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.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
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.
Lifeguards in Goa
PANJIM: The High Court has orally asked the state government to consider the suggestions given by a petitioner, as directed by the Court, in a case pertaining to increasing incidents of drowning death in the state.
Counsel for the petitioner, Amey Kakodkar, made the following suggestions:
* 53 lifeguards are not sufficient to man 32 beaches in Goa and atleast 100 lifeguards are required. Even lifeguards should be appointed at springs, water falls and rivers in Goa where the locals and tourists go for a swim. If trained lifeguards are not available in Goa, they should be employed from other states. Insurance should be provided to lifeguards.
* The Safe Swimming Zones should be enclosed with a net to stop a person from being pulled/ drifted into the sea and swimming should be allowed only in SSZ.
* A beach vehicle, stocked with all medical aid, to transport a lifeguard to the nearest shore, as well as take a person to the nearest care unit. A jet ski/water scooters to the lifeguard to carry on rescue operations.
*Make available life jackets with the lifeguards for people who want to utilize it.
Counsel for the petitioner, Amey Kakodkar, made the following suggestions:
* 53 lifeguards are not sufficient to man 32 beaches in Goa and atleast 100 lifeguards are required. Even lifeguards should be appointed at springs, water falls and rivers in Goa where the locals and tourists go for a swim. If trained lifeguards are not available in Goa, they should be employed from other states. Insurance should be provided to lifeguards.
* The Safe Swimming Zones should be enclosed with a net to stop a person from being pulled/ drifted into the sea and swimming should be allowed only in SSZ.
* A beach vehicle, stocked with all medical aid, to transport a lifeguard to the nearest shore, as well as take a person to the nearest care unit. A jet ski/water scooters to the lifeguard to carry on rescue operations.
*Make available life jackets with the lifeguards for people who want to utilize it.
26 coastal village panchayats in Goa have been made party in a PIL on garbage disposal
PANJIM: The 26 coastal village panchayats in the state have been made party in a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning garbage disposal by the High Court of Bombay at Goa and they have been asked to file their reply within 2 weeks.
Further, the coastal village panchayats have been asked to file an affidavit by the Court in regard to identification of land for garbage disposal site or obtaining administrative approval for the site in accordance with Rural Garbage Disposal Scheme, 2005, even as the municipal councils were given six weeks time to file an affidavit.
The Court has asked the Goa government and Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) has to come out with a scheme of recycling within six weeks.
Meanwhile, the Director of Panchayat, in his affidavit has disclosed the status of the applications filed by 189 village panchayats in the state. While 38 village panchayats have applied for authorization, 65 village panchayats have been granted authorization, 62 village panchayats applications have been rejected on various grounds, 11 village panchayats applications are pending decision and 51 village panchayats have not applied for authorization.
Acting on a High Court order of September 18, 2007, a memorandum was issued to all Block Development Officers (BDOs), who were directed to immediately convene a meeting of all the village panchayats which have not identified the land sites and all those panchayats whose proposals have been rejected by GSPCB, so as to direct them to immediately identify the land sites and forward the same to GSPCB for obtaining clearance.
The BDOs were asked to submit the action taken by them in respect of those proposals that have been cleared by GSPCB in processing the proposals seeking administrative approve acquisition of land. Further, a circular was issued directing village panchayats to implement the Rural Garbage Scheme, 2005.
Incidentally, Amicus Curiae Norma Alvares brought to the notice of the Court that the affidavit reveals that till date the Director have not been intimated about any fresh proposals made by village panchayats and GSPCB seeking its approval in respect of sites for disposal of waste nor have they received from any village panchayats, who have obtained clearance from GSPCB, an proposal for administrative approval.
Further, the coastal village panchayats have been asked to file an affidavit by the Court in regard to identification of land for garbage disposal site or obtaining administrative approval for the site in accordance with Rural Garbage Disposal Scheme, 2005, even as the municipal councils were given six weeks time to file an affidavit.
The Court has asked the Goa government and Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) has to come out with a scheme of recycling within six weeks.
Meanwhile, the Director of Panchayat, in his affidavit has disclosed the status of the applications filed by 189 village panchayats in the state. While 38 village panchayats have applied for authorization, 65 village panchayats have been granted authorization, 62 village panchayats applications have been rejected on various grounds, 11 village panchayats applications are pending decision and 51 village panchayats have not applied for authorization.
Acting on a High Court order of September 18, 2007, a memorandum was issued to all Block Development Officers (BDOs), who were directed to immediately convene a meeting of all the village panchayats which have not identified the land sites and all those panchayats whose proposals have been rejected by GSPCB, so as to direct them to immediately identify the land sites and forward the same to GSPCB for obtaining clearance.
The BDOs were asked to submit the action taken by them in respect of those proposals that have been cleared by GSPCB in processing the proposals seeking administrative approve acquisition of land. Further, a circular was issued directing village panchayats to implement the Rural Garbage Scheme, 2005.
Incidentally, Amicus Curiae Norma Alvares brought to the notice of the Court that the affidavit reveals that till date the Director have not been intimated about any fresh proposals made by village panchayats and GSPCB seeking its approval in respect of sites for disposal of waste nor have they received from any village panchayats, who have obtained clearance from GSPCB, an proposal for administrative approval.
Goa State Urban Development Authority (SUDA) informed the High Court
PANJIM: Goa State Urban Development Authority (SUDA) informed the High Court that they are willing to take back the sweeping machine, if any municipal council or corporation doesn't find the machine feasible, so that they can award it to another Council.
Making this suggestion, the counsel for GUSDA, Advocate General Subodh Kantak, stated that other councils have already made request for the machine. However, counsel for the petitioner, advocate Tamba isnsited that GSUDA has forced the machine of the Municipal Councils and Corporation and an inquiry need to be conducted,
At present, there are 5 machines worth Rs 20 lakh each. One machine each was given to the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP), Mapusa, Margao and Mormugao Municipal Council have been given the machines. CCP has been using the machines from November 20, 2006 and even the Mapusa Municipal Council is using the machine. However, Margao has so far not used the machine while Mormugao Municipal Council have stopped using it after a month due to various reasons such as noise pollution, it can be operated only on straight roads and unsuitable to be used in the narrow town roads as the width of the machine is 2.20 metres.
The Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto were informed that the suppliers of the machines propose to depute 2 engineers for a period of 2 months to supervise the operation of the machine in specified municipal.
It was alleged by the counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Tamba, that though a "perfect" machine, it can't be used as the tractor lifts due to the weight of the machine, which can prove to be dangerous, it can't be used for 4 months in the monsoon and the noise pollution caused due to the machine is immense.
Moreover, the Court observed that the debris at Baina beach has been removed and GSUDA was given 3 weeks time to file the inquiry report. The proceedings has been adjourned for a period of 10 weeks.
