJIM: Aggrieved by the non-reservation of seats for OBCs from Goa in the Municipal Council elections to Ponda and Sanquelim, four voters, two from Nabhik community and the other two from the Bhandari Naik community, registered on the rolls of the Ponda Municipal Council, approached the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
The petitioners submitted that in keeping with the constitutional objectives to give representation to the Backward communities in all governmental organizations, institutions and self-governing bodies such as Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Municipalities, the state government introduced an amendment to Section 9 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, thereby reserving seats for OBCs in the Municipal Councils in Goa.
According to them, in the two municipalities of Ponda and Sanquelim, large numbers of voters are from the OBC community, including the Nhabi and Bhandhari community. Relying on figures from the Goa State Commission for OBCs, they said that in Ponda Municipal Council there are about 15,032 voters, out of which about 41 % belong to the OBCs and in Sanquelim Municipal Council, there are about 9254 voters, out of which about 33% belong to the OBC.
The petitioners informed the Court that when they learnt that the respondents – State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, Director of Municipal Administration and the Goa State Election Commission –have initiated the process to conduct elections for the Municipal Councils of Ponda and Sanquelim municipalities, some OBC persons approached Director of Municipal Administration and the Goa State Election Commission to find the number of seats reserved for the OBCs in the proposed elections to said Municipal Councils of Ponda and Sanquelim. It was learnt that no seats are reserved in these two Municipal Councils for the OBCs.
It was further submitted that the respondents are bent on holding the elections for the municipal councils of Ponda and Sanquelim without reserving seats for the other Backward Classes, therein in violation of and/or in contravention of the mandates contained in the said amended provisions of section 9 of the Municipalities Act, 1968.
The matter will be heard next week.
The petitioners submitted that in keeping with the constitutional objectives to give representation to the Backward communities in all governmental organizations, institutions and self-governing bodies such as Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Municipalities, the state government introduced an amendment to Section 9 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, thereby reserving seats for OBCs in the Municipal Councils in Goa.
According to them, in the two municipalities of Ponda and Sanquelim, large numbers of voters are from the OBC community, including the Nhabi and Bhandhari community. Relying on figures from the Goa State Commission for OBCs, they said that in Ponda Municipal Council there are about 15,032 voters, out of which about 41 % belong to the OBCs and in Sanquelim Municipal Council, there are about 9254 voters, out of which about 33% belong to the OBC.
The petitioners informed the Court that when they learnt that the respondents – State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, Director of Municipal Administration and the Goa State Election Commission –have initiated the process to conduct elections for the Municipal Councils of Ponda and Sanquelim municipalities, some OBC persons approached Director of Municipal Administration and the Goa State Election Commission to find the number of seats reserved for the OBCs in the proposed elections to said Municipal Councils of Ponda and Sanquelim. It was learnt that no seats are reserved in these two Municipal Councils for the OBCs.
It was further submitted that the respondents are bent on holding the elections for the municipal councils of Ponda and Sanquelim without reserving seats for the other Backward Classes, therein in violation of and/or in contravention of the mandates contained in the said amended provisions of section 9 of the Municipalities Act, 1968.
The matter will be heard next week.
HC lifts ban
PANJIM: The High Court has lifted the ban imposed on the state government with regards to granting permissions for construction within 40-metres-set-back line along the National Highways.
The Court, by its earlier order had restrained the state government from granting any relaxation to the 40-metres-set-back line along the National Highways without due approval of the Central government, either by itself or through its agents. Besides, the state government was also restrained from granting "Occupancy Certificate" to the constructions already built within the 40- metres-NDZ of NH-17, until and unless such persons obtain the approval of the Central Government.
However, the Division bench of Justice RMS Khandeparkar and Justice RS Mohite observed that prima facie there is no case made out for grant of any interim relief and as such the petitioners -- Fawia Mesquita and Noel Sapeco—are not entitled for continuation of the interim relief granted on May 16, 2007 by the Court.
The Court came to this conclusion as the petitioners were not been able to point out any statutory provision, which could restrain the construction within a radius of 40 metres on either sides of the highways and the petitioners have merely placed reliance upon a circular issued on the basis of the recommendations by Indian Road Congress in support of the contention that no construction could be allowed within the said area of 40 metres from the center line of the highways.
The petitioners had raised the issue of illegal constructions being carried out within 40 metres set-back from the centre line of National Highway No.17 which according to the petitioners, besides choking the said National Highway, has been the cause of many accidents and at times fatal.
They also raised the issue of the Village Panchayat Building Rules, 1971, which are in force being diluted by issuance of Circular dated February 25, 2005, which according to the petitioners could not be issued in view of Section 19(2)(i) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 once a Village Panchayat is de-notified as a planning area.
