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.
Showing posts with label Goa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Goa. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Calangute Village Panchayat Tamasha
PANJIM: The Director of Panchayats has suspended the execution of the resolution on October 1, 2007 of Calangute village panchayat, in which a no confidence motion was passed against Sarpanch Angelo (Albert) Fernandes and deputy Sarpanch Rupa Chodankar by 6-0 votes.
In an ad-interim relief, the Director of Panchayats has restrained the panch members led by former Sarpanch and present panch member Joseph Sequeira, Calangute village panchayat secretary and Bardez Block Development Officer from executing the resolution, noting that the procedure was unjust, which has prejudicially affected the rights of the Sarpanch and his deputy. In other words, Fernandes and Chodankar continue in their original position till final orders.
Fernandes and his deputy filed a petition against the Sequeira group, the Calangute village panchayat secretary and Bardez BDO, challenging the resolution on October 1, 2007 passed in the special meeting convened to consider the no-confidence motion against them. The matter was taken up for hearing under section 178 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by the Director of Panchayats.
Counsel for the petitioners, Galileo Teles, submitted that the rights of the petitioner will be lost if ex-parte ad-interim relief is not granted. Teles also submitted that the motion of no-confidence was not put to vote, as required under Rule 21 of the Goa Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1996, or otherwise and that there was not even compliance of Rule 23 of the Goa Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1996, in as much as there was no motion before the body for casting vote, whether by show of hands or by secret ballot.
The Director of Panchayat observed that he is prima-facie satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for the same as the impugned resolution pertains to the no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch and his Deputy and the consequences of the execution of the same would immediately impinge upon the valuable rights of the petitioners.
The Director noted that o n careful perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Panchayat body called on October 1, 2007, for considering the motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch and the resolution passed therein, it is evident that there are serious lapses which have been committed during the consideration of the no-confidence motions. "Nowhere in the minutes of the meeting, there is a mention that the motion of no-confidence has been put to vote as required under Rule 21 of the Goa Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1996. Further, the minutes of the meeting also do not reveal in what manner the voting has taken place. Rule 23, of the Goa Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1996, clearly stipulates that votes shall ordinarily be taken by a show of hands, but may, if the majority of the members so decide, be taken by secret ballot", the judgment observes.
Interestingly, G V Gaonkar, Extension Officer, Bardez Block, appointed as observer under Rule 5(4) of the Goa Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1996, to attend this meeting in his report on October 1,2007 addressed to the Bardez BDO has confirmed the lapses that have taken place in the meeting. In his report, the observer has stated that the no-confidence motion has not been put for voting and the proceedings were written by the village panchayat secretary directly without the voting procedure but subsequently six members have signed in favour of the motion. The observer has further stated in his report that no trial of majority has been shown by raising of hands or by secret ballot.
"At the end, justice always prevails. Joseph Sequeira got goondas (goonand tried to create cahso. Now law will take its own course." Calangute MLA Agnelo Fernandes
In an ad-interim relief, the Director of Panchayats has restrained the panch members led by former Sarpanch and present panch member Joseph Sequeira, Calangute village panchayat secretary and Bardez Block Development Officer from executing the resolution, noting that the procedure was unjust, which has prejudicially affected the rights of the Sarpanch and his deputy. In other words, Fernandes and Chodankar continue in their original position till final orders.
Fernandes and his deputy filed a petition against the Sequeira group, the Calangute village panchayat secretary and Bardez BDO, challenging the resolution on October 1, 2007 passed in the special meeting convened to consider the no-confidence motion against them. The matter was taken up for hearing under section 178 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by the Director of Panchayats.
Counsel for the petitioners, Galileo Teles, submitted that the rights of the petitioner will be lost if ex-parte ad-interim relief is not granted. Teles also submitted that the motion of no-confidence was not put to vote, as required under Rule 21 of the Goa Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1996, or otherwise and that there was not even compliance of Rule 23 of the Goa Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1996, in as much as there was no motion before the body for casting vote, whether by show of hands or by secret ballot.