Making this suggestion, the counsel for GUSDA, Advocate General Subodh Kantak, stated that other councils have already made request for the machine. However, counsel for the petitioner, advocate Tamba isnsited that GSUDA has forced the machine of the Municipal Councils and Corporation and an inquiry need to be conducted,
At present, there are 5 machines worth Rs 20 lakh each. One machine each was given to the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP), Mapusa, Margao and Mormugao Municipal Council have been given the machines. CCP has been using the machines from November 20, 2006 and even the Mapusa Municipal Council is using the machine. However, Margao has so far not used the machine while Mormugao Municipal Council have stopped using it after a month due to various reasons such as noise pollution, it can be operated only on straight roads and unsuitable to be used in the narrow town roads as the width of the machine is 2.20 metres.
The Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto were informed that the suppliers of the machines propose to depute 2 engineers for a period of 2 months to supervise the operation of the machine in specified municipal.
It was alleged by the counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Tamba, that though a "perfect" machine, it can't be used as the tractor lifts due to the weight of the machine, which can prove to be dangerous, it can't be used for 4 months in the monsoon and the noise pollution caused due to the machine is immense.
Moreover, the Court observed that the debris at Baina beach has been removed and GSUDA was given 3 weeks time to file the inquiry report. The proceedings has been adjourned for a period of 10 weeks.
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
Cidade de Goa resort : CRZ violation in Court
PANJIM: Taleigao panchayat and Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. are again at loggerheads. This time over a seven-storied building to be constructed on a "hill" next to the Cidade de Goa resort, estimated to cost around Rs 24,45,39,000.
The Taleigao panchayat has approached the High Court on the ground that Additional and Deputy Director of Panchayats have misconstrued the provisions of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and erred in directing the panchayat to grant the construction license Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd.. Meanwhile, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. have approached the High Court stating that the Panchayat should be directed to give them the construction license.
While the Court admitted Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. petition, they have granted permission to Taleigao panchayat to amend the petition. The Court will take both the petitions together next week.
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.
Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. writes a letter to the Panchayat on March 8, that they had applied for a Panchayat license for the project at Vainguinim and till date, have not received the license. It was also mentioned that they would wait for another 7 days for receipt of the said license and if for any reason should the Panchayat not receive the license before March 16, 2007, then the application may be kindly treated as withdrawn. On March 16, 2007, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. by a letter sought to withdraw its letter dated March 8, 2007.
The Additional Director of Panchayats, which was dismissed by judgement and order on July 31, 2007. After dismissal of the Panchayat's appeal, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. addressed a letter to the Taleigao panchayat to issue the license as the Additional Director of Panchayats had dismissed their appeal.
Counsel for the petitioner, Atmaram Nadkarni, alleged that the hotel project is in the green area and if allowed to construct it will destroy the green belt and the project is within 100 mts of the river Zuari. However, the High Court has asked the Taleigao panchayat to show that the project is within 100 mts.
The Taleigao panchayat has approached the High Court on the ground that Additional and Deputy Director of Panchayats have misconstrued the provisions of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and erred in directing the panchayat to grant the construction license Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd.. Meanwhile, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. have approached the High Court stating that the Panchayat should be directed to give them the construction license.
While the Court admitted Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. petition, they have granted permission to Taleigao panchayat to amend the petition. The Court will take both the petitions together next week.
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.
Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. writes a letter to the Panchayat on March 8, that they had applied for a Panchayat license for the project at Vainguinim and till date, have not received the license. It was also mentioned that they would wait for another 7 days for receipt of the said license and if for any reason should the Panchayat not receive the license before March 16, 2007, then the application may be kindly treated as withdrawn. On March 16, 2007, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. by a letter sought to withdraw its letter dated March 8, 2007.
The Additional Director of Panchayats, which was dismissed by judgement and order on July 31, 2007. After dismissal of the Panchayat's appeal, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. addressed a letter to the Taleigao panchayat to issue the license as the Additional Director of Panchayats had dismissed their appeal.
Counsel for the petitioner, Atmaram Nadkarni, alleged that the hotel project is in the green area and if allowed to construct it will destroy the green belt and the project is within 100 mts of the river Zuari. However, the High Court has asked the Taleigao panchayat to show that the project is within 100 mts.
Goa RTI Saleli
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa came down heavily on the Member Secretary of Goa State Pollution Control Board and Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Bicholim, for not doing their duty responsibly, in the matter of quarries and stone crushers operating at Saleli village.
The Division bench of Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Swatanter Kumar and Justice NA Britto, while hearing a petition on the stone crushers and quarries operating in Saleli village without necessary approvals, observed that the Court expects all the authorities concerned to work in tandem, so that public purpose is not frustrated by inaction of non-cooperation of the officials.
When the matter was taken up in the morning, member secretary of GSPCB and SDM, Bicholim were asked to remain present in the Court and assure the Court that they would do their duty bit responsibly.
A villager Nanda Gaonkar and Goa Foundation had filed a petition in the High Court for quashing the consents and any other approvals granted to the units—M/s Rehamaniya Metal Industries, M/s Shani Metal Industries, M/s Foures Metal Industries, M/s Madhav Rameshwar Industries, M/s Kane Industries, M/s Rudreshwar Metals, M/s Parvati Enterprises, M/s Laxmi Metal Industries, M/s Souparnika Metal Industries, Bausaheb J Rane, Balaji Stone Crusher, Vishwanath Naik, St Sebastian Industries, Anthony Fernandes, Krishnarao Rane, Chandrakant d Tar and Subhash Rane—for operation of the quarries and stone crushers and hotmix plants in the village.
They had also prayed to direct the GSPCB not to grant consents to any stone crusher units, quarries and related activities in non-conforming area as per the statutory land use plan in the state and pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, direct GSPCB not to grant any new consents or renew any consents of the units in areas zoned as agriculture or orchard in the statutory land use plan.
The Court noticed that the SDM of Bicholim had prepared a report on January 9, 2006, wherein he had passed the following directions to the units to stop carrying the occupation of all until full details of precautionary methods adopted by them to suppress dust pollution is submitted.
But despite the fact that more than a year has gone by, no steps have been taken by the said officer despite health and environment hazards that are going to result from the operation of these units, the Court remarked. SDM has been asked to obtain reports from all departments.
Further, the Court observed that GSPCB couldn't have granted any conditional permission to the units as it intends to frustrate the very meaning of the Environment Act. The Member Secretary has been directed by the Court to examine the applications submitted and pass appropriate orders within two weeks from today, even as they made it clear that no orders passed by the authorities will be effective without the Court order. They have also been asked to submit to the Court the parameter maintained by the units when they operate. For this purpose, the Court has allowed the Member Secretary to operate the units for 8 hours at a stretch, in full capacity, on any one working day.