The Court, by its earlier order had restrained the state government from granting any relaxation to the 40-metres-set-back line along the National Highways without due approval of the Central government, either by itself or through its agents. Besides, the state government was also restrained from granting "Occupancy Certificate" to the constructions already built within the 40- metres-NDZ of NH-17, until and unless such persons obtain the approval of the Central Government.
However, the Division bench of Justice RMS Khandeparkar and Justice RS Mohite observed that prima facie there is no case made out for grant of any interim relief and as such the petitioners -- Fawia Mesquita and Noel Sapeco—are not entitled for continuation of the interim relief granted on May 16, 2007 by the Court.
The Court came to this conclusion as the petitioners were not been able to point out any statutory provision, which could restrain the construction within a radius of 40 metres on either sides of the highways and the petitioners have merely placed reliance upon a circular issued on the basis of the recommendations by Indian Road Congress in support of the contention that no construction could be allowed within the said area of 40 metres from the center line of the highways.
The petitioners had raised the issue of illegal constructions being carried out within 40 metres set-back from the centre line of National Highway No.17 which according to the petitioners, besides choking the said National Highway, has been the cause of many accidents and at times fatal.
They also raised the issue of the Village Panchayat Building Rules, 1971, which are in force being diluted by issuance of Circular dated February 25, 2005, which according to the petitioners could not be issued in view of Section 19(2)(i) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 once a Village Panchayat is de-notified as a planning area.
Tivim village panchayat
PANJIM: Tivim village panchayat Sarpanch, who was voted out of power, gets a fresh breather from the Additional Director of Panchayat, who has given directions to hold a fresh meeting on November 18 at the panchayat office for reconsidering the no confidence motion of October 8, 2007.
Sarpanch Vijay Kandolkar was voted out after a no confidence motion was passed with 5 votes in favour of his disqualification and 3 against it. One member was on leave and remained absent. Aggrieved by this, Kandolkar approached the Additional Director of Panchayat with a petition against the motion of no confidence passed against him by five votes to three votes.
The Additional Director of Panchayat also made it clear that during the meeting on November 18, the Secreatry of village panchayat and the Presiding Officer will take care to see that the procedure prescribed by the Goa Panchayat ( Meeting) Rules, 1996 are scrupulously followed and they are responsible in case there is any breach in the prescribed procedure. Though Bardez Block Development Officer has been asked to remain present, he has been asked not to take part in the proceedings.
It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner, Galelio Teles, that the motion of no confidence motion couldn't have been moved by panch member Arjun Aroskar when there is a expressed bar under Rule 6 (2) of Goa Panchayat (Meeting) Rules 1996 that a member elected to preside shall not be entitled to move motion of no confidence.
The petitioner submitted that the motion was neither proposed nor seconded by any member as revealed from the resolution and observer's report and hence the motion is in contravention of Rule 33 of the Goa Panchayat (Meeting) Rules 1996 and the entire resolution is nugatory, illegal and untenable.
Teles further submitted that the Rule clearly stipulates that all the members are required to be served notice of the date, place and time where the special meeting is to be convened. But one member -- Dharmandra Kauthankar—was not served notice of the special meeting. However counsel for the respondents -- panch members Arjun Aroskar, Tulsidas Shinde, Palkar Subhadha, Ranita Budge, Elizabeth Ferrao and Kauthankar, Tivim village panchayat secretary and Mapusa Block Development Officer— dismissed this allegation and submitted that intimation under Form 'A' was sent to all members, including Kauthankar at his residence and delivered.
The respondents further submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition as the resolution for no confidence against Kandolkar was passed by majority of members at a meeting by following due procedure after Shinde proposed the no confidence and Bugde seconded it.
Sarpanch Vijay Kandolkar was voted out after a no confidence motion was passed with 5 votes in favour of his disqualification and 3 against it. One member was on leave and remained absent. Aggrieved by this, Kandolkar approached the Additional Director of Panchayat with a petition against the motion of no confidence passed against him by five votes to three votes.
The Additional Director of Panchayat also made it clear that during the meeting on November 18, the Secreatry of village panchayat and the Presiding Officer will take care to see that the procedure prescribed by the Goa Panchayat ( Meeting) Rules, 1996 are scrupulously followed and they are responsible in case there is any breach in the prescribed procedure. Though Bardez Block Development Officer has been asked to remain present, he has been asked not to take part in the proceedings.
It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner, Galelio Teles, that the motion of no confidence motion couldn't have been moved by panch member Arjun Aroskar when there is a expressed bar under Rule 6 (2) of Goa Panchayat (Meeting) Rules 1996 that a member elected to preside shall not be entitled to move motion of no confidence.
The petitioner submitted that the motion was neither proposed nor seconded by any member as revealed from the resolution and observer's report and hence the motion is in contravention of Rule 33 of the Goa Panchayat (Meeting) Rules 1996 and the entire resolution is nugatory, illegal and untenable.