The Director of Panchayat observed that he is prima-facie satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for the same as the impugned resolution pertains to the no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch and his Deputy and the consequences of the execution of the same would immediately impinge upon the valuable rights of the petitioners.
The Director noted that o n careful perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Panchayat body called on October 1, 2007, for considering the motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch and the resolution passed therein, it is evident that there are serious lapses which have been committed during the consideration of the no-confidence motions. "Nowhere in the minutes of the meeting, there is a mention that the motion of no-confidence has been put to vote as required under Rule 21 of the Goa Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1996. Further, the minutes of the meeting also do not reveal in what manner the voting has taken place. Rule 23, of the Goa Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1996, clearly stipulates that votes shall ordinarily be taken by a show of hands, but may, if the majority of the members so decide, be taken by secret ballot", the judgment observes.
Interestingly, G V Gaonkar, Extension Officer, Bardez Block, appointed as observer under Rule 5(4) of the Goa Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1996, to attend this meeting in his report on October 1,2007 addressed to the Bardez BDO has confirmed the lapses that have taken place in the meeting. In his report, the observer has stated that the no-confidence motion has not been put for voting and the proceedings were written by the village panchayat secretary directly without the voting procedure but subsequently six members have signed in favour of the motion. The observer has further stated in his report that no trial of majority has been shown by raising of hands or by secret ballot.
"At the end, justice always prevails. Joseph Sequeira got goondas (goonand tried to create cahso. Now law will take its own course." Calangute MLA Agnelo Fernandes
Rajiv Gandhi IT park at Dona Paula in trouble
PANJIM: First, it was IT park at Socorro that was in the news for the wrong reasons and now IT habitat at Dona Paula inaugurated by Congress president Sonia Gandhi faces a similar fate.
Nitoll Jinn Trust, an NGO, has approached the High Court challenging the absence of procedure in the allotment of plots at Dona Paula, even as they made it clear that they are not against the setting up of an IT habitat.
The petitioners have stated that if there are more applications than the plots available, then the criteria for selection and allotment of the plots to the applicant have to be declared beforehand. However, in the case of It habitat at Dona Paula, Info Tech Corporation of Goa Limited has no cr iteria of evaluation of various applicants and the allotments are arbitrary, alleged the petitioner.
They have further in their petition stated that there is no provision in the scheme to ensure that the developers of the property sell or lease their properties only to IT or IT related companies -- – ITES (Information Technology Enabled Services, though it is called a IT habitat. The petitioners stated that considering that the lands have been allotted, considerably below the market price, there should have been some conditions to ensure that the final benefit of this subsidy goes to IT or ITES. But there is no such provision and therefore the petitioners have prayed to cancel all the allotments and direct InfoTech Corporation of Goa Limited to follow proper procedures in allotment of plots.
The petitioners have said that IT is a human resource based activity and not a land based activity and development of IT doesn't require allotment of such huge plots. Info Tech Corporation of Goa Limited should take into consideration the experience of other states and allot only that much land required for a given IT activity, the petitioners added.
The Court has given two weeks time to serve notice on Info Tech Corporation of Goa Limited.
Nitoll Jinn Trust, an NGO, has approached the High Court challenging the absence of procedure in the allotment of plots at Dona Paula, even as they made it clear that they are not against the setting up of an IT habitat.
The petitioners have stated that if there are more applications than the plots available, then the criteria for selection and allotment of the plots to the applicant have to be declared beforehand. However, in the case of It habitat at Dona Paula, Info Tech Corporation of Goa Limited has no cr iteria of evaluation of various applicants and the allotments are arbitrary, alleged the petitioner.