Even the Secretary of Mines and Environment have been asked to file an affidavit making the state stand clear on whether change of land use from forest or agriculture to industrial has been permitted, as well a give status regards to NOC from TCP department.
Everyone has to file their affidavits within two weeks, as the Court has made it clear that none of the authorities will be entitled for further time.
The Division bench of Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Swatanter Kumar and Justice NA Britto, while hearing a petition on the stone crushers and quarries operating in Saleli village without necessary approvals, observed that the Court expects all the authorities concerned to work in tandem, so that public purpose is not frustrated by inaction of non-cooperation of the officials.
When the matter was taken up in the morning, member secretary of GSPCB and SDM, Bicholim were asked to remain present in the Court and assure the Court that they would do their duty bit responsibly.
A villager Nanda Gaonkar and Goa Foundation had filed a petition in the High Court for quashing the consents and any other approvals granted to the units—M/s Rehamaniya Metal Industries, M/s Shani Metal Industries, M/s Foures Metal Industries, M/s Madhav Rameshwar Industries, M/s Kane Industries, M/s Rudreshwar Metals, M/s Parvati Enterprises, M/s Laxmi Metal Industries, M/s Souparnika Metal Industries, Bausaheb J Rane, Balaji Stone Crusher, Vishwanath Naik, St Sebastian Industries, Anthony Fernandes, Krishnarao Rane, Chandrakant d Tar and Subhash Rane—for operation of the quarries and stone crushers and hotmix plants in the village.
They had also prayed to direct the GSPCB not to grant consents to any stone crusher units, quarries and related activities in non-conforming area as per the statutory land use plan in the state and pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, direct GSPCB not to grant any new consents or renew any consents of the units in areas zoned as agriculture or orchard in the statutory land use plan.
The Court noticed that the SDM of Bicholim had prepared a report on January 9, 2006, wherein he had passed the following directions to the units to stop carrying the occupation of all until full details of precautionary methods adopted by them to suppress dust pollution is submitted.
But despite the fact that more than a year has gone by, no steps have been taken by the said officer despite health and environment hazards that are going to result from the operation of these units, the Court remarked. SDM has been asked to obtain reports from all departments.
Further, the Court observed that GSPCB couldn't have granted any conditional permission to the units as it intends to frustrate the very meaning of the Environment Act. The Member Secretary has been directed by the Court to examine the applications submitted and pass appropriate orders within two weeks from today, even as they made it clear that no orders passed by the authorities will be effective without the Court order. They have also been asked to submit to the Court the parameter maintained by the units when they operate. For this purpose, the Court has allowed the Member Secretary to operate the units for 8 hours at a stretch, in full capacity, on any one working day.
Even the Secretary of Mines and Environment have been asked to file an affidavit making the state stand clear on whether change of land use from forest or agriculture to industrial has been permitted, as well a give status regards to NOC from TCP department.
Everyone has to file their affidavits within two weeks, as the Court has made it clear that none of the authorities will be entitled for further time.
Russians in Goa
PANJIM: The Goa government's efforts to deport a Russian national failed, though temporarily.
On September 14, 2007, the Home department under the powers conferred to it under section 3 (2) ( c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (Central Act 31 of 1946) had issued orders that one Russian, Leonid Beyzer, shall not remain in India after the expiry of a period of 15 days from the date of service of this order. In other words, he would have to leave the country by or October 7, 2007.
However, the single judge of High Court, Justice RS Mohite, hearing a petition filed by 38-year-old Beyzer against the Home department's order, quashed and set aside the order passed by the Home department. Court has further directed Home department to give a show cause notice, giving opportunity to the petitioner to make representation if any, before passing the order.
Beyzer had approached the High Court stating that he was served the order of deportation without being heard or informed about what were the charges on the basis of which he has been given a mere 15 days to leave the country.
He claimed that he had come to India on a valid business visa issued by the Indian embassy in Moscow and formed a company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 in Goa for pursuing his business interests of establishing and running a resort. Beyzer is the founding Director of Artlibori Resorts Pvt Ltd., and invested more than Rs 1 crore in the property.
Further, it was submitted that the as per the requirements of government orders/directives under Foreign Direct Investment and Foreign Exchange Management Act, the entire investment in the company has come in foreign currency through proper banking channels.
However, the petitioner admitted that he has made huge financial investments from his personal funds though the company in real estate and is now facing litigation before the Company Law Board, Principal bench, New Delhi and would be deprived of his right to defend himself if deported. But it was alleged that this was done by his former Directors, a Russian Sergey Ivanov and Pramod Walkhev, who also allegedly portrayed him as a drug lord and leader of mafia in India.
Interestingly, after the Home department's order, the Consulate General of the Russian Federation in Mumbai wrote to the Chief Minister on September 26, 2007, stating that as per their awareness there is no criminal record including any immigration fraud case against Beyzer. They also requested to clarify on which grounds Beyzer was ordered to leave India and why the Consulate General was not informed by the law enforcement authorities of Goa about their actions in respect of the citizen of Russian federation.
On September 14, 2007, the Home department under the powers conferred to it under section 3 (2) ( c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (Central Act 31 of 1946) had issued orders that one Russian, Leonid Beyzer, shall not remain in India after the expiry of a period of 15 days from the date of service of this order. In other words, he would have to leave the country by or October 7, 2007.
However, the single judge of High Court, Justice RS Mohite, hearing a petition filed by 38-year-old Beyzer against the Home department's order, quashed and set aside the order passed by the Home department. Court has further directed Home department to give a show cause notice, giving opportunity to the petitioner to make representation if any, before passing the order.
Beyzer had approached the High Court stating that he was served the order of deportation without being heard or informed about what were the charges on the basis of which he has been given a mere 15 days to leave the country.
He claimed that he had come to India on a valid business visa issued by the Indian embassy in Moscow and formed a company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 in Goa for pursuing his business interests of establishing and running a resort. Beyzer is the founding Director of Artlibori Resorts Pvt Ltd., and invested more than Rs 1 crore in the property.
Further, it was submitted that the as per the requirements of government orders/directives under Foreign Direct Investment and Foreign Exchange Management Act, the entire investment in the company has come in foreign currency through proper banking channels.
However, the petitioner admitted that he has made huge financial investments from his personal funds though the company in real estate and is now facing litigation before the Company Law Board, Principal bench, New Delhi and would be deprived of his right to defend himself if deported. But it was alleged that this was done by his former Directors, a Russian Sergey Ivanov and Pramod Walkhev, who also allegedly portrayed him as a drug lord and leader of mafia in India.