Teles further submitted that the Rule clearly stipulates that all the members are required to be served notice of the date, place and time where the special meeting is to be convened. But one member -- Dharmandra Kauthankar—was not served notice of the special meeting. However counsel for the respondents -- panch members Arjun Aroskar, Tulsidas Shinde, Palkar Subhadha, Ranita Budge, Elizabeth Ferrao and Kauthankar, Tivim village panchayat secretary and Mapusa Block Development Officer— dismissed this allegation and submitted that intimation under Form 'A' was sent to all members, including Kauthankar at his residence and delivered.
The respondents further submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition as the resolution for no confidence against Kandolkar was passed by majority of members at a meeting by following due procedure after Shinde proposed the no confidence and Bugde seconded it.
Garbage woes:Panaji
PANJIM: Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP), which is faced with its ever increasing garbage woes, got some respite from the High Court, as the Court gave them time till December 20 to remove garbage dumped at EDC complex.
However, the Court made it clear to the CCP that they wouldn't be given any more time to remove the garbage from EDC complex.
CCP in its application for extension of time said that though they commenced work on removal of the waste, there were intervening spells of heavy rains, which directly affected and stalled the said works. CCP further submitted that due to heavy rainfall, which extended for a prolonged period, the accumulated waste is full of moisture and the same needs to be dried before transporting.
CCP admitted to the Court that these intervening circumstances were not anticipated and have a completely hampered the removal of waste works and admitted that under these circumstances the removal of waste cannot be completed by November 20 and sought further extension of 30 days for removal of the waste. It must be recalled that on a public interest litigation filed by the LIC Employees Union, the CCP had on October 17 given an undertaking to the Court that they would remove all the garbage dumped at the EDC complex at Patto by November 20.
Counsel for the LIC employees, Aires Rodrigues informed the Court that the CCP had not removed any garbage dumped and that the people working at EDC complex had to bear the stench for the last one year due to CCP's dumped garbage at Patto in rank violation of law.
However, the Court made it clear to the CCP that they wouldn't be given any more time to remove the garbage from EDC complex.
CCP in its application for extension of time said that though they commenced work on removal of the waste, there were intervening spells of heavy rains, which directly affected and stalled the said works. CCP further submitted that due to heavy rainfall, which extended for a prolonged period, the accumulated waste is full of moisture and the same needs to be dried before transporting.
CCP admitted to the Court that these intervening circumstances were not anticipated and have a completely hampered the removal of waste works and admitted that under these circumstances the removal of waste cannot be completed by November 20 and sought further extension of 30 days for removal of the waste. It must be recalled that on a public interest litigation filed by the LIC Employees Union, the CCP had on October 17 given an undertaking to the Court that they would remove all the garbage dumped at the EDC complex at Patto by November 20.
Counsel for the LIC employees, Aires Rodrigues informed the Court that the CCP had not removed any garbage dumped and that the people working at EDC complex had to bear the stench for the last one year due to CCP's dumped garbage at Patto in rank violation of law.
Dismissed Anti Narcotics Cell cop appraoches HC
PANJIM: A lady police sub-inspector, who was dismissed from service for demanding a bribe, has attacked the Police department for framing her with the oblique motive to get rid of her from the police department, lest she identified the black sheep in the department or expose them.
Terming her dismissal as a slur on her career and personal life, the former PSI Sandhya Gupta in her petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenged her dismissal from service by the Director General of Police. Gupta submitted that she was neither caught while accepting bribe nor any trap was laid to catch her nor was she is guilty of any misconduct, even while maintaining that she is innocent and there is a conspiracy behind lodging the complaint as well as registering it.
When the matter came up for urgent circulation before the single judge Justice RS Mohite, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to mention it during vacation. The vacation of the High Court starts from October 5.
It must be recalled that Gupta, who was appointed to the post of PSI on July 29, 2002 and later in 2005 posted as PSI, Anti Narcotic Cell police station was dismissed from service by the DGP on October 10, 2007 under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. However, Gupta in her petition submitted that the DGP's order is malafide, arbitrary, perverse and in colourable exercise of power and authority, which has resulted in miscarriage or failure of justice as she was dismissed without holding any inquiry or without informing her of the charges or without affording her a reasonable opportunity of being heard in request of the charges leveled against her.
She was dismissed from service based on a complaint by one Lajwanti Datwani, whose son Sunil was arrested and booked under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Actby Gupta after a raid on a rave party on September 23. At that time she was in charge of ANC police station as the regular incumbent had proceeded on three days leave.
On October 8, 2007, Lajwanti lodged a complaint against Gupta with the Anti Corruption Branch, Panjim, that she demanded Rs 40,000 as a bribe on September 28, 2007 for showing leniency to her arrested son. This Gupta claims is a false complaint.