They have further in their petition stated that there is no provision in the scheme to ensure that the developers of the property sell or lease their properties only to IT or IT related companies -- – ITES (Information Technology Enabled Services, though it is called a IT habitat. The petitioners stated that considering that the lands have been allotted, considerably below the market price, there should have been some conditions to ensure that the final benefit of this subsidy goes to IT or ITES. But there is no such provision and therefore the petitioners have prayed to cancel all the allotments and direct InfoTech Corporation of Goa Limited to follow proper procedures in allotment of plots.
The petitioners have said that IT is a human resource based activity and not a land based activity and development of IT doesn't require allotment of such huge plots. Info Tech Corporation of Goa Limited should take into consideration the experience of other states and allot only that much land required for a given IT activity, the petitioners added.
The Court has given two weeks time to serve notice on Info Tech Corporation of Goa Limited.
HC quashes "stop work" order issued to Aldei de Goa
PANJIM: The High Court has quashed the "stop work" order issued to
Goan Real Estate & Construction Ltd by North Goa Additional Collector
because according to the Ministry of Environment & Forests "it is an
on-going project". In other words, GRECL can carry on with their work
of constructing homes and a hotel.
Swapnil Naik, Additional Collector, North Goa had turned down the
request of Goan Real Estate & Construction Ltd (GRECL) to cancel the
stop work order, stating that their project is an "ongoing" project.
GRECL backed by a letter from Director, Ministry of Environment &
Forests, who clarified that the construction activities in the zone
between 50 to 100 metres would attract the provisions of CRZ
notification from the date of orders of Supreme Court dated April 18,
1996 for undertaking any new developmental activities, requested to
cancel the stop work order.
Director, MoEF had further clarified, "any developmental activity
which had been initiated between August 18, 1994 and April 18, 1996
after obtaining all requisite clearances from concerned agencies
including from the TCP could be constructed as an on-going project."
It must be recalled that Naik had issued a stay order against illegal
construction/ development work carried out in survey number 12/1 and
99 by violating the CRZ guidelines and for violating section 17 (2) of
Town and Country Plan Act by indulging in large scale hill cutting in
survey no 95/1 and 96/12 of Bambolim village after the Gpa Bachao
Abhiyan (GBA) brought to the notice of the authorities mass
destruction by GRECL.
GRECL maintained that on May 31, 1995, Chief Town Planner, TCP
department and other concerned authorities approve the Development
Plan submitted by Goan Real Estate & Construction Ltd (GRECL) for
construction and development of residential houses and a hotel. On
July 31, 1995, Curca village panchayat issues construction license to
the GRECL, which is again later renewed for three years on October 18,
1998. They added that they are carrying out the development work from
1998 to 2006 and the project is under construction and incomplete.
However, Nail discharged the stay order to the extent that the
constructions beyond 100 mts line as demarcated from the present
position of river bank can be started as per the approval plan from
the TCP department, panchayat and other authorities. He added, "Any
further construction on the structures marked A, B and C on the plan
can't be started since these are within the 100 mts line. Further,
this order doesn't absolve the developer from the responsibility of
obtaining any other permission for cutting of hill, trees etc as per
the Rules".
Interestingly, on August 18, 1994, by way of amendment to the
notification, the area around the banks of rive affected by tidal
impact to which restriction applied was initially 100 mts is reduced
to 50 mts. However, on April 18, 1996, the Supreme Court had set aside
the part of this notification, restoring the area around the river to
100 mts for imposing restrictions.
GRECL also made representation to Goa Coastal Zone Management
Authority stating that the work is being carried out in terms of the
sanctioned plans and the stop work notice was unjustified.
However, when the GCZMA in its meeting on July 28, 2007 apprised the
members of the observations made out by MoEF that the project
undertaken by GRECL after a long gap of 12 years should be construed
as an on going project and that approval of 50 mts NDZ holds, the
members observed, "It can't be construed as an on-going project
because earlier only plinth level was constructed and thereafter
nothing was done for 12 years" and decided to demarcate 100 mts NDZ.