Interestingly, after the Home department's order, the Consulate General of the Russian Federation in Mumbai wrote to the Chief Minister on September 26, 2007, stating that as per their awareness there is no criminal record including any immigration fraud case against Beyzer. They also requested to clarify on which grounds Beyzer was ordered to leave India and why the Consulate General was not informed by the law enforcement authorities of Goa about their actions in respect of the citizen of Russian federation.
National Highway in Goa
PANJIM: The High Court has directed the Central government to file an affidavit relating to the regulation about setbacks along National Highway, including the power to relax. Further, the State government has also been asked to file an affidavit on their powers pertaining to relaxation of norms or prohibiting of construction along the National Highway,
The petitioner in the petition had said that the relaxations granted by the state government are in most arbitrary manner violating Article 14 of the Constitution, thus narrowing the National Highways (NH-17), keeping no scope for its extension or even improvement. The nature of illegalities listed by petitioners are: temporary occupation by gaddas or by sale of commodities at NH, temporary structure in NDZ which are converted as pucca structure by obtaining permission for repairs and permanent structure without obtaining highway clearance or by relaxation by state government.
It must be recalled that to curb menace of illegal structures on the national highway, the Court had granted interim relief to the petitioner and asked 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, they have been 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.
Further, the Court had directed various government authorities to ensure that no construction within the prohibited 40 metre No Development Zone (NDZ) is permitted and take steps to ensure that there is no temporary occupation of highway land without due approval of Executive Engineer, WD XIV (NH), till pending hearing and disposal of the petition. Further, Court had also asked the Highway Administration to independently carry out such inspection by the Court, which also asked the chief Town planner to give a report of all constructions, which are approved to be constructed in the prohibited area of 40 metres set back with effect from January 27, 2005.
The petitioner in the petition had said that the relaxations granted by the state government are in most arbitrary manner violating Article 14 of the Constitution, thus narrowing the National Highways (NH-17), keeping no scope for its extension or even improvement. The nature of illegalities listed by petitioners are: temporary occupation by gaddas or by sale of commodities at NH, temporary structure in NDZ which are converted as pucca structure by obtaining permission for repairs and permanent structure without obtaining highway clearance or by relaxation by state government.
It must be recalled that to curb menace of illegal structures on the national highway, the Court had granted interim relief to the petitioner and asked 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, they have been 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.
Further, the Court had directed various government authorities to ensure that no construction within the prohibited 40 metre No Development Zone (NDZ) is permitted and take steps to ensure that there is no temporary occupation of highway land without due approval of Executive Engineer, WD XIV (NH), till pending hearing and disposal of the petition. Further, Court had also asked the Highway Administration to independently carry out such inspection by the Court, which also asked the chief Town planner to give a report of all constructions, which are approved to be constructed in the prohibited area of 40 metres set back with effect from January 27, 2005.
Regional Plan 2011: Pilerne-Marra village
PANJIM: Despite a High Court order of November 28, 2006, instructing the authorities not to issue any approval/sanction/permission pursuant to the new settlement areas which have been reflected in the final Regional Plan 2011 and the Notifications issued therein, the North Goa Additional Collector and the Pilerne-Marra village panchayat has issued permissions defying the High Court verdict. This High Court order was based on the submission made by the counsel representing the state government.
While the Additional Collector, issued land conversion Sanad to a construction company, United Realtech Pvt. Ltd, the village panchayat issued construction license to the Company on December 6, 2006. In other words, these permissions were granted a week after the High Court order.
Incidentally, after the High Court verdict, the Chief Town Planner Morad Ahmad send an office order to all the District and Taluka level offices of the TCP department and all officers of the, including Chief Secretary that "it is instructed that no permissions/NOCs for development, recommendation of conversion under Land Revenue Code and permissions/reports etc. in any form shall be granted/issued based on the new areas shown for development in the Regional Plan 2011 till further orders".
When this matter was brought to the notice of the Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto during the hearing of the petition filed by United Realtech Pvt. Ltd, the Court observed that prima facie it appears that the conversion Sanad was issued on December 6, 2006, which is after the High Court order of November 28, 2006.
Meanwhile, Goa Heritage Action Group, an NGO, has approached the Court to join them as respondents to the petition filed by United Realtech Pvt. Ltd. The counsel for the Goa Heritage Action Group, Amey Kakodkar, informed the Court that they wanted to be included as a respondent and not a intervener because as a intervener they would be limited to just the point of law, but as respondent they would be able to bring out certain facts, which the state government has failed to bring to the notice of the Court.
In their application, they have alleged that United Realtech Pvt. Ltd's interest in land originated much prior to the Regional Plan 2011 coming into force and the conversion Sanad and construction permission were given in breach of the undertaking to this Court. Therefore, the applicants stated that the present proceedings are collusive in an attempt to protect the construction of United Realtech Pvt. Ltd and thereby resurrect the evils of Regional Plan 2011. However, Advocate General Subodh Kantak strongly objected to the statement that the present proceedings are collusive.
TIMELINE
November 28, 2006: HC instructs authorities not to issue any approval/sanction/permission pursuant to the new settlement areas which have been reflected in the final RP 2011 and Notifications
November 28, 2006: On the same day, the Chief Town Planner Morad Ahmad sends an office order to all the District and Taluka level offices of the TCP department and all officers of the, including CS that "it is instructed that no permissions/NOCs for development, recommendation of conversion under Land Revenue Code and permissions/reports etc. in any form shall be granted/issued based on the new areas shown for development in the Regional Plan 2011 till further orders".
December 6, 2006: North Goa Additional Collector issues land conversion Sanad United Realtech Pvt. Ltd and the village panchayat issues construction license
While the Additional Collector, issued land conversion Sanad to a construction company, United Realtech Pvt. Ltd, the village panchayat issued construction license to the Company on December 6, 2006. In other words, these permissions were granted a week after the High Court order.
Incidentally, after the High Court verdict, the Chief Town Planner Morad Ahmad send an office order to all the District and Taluka level offices of the TCP department and all officers of the, including Chief Secretary that "it is instructed that no permissions/NOCs for development, recommendation of conversion under Land Revenue Code and permissions/reports etc. in any form shall be granted/issued based on the new areas shown for development in the Regional Plan 2011 till further orders".
When this matter was brought to the notice of the Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto during the hearing of the petition filed by United Realtech Pvt. Ltd, the Court observed that prima facie it appears that the conversion Sanad was issued on December 6, 2006, which is after the High Court order of November 28, 2006.
Meanwhile, Goa Heritage Action Group, an NGO, has approached the Court to join them as respondents to the petition filed by United Realtech Pvt. Ltd. The counsel for the Goa Heritage Action Group, Amey Kakodkar, informed the Court that they wanted to be included as a respondent and not a intervener because as a intervener they would be limited to just the point of law, but as respondent they would be able to bring out certain facts, which the state government has failed to bring to the notice of the Court.