It is alleged by Gupta in her petition that while investigating Sunil, she found that he is in the drugs trade and has so high connections that he can influence the course of investigation. It is further submitted by Gupta that Lajwanti hatched the conspiracy of filing a false complaint against her for taking bribe to ensure that she is rid of the investigation.
Incidentally, during her tenure in the police, she was commended several times for her good performance and for being part of the raiding parties, which successfully conducted narcotic raids and raid on sandalwood smuggling at Canacona. Later, during her deputation to Signal Training Centre, Border Security Force, Gwalior in 2007, she received reward of Rs 10,000 for her decision-making, excellent supervision, command and control over the recruits. On February 16, 2007, she received cash reward of Rs 5000 for displaying extraordinary courage and boldness in dealing with the death incident of a recruit constable by fall from a running train in Maharashtra.
While senior counsel Surendra Dessai along with Shivan Dessai appeared for the petitioner, Advocate General Subosh Kantak was the counsel for the DGP.
Terming her dismissal as a slur on her career and personal life, the former PSI Sandhya Gupta in her petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenged her dismissal from service by the Director General of Police. Gupta submitted that she was neither caught while accepting bribe nor any trap was laid to catch her nor was she is guilty of any misconduct, even while maintaining that she is innocent and there is a conspiracy behind lodging the complaint as well as registering it.
When the matter came up for urgent circulation before the single judge Justice RS Mohite, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to mention it during vacation. The vacation of the High Court starts from October 5.
It must be recalled that Gupta, who was appointed to the post of PSI on July 29, 2002 and later in 2005 posted as PSI, Anti Narcotic Cell police station was dismissed from service by the DGP on October 10, 2007 under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. However, Gupta in her petition submitted that the DGP's order is malafide, arbitrary, perverse and in colourable exercise of power and authority, which has resulted in miscarriage or failure of justice as she was dismissed without holding any inquiry or without informing her of the charges or without affording her a reasonable opportunity of being heard in request of the charges leveled against her.
She was dismissed from service based on a complaint by one Lajwanti Datwani, whose son Sunil was arrested and booked under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Actby Gupta after a raid on a rave party on September 23. At that time she was in charge of ANC police station as the regular incumbent had proceeded on three days leave.
On October 8, 2007, Lajwanti lodged a complaint against Gupta with the Anti Corruption Branch, Panjim, that she demanded Rs 40,000 as a bribe on September 28, 2007 for showing leniency to her arrested son. This Gupta claims is a false complaint.
It is alleged by Gupta in her petition that while investigating Sunil, she found that he is in the drugs trade and has so high connections that he can influence the course of investigation. It is further submitted by Gupta that Lajwanti hatched the conspiracy of filing a false complaint against her for taking bribe to ensure that she is rid of the investigation.
Incidentally, during her tenure in the police, she was commended several times for her good performance and for being part of the raiding parties, which successfully conducted narcotic raids and raid on sandalwood smuggling at Canacona. Later, during her deputation to Signal Training Centre, Border Security Force, Gwalior in 2007, she received reward of Rs 10,000 for her decision-making, excellent supervision, command and control over the recruits. On February 16, 2007, she received cash reward of Rs 5000 for displaying extraordinary courage and boldness in dealing with the death incident of a recruit constable by fall from a running train in Maharashtra.
While senior counsel Surendra Dessai along with Shivan Dessai appeared for the petitioner, Advocate General Subosh Kantak was the counsel for the DGP.
Children's Court rejects bail application
PANJIM: The Children's Court has rejected the bail application of the son of a Border Security Force Head Constable, New Delhi, who has been accused of indulging in unnatural sex with a minor boy.
Neeraj Mann, who is a trainee student of Hotel Management at Panjim and was staying at Bogmalo took an 8-year-old local boy, confined him and then after beating him, indulged in unnatural sex with the minor. The incident occurred on September 20, 2007 at 2.45 pm at Bogmalo.
This is the second time that the Court has rejected his bail application.
The counsel for the state, Public Prosecutor, Pratima Vernekar submitted that the punishment for the offence is harsh and there is every possibility that he would tamper evidence or even jump bail. Further, it was also submitted that the clothes of both the accused and victim have been forwarded to CFSL, Hyderabad and a report is awaited.
However, the counsel for the accused stated that Mann is a BSF Head Constable's son and has ancestral house and there is no question of jumping bail.
Neeraj Mann, who is a trainee student of Hotel Management at Panjim and was staying at Bogmalo took an 8-year-old local boy, confined him and then after beating him, indulged in unnatural sex with the minor. The incident occurred on September 20, 2007 at 2.45 pm at Bogmalo.
This is the second time that the Court has rejected his bail application.
The counsel for the state, Public Prosecutor, Pratima Vernekar submitted that the punishment for the offence is harsh and there is every possibility that he would tamper evidence or even jump bail. Further, it was also submitted that the clothes of both the accused and victim have been forwarded to CFSL, Hyderabad and a report is awaited.