Goan Real Estate & Construction Ltd by North Goa Additional Collector
because according to the Ministry of Environment & Forests "it is an
on-going project". In other words, GRECL can carry on with their work
of constructing homes and a hotel.
Swapnil Naik, Additional Collector, North Goa had turned down the
request of Goan Real Estate & Construction Ltd (GRECL) to cancel the
stop work order, stating that their project is an "ongoing" project.
GRECL backed by a letter from Director, Ministry of Environment &
Forests, who clarified that the construction activities in the zone
between 50 to 100 metres would attract the provisions of CRZ
notification from the date of orders of Supreme Court dated April 18,
1996 for undertaking any new developmental activities, requested to
cancel the stop work order.
Director, MoEF had further clarified, "any developmental activity
which had been initiated between August 18, 1994 and April 18, 1996
after obtaining all requisite clearances from concerned agencies
including from the TCP could be constructed as an on-going project."
It must be recalled that Naik had issued a stay order against illegal
construction/ development work carried out in survey number 12/1 and
99 by violating the CRZ guidelines and for violating section 17 (2) of
Town and Country Plan Act by indulging in large scale hill cutting in
survey no 95/1 and 96/12 of Bambolim village after the Gpa Bachao
Abhiyan (GBA) brought to the notice of the authorities mass
destruction by GRECL.
GRECL maintained that on May 31, 1995, Chief Town Planner, TCP
department and other concerned authorities approve the Development
Plan submitted by Goan Real Estate & Construction Ltd (GRECL) for
construction and development of residential houses and a hotel. On
July 31, 1995, Curca village panchayat issues construction license to
the GRECL, which is again later renewed for three years on October 18,
1998. They added that they are carrying out the development work from
1998 to 2006 and the project is under construction and incomplete.
However, Nail discharged the stay order to the extent that the
constructions beyond 100 mts line as demarcated from the present
position of river bank can be started as per the approval plan from
the TCP department, panchayat and other authorities. He added, "Any
further construction on the structures marked A, B and C on the plan
can't be started since these are within the 100 mts line. Further,
this order doesn't absolve the developer from the responsibility of
obtaining any other permission for cutting of hill, trees etc as per
the Rules".
Interestingly, on August 18, 1994, by way of amendment to the
notification, the area around the banks of rive affected by tidal
impact to which restriction applied was initially 100 mts is reduced
to 50 mts. However, on April 18, 1996, the Supreme Court had set aside
the part of this notification, restoring the area around the river to
100 mts for imposing restrictions.
GRECL also made representation to Goa Coastal Zone Management
Authority stating that the work is being carried out in terms of the
sanctioned plans and the stop work notice was unjustified.
However, when the GCZMA in its meeting on July 28, 2007 apprised the
members of the observations made out by MoEF that the project
undertaken by GRECL after a long gap of 12 years should be construed
as an on going project and that approval of 50 mts NDZ holds, the
members observed, "It can't be construed as an on-going project
because earlier only plinth level was constructed and thereafter
nothing was done for 12 years" and decided to demarcate 100 mts NDZ.
Big B need not be present in the court
PANJIM: Bollywood shenshah Amitabh Bachchan doesn't remain to be present in the Court during hearing of a complaint filed by National Organisation for Tobacco Eradication (NOTE).
The High Court after hearing the matter has issued a stay on the process issued by the Trial Court. The Sessions Court, Panjim, had dismissed the revision application filed by M/s Amitabh Bachchan Corporation Limited (ABCL), Mumbai.
M/s ABCL had approached the Sessions Court praying that pending the hearings and disposal of the revision application, the process issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class be stayed and sought ad-interim ex-parte relief. In their revision application, M/s ABCL claimed that there was no prima facie case and that the JMFC ought not to have issued process against them and Bachchan, who is the chairman of the company.