In their application, they have alleged that United Realtech Pvt. Ltd's interest in land originated much prior to the Regional Plan 2011 coming into force and the conversion Sanad and construction permission were given in breach of the undertaking to this Court. Therefore, the applicants stated that the present proceedings are collusive in an attempt to protect the construction of United Realtech Pvt. Ltd and thereby resurrect the evils of Regional Plan 2011. However, Advocate General Subodh Kantak strongly objected to the statement that the present proceedings are collusive.
TIMELINE
November 28, 2006: HC instructs authorities not to issue any approval/sanction/permission pursuant to the new settlement areas which have been reflected in the final RP 2011 and Notifications
November 28, 2006: On the same day, the Chief Town Planner Morad Ahmad sends an office order to all the District and Taluka level offices of the TCP department and all officers of the, including CS that "it is instructed that no permissions/NOCs for development, recommendation of conversion under Land Revenue Code and permissions/reports etc. in any form shall be granted/issued based on the new areas shown for development in the Regional Plan 2011 till further orders".
December 6, 2006: North Goa Additional Collector issues land conversion Sanad United Realtech Pvt. Ltd and the village panchayat issues construction license
CRZ case in High Court
PANJIM: A commoner has challenged the illegal constructions indulged in by Calangute MLA Agnelo Fernandes before the High Court.
The petitioner has alleged that the MLA in connivance with Candolim panchayat and Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (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.
When the matter came up before the division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto, they appoint Norma Alvares as the advocate for the petitioner, after the petitioner requested for appointment of a lawyer from the Court. The matter has now been kept on September 24.
The petitioner, Betty Alvares, in her petition has prayed for the appointment of a commissioner to look into illegal constructions at survey nos 148/5, 148/6, 148/2 of Murrod vaddo in Candolim village and a house in survey nos 157/17, 157/18 and 157/21 of Camotin vaddo, Candolim. The Commissioner should state whether: constructions are within permissible limits as per the CRZ regulations and guidelines, whether licenses/ permissions have been obtained from GCZMA, TCP and village panchayat of Candolim for construction and whether constructions are carried out as per approved plans and in accordance with Village panchayat and TCP Building Rules and Regulations.
The petitioner had earlier written a letter in the second week of July to the High Court, bringing to the notice of the Court illegal structures constructed by Agnelo. The petitioner had pointed out the following illegalities:
1) The survey nos 148/5of Murrod vaddo in Candolim village within 200 mt of the High Tide Line
* Sheetal restaurant and compound wall of the restaurant
* Three soak pits on the panchayat road and to cover this illegality, footpaths built, narrowing the width of the road from 10 mt to 4 mt.
2) Within 200 to 500 mts of HTL
* In survey 148/6of Murrod vaddo in Candolim village constructed several cottages, employee quarters etc.
* In survey nos 157/17 and 157/18 of Camotin vaddo, Candolim, constructed illegal first floor of the MLA's bungalow.
The petitioner in the letter also stated that she had brought these illegalities to the notice of the Deputy Director of Panchayats, who had issued a show cause notice. However, no action has been taken so far. GCZMA, Candolim panchayat, the state of Goa and Director of Panchayats have been made respondents in the petition.
The petitioner has alleged that the MLA in connivance with Candolim panchayat and Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (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.
When the matter came up before the division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto, they appoint Norma Alvares as the advocate for the petitioner, after the petitioner requested for appointment of a lawyer from the Court. The matter has now been kept on September 24.
The petitioner, Betty Alvares, in her petition has prayed for the appointment of a commissioner to look into illegal constructions at survey nos 148/5, 148/6, 148/2 of Murrod vaddo in Candolim village and a house in survey nos 157/17, 157/18 and 157/21 of Camotin vaddo, Candolim. The Commissioner should state whether: constructions are within permissible limits as per the CRZ regulations and guidelines, whether licenses/ permissions have been obtained from GCZMA, TCP and village panchayat of Candolim for construction and whether constructions are carried out as per approved plans and in accordance with Village panchayat and TCP Building Rules and Regulations.
The petitioner had earlier written a letter in the second week of July to the High Court, bringing to the notice of the Court illegal structures constructed by Agnelo. The petitioner had pointed out the following illegalities:
1) The survey nos 148/5of Murrod vaddo in Candolim village within 200 mt of the High Tide Line
* Sheetal restaurant and compound wall of the restaurant
* Three soak pits on the panchayat road and to cover this illegality, footpaths built, narrowing the width of the road from 10 mt to 4 mt.
2) Within 200 to 500 mts of HTL
* In survey 148/6of Murrod vaddo in Candolim village constructed several cottages, employee quarters etc.
* In survey nos 157/17 and 157/18 of Camotin vaddo, Candolim, constructed illegal first floor of the MLA's bungalow.
The petitioner in the letter also stated that she had brought these illegalities to the notice of the Deputy Director of Panchayats, who had issued a show cause notice. However, no action has been taken so far. GCZMA, Candolim panchayat, the state of Goa and Director of Panchayats have been made respondents in the petition.
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.
election of the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Goa State Co-operative Bank
PANJIM: The election of the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Goa State Co-operative Bank was held on schedule yesterday. However, the result of the election will be subject to the result of the petition pending in the High Court.
While admitting a petition filed by a shareholder and elected member Director of the bank, Narayan Mandrekar, the single bench of Justice RS Mohite observed that it is yet to be determined whether persons nominated as Director can continue even after an Administrator was appointed by an High Court order and whether these nominated members have a right to vote on the election of the office bearers.
The respondents - returning officer HP Gemini, Central Registrar of Co-operative Society, Goa State Co-operative Bank and the other Board members - will have to file their reply within two weeks. The matter will come up again on October 18.
The petitioners had challenged the validity of the notice on September 1, 2007, regarding the election of Chairman and Vice-chairman issued by Returning officer appointed by the Central Registrar for conducting elections including that of office bearers of the bank. They had submitted that no election programme for the election on September 6 was prepared or published, in terms of para 7 (3) of the Schedule to the Multi State Co-operative Societies Rules 2002.
To the arguments of the petitioner's counsel, BR Naik, that no notice about the election was given to the four nominated Directors on Board, entitled to vote or contest, the counsel for the co-operative bank, SR Rivonkar submitted that the four persons nominated as Director by the government ceased to be in the Board, once the Board is dissolved and an administrator appointed.
He added that at present there is no nominated Director in the Board and the election for the post of chairman and vice-chairman can take place without the nominated Directors.
The petitioners further contended that they had learnt from the Returning Officer that one individual Director, who was elected yesterday, would not be entitled to contest for the post of Chairman and Vice-chairman and there will be no notice issued to the individual Director. They further stated the Returning Officer mandatorily required to announce schedule of election of Chairman and vice-chairman and/ or the office bearers of the bank and also required to intimate the schedule of election to all the newly elected or nominated members of the Board.