However, the counsel for the accused stated that Mann is a BSF Head Constable's son and has ancestral house and there is no question of jumping bail.
Industrialist Sarvesh Timblo gets temporary releif
PANJIM: Industrialist Sarvesh Timblo, who was accused by former Xelvona panch Mariano Mascarenhasin in an attempt to murder him, got temporary relief from the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
The single judge of Justice NA Britto, while dismissing Timblo's anticipatory bail observed that the applicant Timblo is not required and his arrest would depend on further interrogation sought by the police.
The police in their reply to the application for anticipatory bail filed by Timblo, submitted that CID, Crime branch had called Timblo twice for interrogation to clarify certain aspects of investigations. However, citing reasons that he was out of station, he didn't join the investigation and preferred to file Anticipatory Bail application before the District and Sessions court, Margao, which rejected it.
The police further submitted that there is prima facie material, which shows that Timblo was involved in an offence punishable with imprisonment for life and his presence is required in police custody to interrogate him in detail with respect to his role in the crime.
However, the High Court observed that in the present circumstances, the application is infractuous and dismissed it. The Court also made it clear that if Timblo is to be arrested, then 10 days notice has to be given to Timblo to approach the High Court for anticipatory bail. If the police want to interrogate without arresting Timblo, then they can interrogate him with a 48 hours notice.
Timblo's role in the attempted murder came to light when Mariano in his statement before Executive Magistrate, Quepem on April 21, 2006 said that he suspected that Timblo and Rajesh Dessai are responsible for the attack on his life. According to Mariano, the motive behind the attack was the dust pollution while transporting iron ore for which Timblo had given contract to Rajesh, which was being stopped by him and other Xelvona villagers as it was causing dust pollution and affecting their health.
Further, in his statement Mariano said that Timblo threatened him, after Curchorem police arrested the staff members of Pandurang Timblo Industries on January 26, 2006 for loading the iron ore at night that he would show him through Rajesh. However, the police in their application before the Court submitted that the phone service provider has not yet provided the proper call details of Mariano, which were requested for. The police, meanwhile, are trying to obtain the call details of all phone numbers that belong to Timblo.
The single judge of Justice NA Britto, while dismissing Timblo's anticipatory bail observed that the applicant Timblo is not required and his arrest would depend on further interrogation sought by the police.
The police in their reply to the application for anticipatory bail filed by Timblo, submitted that CID, Crime branch had called Timblo twice for interrogation to clarify certain aspects of investigations. However, citing reasons that he was out of station, he didn't join the investigation and preferred to file Anticipatory Bail application before the District and Sessions court, Margao, which rejected it.
The police further submitted that there is prima facie material, which shows that Timblo was involved in an offence punishable with imprisonment for life and his presence is required in police custody to interrogate him in detail with respect to his role in the crime.
However, the High Court observed that in the present circumstances, the application is infractuous and dismissed it. The Court also made it clear that if Timblo is to be arrested, then 10 days notice has to be given to Timblo to approach the High Court for anticipatory bail. If the police want to interrogate without arresting Timblo, then they can interrogate him with a 48 hours notice.
Timblo's role in the attempted murder came to light when Mariano in his statement before Executive Magistrate, Quepem on April 21, 2006 said that he suspected that Timblo and Rajesh Dessai are responsible for the attack on his life. According to Mariano, the motive behind the attack was the dust pollution while transporting iron ore for which Timblo had given contract to Rajesh, which was being stopped by him and other Xelvona villagers as it was causing dust pollution and affecting their health.
Further, in his statement Mariano said that Timblo threatened him, after Curchorem police arrested the staff members of Pandurang Timblo Industries on January 26, 2006 for loading the iron ore at night that he would show him through Rajesh. However, the police in their application before the Court submitted that the phone service provider has not yet provided the proper call details of Mariano, which were requested for. The police, meanwhile, are trying to obtain the call details of all phone numbers that belong to Timblo.
British National approach court alleging that they are victims of "red tapism"
PANJIM: Two couples, who are British nationals, working in India, had approached the High Court of Bombay at Goa alleging that they were victims of government "red tapism", as they are not being allowed to purchase property in Goa, despite completing 182 days in the country.
In a drastic shift from the recent past, when foreigners could easily grab a piece of Goa's land, now a foreigner wanting to purchase property in the state, has to go through a longer and even stringent procedure. This is due to the Goa government's circular on August 29, 2006 informing about the government decision for effectual implementation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, regarding acquisition of property in Goa by foreign nationals. The circular stated:
(1) No sale deeds of foreigners will be registered unless I and XV form is inspected for orchard/ agricultural land
(2) The stay of foreigners will be verified by Home department and they have to produce NOC from Home department.