However, Sessions Court judge U Bakre dismissed the revision application. In other words, the JMFC's order on November 21 stands. On November 21, the trial Court had issued summons to Amitabh Bachchan, Keshu Ramsay, M/s DMS Films Private Limited, Mumbai and M/s Anchor Daewoo India Limited to appear before the court on November 29, following a complaint filed by NOTE on January 25, 2006, for displaying hoardings showing Amitabh Bachchan smoking a cigar and endorsing an electrical appliance of M/s Anchor Daewoo India Limited under the brand name `Anchor.'
According to NOTE, the hoardings were in gross violation of Cigarettes and Tobacco and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulations of the Trade and Commerce, Production Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 and under section 7 of Goa Prohibition of Smoking and Spitting Act, 1997.
Keshu Ramsay is the director of M/s DMS Films Private Limited, Mumbai and co-producer of the film `Family' along with M/s ABCL, Mumbai.
The High Court after hearing the matter has issued a stay on the process issued by the Trial Court. The Sessions Court, Panjim, had dismissed the revision application filed by M/s Amitabh Bachchan Corporation Limited (ABCL), Mumbai.
M/s ABCL had approached the Sessions Court praying that pending the hearings and disposal of the revision application, the process issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class be stayed and sought ad-interim ex-parte relief. In their revision application, M/s ABCL claimed that there was no prima facie case and that the JMFC ought not to have issued process against them and Bachchan, who is the chairman of the company.
However, Sessions Court judge U Bakre dismissed the revision application. In other words, the JMFC's order on November 21 stands. On November 21, the trial Court had issued summons to Amitabh Bachchan, Keshu Ramsay, M/s DMS Films Private Limited, Mumbai and M/s Anchor Daewoo India Limited to appear before the court on November 29, following a complaint filed by NOTE on January 25, 2006, for displaying hoardings showing Amitabh Bachchan smoking a cigar and endorsing an electrical appliance of M/s Anchor Daewoo India Limited under the brand name `Anchor.'
According to NOTE, the hoardings were in gross violation of Cigarettes and Tobacco and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulations of the Trade and Commerce, Production Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 and under section 7 of Goa Prohibition of Smoking and Spitting Act, 1997.
Keshu Ramsay is the director of M/s DMS Films Private Limited, Mumbai and co-producer of the film `Family' along with M/s ABCL, Mumbai.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Can a person be allowed to inspect the case papers in a case where he is allegedly the accused, under RTI?
PANJIM: Can a person be allowed to inspect the case papers in a case where he is allegedly the accused, under RTI? Yes, is the answer of the Goa State Information Commission (GSIC), which has directed PIO to provide access to all papers to the alleged accused.
However, Goa police doesn't agree with it. Alleging that allowing the accused to see the station files would actually set a bad precedent for other cases, they have approached the High Court. In their petition, the Public Information Officer (PIO), SP South Shekhar Prabhudesai has challenged the GSIC's order of April 20, 2007, by which the Commission had directed the police to provide access to all papers to Joao Pereira in the inquiry file of one Surjit Borkar.
After hearing the matter, the single bench of Justice R.S.Mohite, pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition stayed the execution of GSIC's judgment dated April 20, 2007. It is returnable within 4 weeks.
Pereira, on August 30, 2006, had applied to the PIO seeking inspection of all files on complaint of JC Pereira and N Fernandes from the records of Verna police station and also the complaint filed by Surjit Borkar on September 5, 2005. On September 25, the PIO partly allowed request.
When Pereira demanded that he be shown the case diaries pertaining to a specific case, the request was turned down as he is an accused in the same case and has been booked under section 341, 504, 506 (ii) r/w 34 IPC and is facing trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao. Even the PIO instructed PI Verna to refuse the request of Pereira under section 8 (H) of RTI Act, 2005.
Aggrieved, he moved the Goa State Information Commission, which directed the PIO to provide access to all papers to Pereira on April 20.