While admitting a petition filed by a shareholder and elected member Director of the bank, Narayan Mandrekar, the single bench of Justice RS Mohite observed that it is yet to be determined whether persons nominated as Director can continue even after an Administrator was appointed by an High Court order and whether these nominated members have a right to vote on the election of the office bearers.
The respondents - returning officer HP Gemini, Central Registrar of Co-operative Society, Goa State Co-operative Bank and the other Board members - will have to file their reply within two weeks. The matter will come up again on October 18.
The petitioners had challenged the validity of the notice on September 1, 2007, regarding the election of Chairman and Vice-chairman issued by Returning officer appointed by the Central Registrar for conducting elections including that of office bearers of the bank. They had submitted that no election programme for the election on September 6 was prepared or published, in terms of para 7 (3) of the Schedule to the Multi State Co-operative Societies Rules 2002.
To the arguments of the petitioner's counsel, BR Naik, that no notice about the election was given to the four nominated Directors on Board, entitled to vote or contest, the counsel for the co-operative bank, SR Rivonkar submitted that the four persons nominated as Director by the government ceased to be in the Board, once the Board is dissolved and an administrator appointed.
He added that at present there is no nominated Director in the Board and the election for the post of chairman and vice-chairman can take place without the nominated Directors.
The petitioners further contended that they had learnt from the Returning Officer that one individual Director, who was elected yesterday, would not be entitled to contest for the post of Chairman and Vice-chairman and there will be no notice issued to the individual Director. They further stated the Returning Officer mandatorily required to announce schedule of election of Chairman and vice-chairman and/ or the office bearers of the bank and also required to intimate the schedule of election to all the newly elected or nominated members of the Board.
Mandar Case: Goa
PANJIM: The suspense about who would be made approver in the sensational Mandar case continues. While the Prosecution argued that Alsaleha Beig be turned approver, the lawyer for Shankar Tiwari insisted that his client be made the state approver in the Children's Court.
However, the Children's Court judge Nutan Sardessai has reserved the order for September 20.
Counsel for the state, public prosecutor Pratima Verekar informed the Court that on the basis of statement under section 164 CrPC made by the accused Beig during investigations and after considering other facts on record, the prosecution gave no objection to making Beig an approver, even as they objected to the application of the accused Shankar.
The PP informed the Court that they had objected to Shankar as he had played a major role in the offence, right from hatching up criminal conspiracy of getting the victim from Vasco to the place where he was killed, preparation for confinement, calling up father of victim and asking for ransom money, making preparation to collect his money, in killing victim, disposing off his dead body and also on other grounds.
However, counsel for Ryan Pinto, Prabhu and counsel for Rohan Dhunghat, Shashank Samanth, submitted that Shankar had played only a minor role. They alleged that Beig had played a major role in the kidnapping and murder of Mandar and law states that only an accused who has played a minor role has to be made an approver. They also alleged that the Chief Minister Pratapsigh Rane had visited Beig in the prison and the Prosecution is trying to protect Beig by turning him into an approver.
The PP brought to the notice of the Court that where prosecution considers that the evidence of accused accomplice is necessary, it should be exercised on behalf of prosecution agency and co-accused can't question the act of granting pardon by the Court to one of the accused, as it is an important matter of the Administration.
Further, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the PP stated that it is ordinarily for the Prosecution to ask that a particular accused, out of several maybe tendered pardon and even when the accuse directly applies to the Judge, the request must be referred to the prosecuting agency.
PP added that when accuse applies for pardon, then other co-accused have no right to intervene or ask for hearing.
However, the Children's Court judge Nutan Sardessai has reserved the order for September 20.
Counsel for the state, public prosecutor Pratima Verekar informed the Court that on the basis of statement under section 164 CrPC made by the accused Beig during investigations and after considering other facts on record, the prosecution gave no objection to making Beig an approver, even as they objected to the application of the accused Shankar.
The PP informed the Court that they had objected to Shankar as he had played a major role in the offence, right from hatching up criminal conspiracy of getting the victim from Vasco to the place where he was killed, preparation for confinement, calling up father of victim and asking for ransom money, making preparation to collect his money, in killing victim, disposing off his dead body and also on other grounds.
However, counsel for Ryan Pinto, Prabhu and counsel for Rohan Dhunghat, Shashank Samanth, submitted that Shankar had played only a minor role. They alleged that Beig had played a major role in the kidnapping and murder of Mandar and law states that only an accused who has played a minor role has to be made an approver. They also alleged that the Chief Minister Pratapsigh Rane had visited Beig in the prison and the Prosecution is trying to protect Beig by turning him into an approver.
The PP brought to the notice of the Court that where prosecution considers that the evidence of accused accomplice is necessary, it should be exercised on behalf of prosecution agency and co-accused can't question the act of granting pardon by the Court to one of the accused, as it is an important matter of the Administration.
Further, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the PP stated that it is ordinarily for the Prosecution to ask that a particular accused, out of several maybe tendered pardon and even when the accuse directly applies to the Judge, the request must be referred to the prosecuting agency.
PP added that when accuse applies for pardon, then other co-accused have no right to intervene or ask for hearing.
Water level depleting from 9 to 27 percent in Goa
PANJIM: With the water level depleting from 9 to 27 percent in Goa, it would be difficult times ahead for the water tanker suppliers who draw water from "unknown" sources, adding to the depletion of water level in the state.
The High Court has asked the government to provide a complete list of water tankers operating in state, consumers they are catering to and how is the monitoring of their activities done.
Amicus Curiae Norma Alvares brought to the notice of the Court that the Goa Ground Water Regulation, 2002 has been promulgated and what is required is declaration regarding scheduled, water scarcity and over exploited areas. Norma also pointed out that around 257 water tankers are operating in the state as per the affidavit filed by Water Resources Department and we don't know from where they are drawing water.
She stated that from scheduled areas you can annually take 30,000 lts water and from over exploited areas, prior permission needs to be taken to draw water. To this, the Court observed that why is water tanker required, except for construction purpose, if Goa has good water facility as claimed by the state government?
Further, the division bench of Justice RMS Khandeparkar and Justice RS Mohite questioned the state government about the quality of metres purchased, which becomes defective in 6 years. The Court wanted to know whether the metres are purchased after being tested through scientific methods within two weeks.
The Public Works Department had submitted that the process of replacement of defective water meters is a continuing process and normally the installation of new metres takes about 6 months for the entire procedure. About 7,500 metres had to be replaced/repaired and steps to procure durable water meters wherein the supplier will have responsibility to maintain the same for 6 years.