This is what Clive Pegg and his wife Norma, both British nationals, who had come to India in 2002, upon Clive's employment as MD in a company in Hyderabad realized. On April 1, 2006, they obtained status of "person resident in India" as defined in the FEMA, as they stayed in India for more than 182 days during the financial year 2005-2006.
On October 18, 2006, the couple executed a deed of sale of a plot and bungalow in Benaulim, but the sub-registrar of Salcette refused to accept the sale on the ground that the couple are foreign nationals. They applied to Home department for NOC to complete the purchase on January 25, 2007 but without any avail, even as the state government kept the registration of the document pending for want of NOC from Home department. And Home department, even after 10 months has neither issued the NOC or rejected their application.
Another British couple, Anthony and Carol Horwood, who had come to India in September 21, 2006 and stayed in the country till May 18, 2007 under valid residential permits purchased property in Parra and is facing the same fate as the Peggs.
Tired of waiting for the NOC from the Home department, they approached the Court challenging the decision of the Goa government, which is in circular on August 26, 2006, alleging that it is "ultra vires" the FEMA, unconstitutional or arbitrary, illegal, perverse and without any authority of law.
It was further submitted by the two petitioners that they are foreign nationals who qualify as a person resident in India within the meaning of the expression as defined in section 2 (u) of FEMA and are not barred from acquiring immovable property in the country.
Though the Division bench of Justice RMS Khandeparkar and Justice RS Mohite refused to entertain the petition, they have asked the Home department to dispose off the matter within 3 months. Though the Court disposed of the petition, they have given liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court again.
In a drastic shift from the recent past, when foreigners could easily grab a piece of Goa's land, now a foreigner wanting to purchase property in the state, has to go through a longer and even stringent procedure. This is due to the Goa government's circular on August 29, 2006 informing about the government decision for effectual implementation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, regarding acquisition of property in Goa by foreign nationals. The circular stated:
(1) No sale deeds of foreigners will be registered unless I and XV form is inspected for orchard/ agricultural land
(2) The stay of foreigners will be verified by Home department and they have to produce NOC from Home department.
This is what Clive Pegg and his wife Norma, both British nationals, who had come to India in 2002, upon Clive's employment as MD in a company in Hyderabad realized. On April 1, 2006, they obtained status of "person resident in India" as defined in the FEMA, as they stayed in India for more than 182 days during the financial year 2005-2006.
On October 18, 2006, the couple executed a deed of sale of a plot and bungalow in Benaulim, but the sub-registrar of Salcette refused to accept the sale on the ground that the couple are foreign nationals. They applied to Home department for NOC to complete the purchase on January 25, 2007 but without any avail, even as the state government kept the registration of the document pending for want of NOC from Home department. And Home department, even after 10 months has neither issued the NOC or rejected their application.
Another British couple, Anthony and Carol Horwood, who had come to India in September 21, 2006 and stayed in the country till May 18, 2007 under valid residential permits purchased property in Parra and is facing the same fate as the Peggs.
Tired of waiting for the NOC from the Home department, they approached the Court challenging the decision of the Goa government, which is in circular on August 26, 2006, alleging that it is "ultra vires" the FEMA, unconstitutional or arbitrary, illegal, perverse and without any authority of law.
It was further submitted by the two petitioners that they are foreign nationals who qualify as a person resident in India within the meaning of the expression as defined in section 2 (u) of FEMA and are not barred from acquiring immovable property in the country.
Though the Division bench of Justice RMS Khandeparkar and Justice RS Mohite refused to entertain the petition, they have asked the Home department to dispose off the matter within 3 months. Though the Court disposed of the petition, they have given liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court again.
Council for Architecture (CoA) doesn't have the power to stop admissions to the Goa College of Architecture (GCA):HC
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa again observed that the Council for Architecture (CoA) doesn't have the power to stop admissions to the Goa College of Architecture (GCA).
It must be recalled that the CoA earlier tried to stall admissions to first year GCA course through a later dated June 14, 2007 to the officiating principal and a public notice on July 7, 2007 stating that GCA has been put under "No admission" for the Academic Session 2007-08.
Counsel for CoA, Naveen Nath, reiterated that they tried to stop the admission process as the college failed to fully comply with the minimum standards and requirements laid down by CoA. However, the Division bench of Justice RMS Khandeparkar and Justice RS Mohite rejected this argument and orally stated that CoA can't directly freeze the admission of students to a college, even as making it clear that they can initiate steps against the college if it fails to comply with the minimum requirements and can even contemplate to start the de-recognition process.
CoA is demanding that the college should appoint a full-time principal, other full-time faculty as per the latest norms of CoA, invite more visiting faculty for lectures and implement the syllabus. The other requirements are: building (acquiring new premises), students work (transparent system), study tour, library, creation of various departments, computer lab, faculty of Architecture and Board of Studies in Architecture, Alumni Association, Parents Teachers Association and rapport with professional bodies, institutional consultancy and research.