However, counsel for PIO, Winnie Coutinho argued that the Commission has overlooked the provision of section 172 of CrPC, sub-Section 3 of Section 172 expressly prohibits the accused to have any access to the Police diary, except under limited circumstances, which is not there in the present case.
The petitioner sought to know from the High Court whether the Commission ought to have taken into consideration that the information sought was exempted under sec 8(1)(g) and (h) of the RTI Act and whether information contained in a case diary maintained under section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be obtained by making an application under RTI?
Further, Coutinho argued that allowing such an appeal would set a bad precedent for other cases and the Commission ought to have considered that station diary is an official communication in discharging policing duty and as such a police officer as a Public officer shall not be compelled to disclose communication made to him.
(Article by Preetu Nair appeared in Gomantak Times, Panjim edition, Goa dated September 09,2007
However, Goa police doesn't agree with it. Alleging that allowing the accused to see the station files would actually set a bad precedent for other cases, they have approached the High Court. In their petition, the Public Information Officer (PIO), SP South Shekhar Prabhudesai has challenged the GSIC's order of April 20, 2007, by which the Commission had directed the police to provide access to all papers to Joao Pereira in the inquiry file of one Surjit Borkar.
After hearing the matter, the single bench of Justice R.S.Mohite, pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition stayed the execution of GSIC's judgment dated April 20, 2007. It is returnable within 4 weeks.
Pereira, on August 30, 2006, had applied to the PIO seeking inspection of all files on complaint of JC Pereira and N Fernandes from the records of Verna police station and also the complaint filed by Surjit Borkar on September 5, 2005. On September 25, the PIO partly allowed request.
When Pereira demanded that he be shown the case diaries pertaining to a specific case, the request was turned down as he is an accused in the same case and has been booked under section 341, 504, 506 (ii) r/w 34 IPC and is facing trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao. Even the PIO instructed PI Verna to refuse the request of Pereira under section 8 (H) of RTI Act, 2005.
Aggrieved, he moved the Goa State Information Commission, which directed the PIO to provide access to all papers to Pereira on April 20.
However, counsel for PIO, Winnie Coutinho argued that the Commission has overlooked the provision of section 172 of CrPC, sub-Section 3 of Section 172 expressly prohibits the accused to have any access to the Police diary, except under limited circumstances, which is not there in the present case.
The petitioner sought to know from the High Court whether the Commission ought to have taken into consideration that the information sought was exempted under sec 8(1)(g) and (h) of the RTI Act and whether information contained in a case diary maintained under section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be obtained by making an application under RTI?
Further, Coutinho argued that allowing such an appeal would set a bad precedent for other cases and the Commission ought to have considered that station diary is an official communication in discharging policing duty and as such a police officer as a Public officer shall not be compelled to disclose communication made to him.
(Article by Preetu Nair appeared in Gomantak Times, Panjim edition, Goa dated September 09,2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
RTI helps in revealing illegality in Goa
PANJIM: The stone crushers, which destroyed the lives of Saleli residents forcing them to raise their head in revolt against their khase, were operating illegally in orchard and agricultural zone.
The fact that several metal industries were operating illegally is not new. The villagers were always alleging the same. But now its official: of the 13 stone crushers (metal industries), four were operating in orchard and cultivable zone as per Regional Plan 2001and there are no records available about 5 stone crushers.
Information received from the office of the Senior Town Planner, North Goa District level office of TCP, Mapusa, under the Right to Information Act reveal this. Dr Claude Alvares, Director, The Goa Foundation, had asked information regarding nine stone crushers operating in the village. Dr Alvares is helping Saleli villagers in their fight against stone crushers and quarrying.
While M/s Souparnika Metal Industries (survey no 73/1), M/s Madhav Rameshwar Industries (survey no 62/1 (p)) and M/s Rehamaniya Metal Industries (survey no 75/1(P)) were operating in orchard zone, M/s Shani Metal Industries (survey no 55/0) was existing in the cultivable land as well as on survey no 62/1, which is party orchard and partly cultivable land.