Further, the High Court as joined as a respondent Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in connection with the date for approval and implementation of the guidelines for sitting of industries, prepared by Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB). The guidelines for siting of Industries in North and South Goa prepared by GDPCB states that 32 industries have an impact potential to air and surface water pollution higher than the pollution receiving potential of the zones available for siting of industries in South and North Goa, which should be restricted from siting.
The report further states that it is not suitable to site industries with high and water pollution impact potential in these two districts since no dispersion of emissions and no dilution will be available for effluents if discharged in the rivers/ water bodies in the districts. The report adds that the rivers and water bodies are sources of water supply and irrigation in the districts and must be protected.
On approval of the same by CPCB, the Zonal Atlas for siting of Industries and Industrial siting guidelines will be forwarded to the state government for approval/ implementation.
The High Court has asked the government to provide a complete list of water tankers operating in state, consumers they are catering to and how is the monitoring of their activities done.
Amicus Curiae Norma Alvares brought to the notice of the Court that the Goa Ground Water Regulation, 2002 has been promulgated and what is required is declaration regarding scheduled, water scarcity and over exploited areas. Norma also pointed out that around 257 water tankers are operating in the state as per the affidavit filed by Water Resources Department and we don't know from where they are drawing water.
She stated that from scheduled areas you can annually take 30,000 lts water and from over exploited areas, prior permission needs to be taken to draw water. To this, the Court observed that why is water tanker required, except for construction purpose, if Goa has good water facility as claimed by the state government?
Further, the division bench of Justice RMS Khandeparkar and Justice RS Mohite questioned the state government about the quality of metres purchased, which becomes defective in 6 years. The Court wanted to know whether the metres are purchased after being tested through scientific methods within two weeks.
The Public Works Department had submitted that the process of replacement of defective water meters is a continuing process and normally the installation of new metres takes about 6 months for the entire procedure. About 7,500 metres had to be replaced/repaired and steps to procure durable water meters wherein the supplier will have responsibility to maintain the same for 6 years.
Further, the High Court as joined as a respondent Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in connection with the date for approval and implementation of the guidelines for sitting of industries, prepared by Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB). The guidelines for siting of Industries in North and South Goa prepared by GDPCB states that 32 industries have an impact potential to air and surface water pollution higher than the pollution receiving potential of the zones available for siting of industries in South and North Goa, which should be restricted from siting.
The report further states that it is not suitable to site industries with high and water pollution impact potential in these two districts since no dispersion of emissions and no dilution will be available for effluents if discharged in the rivers/ water bodies in the districts. The report adds that the rivers and water bodies are sources of water supply and irrigation in the districts and must be protected.
On approval of the same by CPCB, the Zonal Atlas for siting of Industries and Industrial siting guidelines will be forwarded to the state government for approval/ implementation.
A bounced check can actually land you in prison!
PANJIM: A bounced check can actually land you in prison! In an interesting case, the High Court has actually upheld the decision of the lower courts and sent the defaulter, Sunil Chandrashekar Jantli, to one-month simple imprisonment.
Jantli had filed a revision petition against two concurrent findings of the lower Courts holding him guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the single bench of Justice NA Britto. The Courts had sentenced Jantli to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days and also directed him to pay a sum of Rs 5 lakh by way of compensation.
However, the High Court dismissed the revision application as without any merits and asked the accused to "surrender forthwith" as there is no stay on the judgment of the Additional Sessions judge. On December 21, 2006, the Additional Sessions judge had stated that the accused was required to surrender within a period of four weeks for the purpose of undergoing the sentence.
Jantli got into trouble when Tome Hiltor De Oliveira, one of the four partners in M/s. Goa Mining Corporation filed a complaint against him. In his complaint he alleged that the accused had taken an advance sum of Rs 4 lakh from his firm to supply of ore. But as he couldn't supply the ore, as towards the repayment of the advanced sum, he gave the firm -- M/s. Goa Mining Corporation -- a cheque of Rs 4 lakh on November 26, 2004 on ICICI Bank, Panjim branch.
However, when the cheque was presented for collection it was returned dishonored for insufficiency of funds, alleged the complainant Oliveira. Later, when statutory notice was addressed to the accused on January 14, 2005 it was also returned unclaimed and therefore the complainant Oliveira prosecuted the accused under Section 138 of the said of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Before the High Court, Jantli's defense was twofold. First, the said cheque was obtained from him by practicing deceit and fraud, and the second, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 he stated that the said cheque was issued as security towards some mutual understanding for future business, even without specifying what was the nature of the said future business.
However, the Court observed that the accused by taking the said two pleas landed neither here nor there in that the accused failed to translate the said pleas into evidence and upheld the lower Courts decision.
Jantli had filed a revision petition against two concurrent findings of the lower Courts holding him guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the single bench of Justice NA Britto. The Courts had sentenced Jantli to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days and also directed him to pay a sum of Rs 5 lakh by way of compensation.
However, the High Court dismissed the revision application as without any merits and asked the accused to "surrender forthwith" as there is no stay on the judgment of the Additional Sessions judge. On December 21, 2006, the Additional Sessions judge had stated that the accused was required to surrender within a period of four weeks for the purpose of undergoing the sentence.
Jantli got into trouble when Tome Hiltor De Oliveira, one of the four partners in M/s. Goa Mining Corporation filed a complaint against him. In his complaint he alleged that the accused had taken an advance sum of Rs 4 lakh from his firm to supply of ore. But as he couldn't supply the ore, as towards the repayment of the advanced sum, he gave the firm -- M/s. Goa Mining Corporation -- a cheque of Rs 4 lakh on November 26, 2004 on ICICI Bank, Panjim branch.
However, when the cheque was presented for collection it was returned dishonored for insufficiency of funds, alleged the complainant Oliveira. Later, when statutory notice was addressed to the accused on January 14, 2005 it was also returned unclaimed and therefore the complainant Oliveira prosecuted the accused under Section 138 of the said of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Before the High Court, Jantli's defense was twofold. First, the said cheque was obtained from him by practicing deceit and fraud, and the second, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 he stated that the said cheque was issued as security towards some mutual understanding for future business, even without specifying what was the nature of the said future business.
However, the Court observed that the accused by taking the said two pleas landed neither here nor there in that the accused failed to translate the said pleas into evidence and upheld the lower Courts decision.
Can a convict be granted parole to visit his "ill" parents? How does the government define an illness as a serious one?
PANJIM: Can a convict be granted parole to visit his "ill" parents? How does the government define an illness as a serious one?
Answers to these otherwise complex questions that perturb the government has become simpler with the order of the single bench of Justice NA Britto in the Bombay High Court, Panjim bench who observed that not every illness is serious but an illness, which is likely to permanently or materially impair, the health of the prisoner could be considered to be serious.