The Court has granted time till January 2008 to the state government to look into the discrepancies pointed out by the CoA and improve it.
It must be recalled that the CoA earlier tried to stall admissions to first year GCA course through a later dated June 14, 2007 to the officiating principal and a public notice on July 7, 2007 stating that GCA has been put under "No admission" for the Academic Session 2007-08.
Counsel for CoA, Naveen Nath, reiterated that they tried to stop the admission process as the college failed to fully comply with the minimum standards and requirements laid down by CoA. However, the Division bench of Justice RMS Khandeparkar and Justice RS Mohite rejected this argument and orally stated that CoA can't directly freeze the admission of students to a college, even as making it clear that they can initiate steps against the college if it fails to comply with the minimum requirements and can even contemplate to start the de-recognition process.
CoA is demanding that the college should appoint a full-time principal, other full-time faculty as per the latest norms of CoA, invite more visiting faculty for lectures and implement the syllabus. The other requirements are: building (acquiring new premises), students work (transparent system), study tour, library, creation of various departments, computer lab, faculty of Architecture and Board of Studies in Architecture, Alumni Association, Parents Teachers Association and rapport with professional bodies, institutional consultancy and research.
The Court has granted time till January 2008 to the state government to look into the discrepancies pointed out by the CoA and improve it.
Improve Medical facilities in Goa:HC
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has stated that the authorities have to take appropriate steps, which are necessary, to improve the medical facilities in Goa.
The Court has granted time till November 23 to the state government to look into the problems in the public health system in Goa, which have been pointed out by the petitioner, an aggrieved father, who had approached the Court with a request to look into a medical scam that is allegedly going on at "commercialized" private hospitals in Goa, who abuse patients, thereby violating professional ethics.
Petitioner Prakash Sardessai submitted to the Division bench of Justice RMS Khandeparkar and Justice RS Mohite that the primary heath centers are defunct as they lack equipments and the few doctors here are acting as agents to transfer the patients to the private hospitals.
On hearing this submission, the Court made a verbal observation to the Advocate General Subodh Kantak that unless the state looks after the health of the people of Goa, political health is ought to get deteriorated.
Further, the Court wanted to know whether the state is looking into the aspect of cleanliness in Goa Medical College, to which AG submitted that they are looking into the aspect of cleanliness and hygiene in the public health centers.
The Court has granted time till November 23 to the state government to look into the problems in the public health system in Goa, which have been pointed out by the petitioner, an aggrieved father, who had approached the Court with a request to look into a medical scam that is allegedly going on at "commercialized" private hospitals in Goa, who abuse patients, thereby violating professional ethics.
Petitioner Prakash Sardessai submitted to the Division bench of Justice RMS Khandeparkar and Justice RS Mohite that the primary heath centers are defunct as they lack equipments and the few doctors here are acting as agents to transfer the patients to the private hospitals.
On hearing this submission, the Court made a verbal observation to the Advocate General Subodh Kantak that unless the state looks after the health of the people of Goa, political health is ought to get deteriorated.
Further, the Court wanted to know whether the state is looking into the aspect of cleanliness in Goa Medical College, to which AG submitted that they are looking into the aspect of cleanliness and hygiene in the public health centers.
Air Force Officer Challenges Court Martial
PANJIM: An Air Force officer, who was to face rigorous imprisonment of one year after by General court martial, has challenged the order of General court martial and also promulgation of the sentence of the court martial in the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Major Deepak Bali, Chief Engineer with the Indian Air Force, by the order of the court martial was directed to be cashiered and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, Bali contended that the convening of the General court martial is untenable, illegal and without jurisdiction.
Bali was charged with obtaining for himself Rs. 10,000 as gratification for having passed payments of two running accounts in favour of M/s Puspha Engineering Works. The petitioner was also charged for abusing his position as Garrison Engineer and taking a sum of Rs. 2,500 from a contractor with the Military Engineer Services.
Accordingly petitioner was charged under Sec. 69 of the Army Act for obtaining gratification contrary to sec. 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act so also obtaining pecuniary advantage contrary to sec. 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act.
Further the petitioner submitted that the entire proceeding suffers from error of jurisdiction as the finding of the sentence awarded by General court martial is also null and void.
The counsel for Union of India, Assistant Solicitor General of India, Carlos Ferreira submitted that under section 153 of the Army Act, read with rule 71 of Army rules, the sentence is not confirmed until promulgation is effected and therefore the petition is premature.
Ferreira further contended that under section 164 (2) of the Army Act the petitioner has an alternative remedy for filing petition before a Central Government against the sentence of Court Martial. Therefore, the petitioner could very well approach the Central Government before approaching the High Court in a writ petition.