Shockingly, there are no records about the other four metal industries—M/s Kane Metal Industries, M/s Rudrashwar Metal Industries, M/s Parvati Enterprises, M/s Laxmi Metal Industries and M/s Foures Metal Industries, which have been operating in the village. "The details of other industries are not furnished as the same are not available in the Taluka office of Bicholim," said James Mathew, STP and PIO, North Goa District level office of TCP, Mapusa in his reply to Dr Alvares.
Infact, in January 2006, Dr Alvares had brought to the notice of the Deputy Collector and SDM Bicholim that the stone crushers were operating illegally without providing wind-breaking walls and the quarrying operations that feed the stone crushers were operating in the forest area, a zone that doesn't permit such activities. He had also pointed out that the constant dynamiting operations for quarrying was illegal as it is not permitted near settlements and irrigation canals.
However, the metal industries lobby's stand: we are right and operating in the industrial area. Even in their reply in the court of SDM Bicholim they stated that all allegations are baseless and unwarranted. "The quarries are being operated since long by obtaining necessary leases from Mines department," they argued. Some from the metal industries lobby also submitted that the area occupied by the stone crushing units have been converted into "industrial" by the competent authorities.
Now with hard facts glaring at the face of the sanctioning authorities, one just hopes that Saleli residents struggle may finally end with the closure of illegally operating stone crushers.
(An earlier version of the article appeared in Gomantak Times, Panjim,11 August 2007)
The fact that several metal industries were operating illegally is not new. The villagers were always alleging the same. But now its official: of the 13 stone crushers (metal industries), four were operating in orchard and cultivable zone as per Regional Plan 2001and there are no records available about 5 stone crushers.
Information received from the office of the Senior Town Planner, North Goa District level office of TCP, Mapusa, under the Right to Information Act reveal this. Dr Claude Alvares, Director, The Goa Foundation, had asked information regarding nine stone crushers operating in the village. Dr Alvares is helping Saleli villagers in their fight against stone crushers and quarrying.
While M/s Souparnika Metal Industries (survey no 73/1), M/s Madhav Rameshwar Industries (survey no 62/1 (p)) and M/s Rehamaniya Metal Industries (survey no 75/1(P)) were operating in orchard zone, M/s Shani Metal Industries (survey no 55/0) was existing in the cultivable land as well as on survey no 62/1, which is party orchard and partly cultivable land.
Shockingly, there are no records about the other four metal industries—M/s Kane Metal Industries, M/s Rudrashwar Metal Industries, M/s Parvati Enterprises, M/s Laxmi Metal Industries and M/s Foures Metal Industries, which have been operating in the village. "The details of other industries are not furnished as the same are not available in the Taluka office of Bicholim," said James Mathew, STP and PIO, North Goa District level office of TCP, Mapusa in his reply to Dr Alvares.
Infact, in January 2006, Dr Alvares had brought to the notice of the Deputy Collector and SDM Bicholim that the stone crushers were operating illegally without providing wind-breaking walls and the quarrying operations that feed the stone crushers were operating in the forest area, a zone that doesn't permit such activities. He had also pointed out that the constant dynamiting operations for quarrying was illegal as it is not permitted near settlements and irrigation canals.
However, the metal industries lobby's stand: we are right and operating in the industrial area. Even in their reply in the court of SDM Bicholim they stated that all allegations are baseless and unwarranted. "The quarries are being operated since long by obtaining necessary leases from Mines department," they argued. Some from the metal industries lobby also submitted that the area occupied by the stone crushing units have been converted into "industrial" by the competent authorities.
Now with hard facts glaring at the face of the sanctioning authorities, one just hopes that Saleli residents struggle may finally end with the closure of illegally operating stone crushers.
(An earlier version of the article appeared in Gomantak Times, Panjim,11 August 2007)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