The Division bench then wanted to know from the counsel for the petitioner, why they have directly approached the High Court without approaching to the Central government, to which the counsel submitted that there are judgments which enables the petitioner to approach the High Court directly and sought two weeks time for the same.
The matter is now fixed for hearing after vacation for hearing on the preliminary objections raised by Union of India.
Major Deepak Bali, Chief Engineer with the Indian Air Force, by the order of the court martial was directed to be cashiered and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, Bali contended that the convening of the General court martial is untenable, illegal and without jurisdiction.
Bali was charged with obtaining for himself Rs. 10,000 as gratification for having passed payments of two running accounts in favour of M/s Puspha Engineering Works. The petitioner was also charged for abusing his position as Garrison Engineer and taking a sum of Rs. 2,500 from a contractor with the Military Engineer Services.
Accordingly petitioner was charged under Sec. 69 of the Army Act for obtaining gratification contrary to sec. 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act so also obtaining pecuniary advantage contrary to sec. 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act.
Further the petitioner submitted that the entire proceeding suffers from error of jurisdiction as the finding of the sentence awarded by General court martial is also null and void.
The counsel for Union of India, Assistant Solicitor General of India, Carlos Ferreira submitted that under section 153 of the Army Act, read with rule 71 of Army rules, the sentence is not confirmed until promulgation is effected and therefore the petition is premature.
Ferreira further contended that under section 164 (2) of the Army Act the petitioner has an alternative remedy for filing petition before a Central Government against the sentence of Court Martial. Therefore, the petitioner could very well approach the Central Government before approaching the High Court in a writ petition.
The Division bench then wanted to know from the counsel for the petitioner, why they have directly approached the High Court without approaching to the Central government, to which the counsel submitted that there are judgments which enables the petitioner to approach the High Court directly and sought two weeks time for the same.
The matter is now fixed for hearing after vacation for hearing on the preliminary objections raised by Union of India.
measure the distance from the High Tide Line to the nearest point; Cidade de Goa
PANJIM: The High Court has directed Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) to appoint a senior engineer to measure the distance from the High Tide Line to the nearest point of the proposed seven-storied building, which would allegedly be constructed within the 100 mts of the no-development zone (NDZ) in CRZ II. The estimated cost of the project is around Rs 24, 45, 39,000.
The Court appointed GCZMA's senior engineer to measure the distance as the counsel for the petitioner, Atmaram Nadkarni, again alleged that the hotel project is within 100 mts of the river Zuari. He submitted to the Court that either an official from the NIO or a Naval Hydrographer be appointed to find out whether the proposed project is within 100 mts.
The Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto has directed the senior engineer to submit the report to the Court within two weeks. A representative of the petitioner and the respondent have been allowed to remain present at the site, while the GCZMA's senior engineer takes the measurement.
The Taleigao panchayat had approached the High Court as the Additional and Deputy Director of Panchayats having misconstrued the provisions of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 had erred in directing the panchayat to grant the construction license for Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. Meanwhile, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. had approached the High Court stating that the Panchayat should be directed to give them the construction license.
On December 13, 2006, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. applied to the Taleigao Panchayat for a construction license of the Hotel project. Soon afterwards they addressed letters to Electricity department and Urban Health Centre on December 16 and later the panchayat conducted site inspections on February 7.
On March 14, 2007, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. appealed before the Deputy Director of Panchayats under Section 66 (2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which was opposed by the Panchayat. However, on April 13, 2007, the Deputy Director of Panchayats by a judgement and order allowed the appeal filed by the Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd and issued directions to the Panchayat to issue a license to the resorts.
The Court appointed GCZMA's senior engineer to measure the distance as the counsel for the petitioner, Atmaram Nadkarni, again alleged that the hotel project is within 100 mts of the river Zuari. He submitted to the Court that either an official from the NIO or a Naval Hydrographer be appointed to find out whether the proposed project is within 100 mts.
The Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto has directed the senior engineer to submit the report to the Court within two weeks. A representative of the petitioner and the respondent have been allowed to remain present at the site, while the GCZMA's senior engineer takes the measurement.
The Taleigao panchayat had approached the High Court as the Additional and Deputy Director of Panchayats having misconstrued the provisions of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 had erred in directing the panchayat to grant the construction license for Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. Meanwhile, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. had approached the High Court stating that the Panchayat should be directed to give them the construction license.
On December 13, 2006, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. applied to the Taleigao Panchayat for a construction license of the Hotel project. Soon afterwards they addressed letters to Electricity department and Urban Health Centre on December 16 and later the panchayat conducted site inspections on February 7.
On March 14, 2007, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. appealed before the Deputy Director of Panchayats under Section 66 (2) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which was opposed by the Panchayat. However, on April 13, 2007, the Deputy Director of Panchayats by a judgement and order allowed the appeal filed by the Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd and issued directions to the Panchayat to issue a license to the resorts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