The Court observed that Rule 324 provides as to when parole is to be granted. It states that parole may be granted to a prisoner in the event of emergent situations like death or serious illness of father, mother, brother, sister, spouse and children and also marriage of brother, sister and children.
He observed this while hearing to a petition filed by a convict Sher Singh for parole to visit his ailing father. Presently, he is lodged at Aguada jail. Singh is a convict who is undergoing sentence of twelve years under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act with effect from February 10, 2005.
The Court has directed the government to release Singh on parole for a period of 45 days with the condition that upon execution of a bond of Rs 15,000 with one surety in the like amount and with the further condition that the Petitioner shall report to the nearest police station at Kullu every alternate day.
By an application dated June 22, 2006, Singh had sought for his release on parole for a period of sixty days but it was rejected by the government on the grounds that he is a native of Kullu, Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, there was every possibility that he may take opportunity and jump the parole. So he approached the High Court.
The Court stated that considering the illness of the Singh's father, as certified by the Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Kullu and by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat at Arsu, the petitioner ought to have been granted parole as prayed for. The state government had made an inquiry through the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat at Arsu and it was learnt that the petitioner's father was undergoing treatment. Even Singh had produced a medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Kullu stating that his father was suffering from stricture urethera and was undergoing treatment at the hospital where he was required to undergo surgery and for that attendant was necessary to look after him during the said ailment.
Criticizing the government's move of denying parole, the Court observed that the government doesn't appear to have exercised its discretion rightly considering the medical report as well as the report of the Pradhan, which had further certified that the problem of the Petitioner's father was genuine.
Answers to these otherwise complex questions that perturb the government has become simpler with the order of the single bench of Justice NA Britto in the Bombay High Court, Panjim bench who observed that not every illness is serious but an illness, which is likely to permanently or materially impair, the health of the prisoner could be considered to be serious.
The Court observed that Rule 324 provides as to when parole is to be granted. It states that parole may be granted to a prisoner in the event of emergent situations like death or serious illness of father, mother, brother, sister, spouse and children and also marriage of brother, sister and children.
He observed this while hearing to a petition filed by a convict Sher Singh for parole to visit his ailing father. Presently, he is lodged at Aguada jail. Singh is a convict who is undergoing sentence of twelve years under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act with effect from February 10, 2005.
The Court has directed the government to release Singh on parole for a period of 45 days with the condition that upon execution of a bond of Rs 15,000 with one surety in the like amount and with the further condition that the Petitioner shall report to the nearest police station at Kullu every alternate day.
By an application dated June 22, 2006, Singh had sought for his release on parole for a period of sixty days but it was rejected by the government on the grounds that he is a native of Kullu, Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, there was every possibility that he may take opportunity and jump the parole. So he approached the High Court.
The Court stated that considering the illness of the Singh's father, as certified by the Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Kullu and by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat at Arsu, the petitioner ought to have been granted parole as prayed for. The state government had made an inquiry through the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat at Arsu and it was learnt that the petitioner's father was undergoing treatment. Even Singh had produced a medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Kullu stating that his father was suffering from stricture urethera and was undergoing treatment at the hospital where he was required to undergo surgery and for that attendant was necessary to look after him during the said ailment.
Criticizing the government's move of denying parole, the Court observed that the government doesn't appear to have exercised its discretion rightly considering the medical report as well as the report of the Pradhan, which had further certified that the problem of the Petitioner's father was genuine.
Can a son change his parents name after their death?
PANJIM: Can a son change his parents name after their death?
The Ministry of Law and Justice and Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India, states, "There is no law under which any persons,
even the legal heirs of a deceased can change the name of a deceased.
Admittedly, a deceased person has throughout his life used the name,
which is sought to be changed, for official transactions during his
life period and now has legal heirs/ descendents can't for their
convenience, whatsoever, be allowed to change the name of the
deceased."
Upholding this stand of the Ministry of Law and Justice and Ministry
of External Affairs, even the Passport Officer, Panjim refuted
36-years-old John Michael Fortunato Fernandes argument to change the
name of his deceased parents.
When Michael applied for his first passport on June 18, 1990, he had
given his name as John Michael Fernandes and parent's name was given
as Sebastian and Lavina Fernandes. Later, in 1999, he again applied
for a new passport with the above names and also submitted a ration
card with the same names.
However, in 2005 he applied to the Passport department for a change of
name from John Michael Fernandes to John Michael Fortunato Fernandes
and also stated that his parents name be changed to Jose Florencio
Fernandes and Santana Carmelina Fernandes from Sebastian and Lavina
Fernandes. While the passport office changed his name in the passport,
they refused to change his parents' name.
Unhappy with this, Michael has now approached the Additional Sessions
Court, Panjim against the decision of the Passport officer. In his
suit for declaration and correction of name in the passport before
judge PV Kamat, when he desirous of proceeding abroad for employment
filed an application for passport and got a passport which allegedly
had wrongly incorporated his parents name as Sebastian and Lavina
Fernandes due to "typographical" error.
He further contended that based on the public documents (death
certificates), which are presumed to be true under the law, the
Passport Officer ought to have effected the necessary changes. The
counsel for the petitioner is BD Nazareth and the counsel for the
respondent is PG Narulkar.
However, the Passport office maintained that prima facie it appeared
impermissible since the same was sought to be done after the death of
the parents and even Goa Change of Nam and Surname doesn't permit it.
They added that Sebastian's moves clearly amount to act of
impersonation for reasons best known to the plaintiff.
The Ministry of Law and Justice and Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India, states, "There is no law under which any persons,
even the legal heirs of a deceased can change the name of a deceased.
Admittedly, a deceased person has throughout his life used the name,
which is sought to be changed, for official transactions during his
life period and now has legal heirs/ descendents can't for their
convenience, whatsoever, be allowed to change the name of the
deceased."
Upholding this stand of the Ministry of Law and Justice and Ministry
of External Affairs, even the Passport Officer, Panjim refuted
36-years-old John Michael Fortunato Fernandes argument to change the
name of his deceased parents.
When Michael applied for his first passport on June 18, 1990, he had
given his name as John Michael Fernandes and parent's name was given
as Sebastian and Lavina Fernandes. Later, in 1999, he again applied
for a new passport with the above names and also submitted a ration
card with the same names.
However, in 2005 he applied to the Passport department for a change of
name from John Michael Fernandes to John Michael Fortunato Fernandes
and also stated that his parents name be changed to Jose Florencio
Fernandes and Santana Carmelina Fernandes from Sebastian and Lavina
Fernandes. While the passport office changed his name in the passport,
they refused to change his parents' name.
Unhappy with this, Michael has now approached the Additional Sessions
Court, Panjim against the decision of the Passport officer. In his
suit for declaration and correction of name in the passport before
judge PV Kamat, when he desirous of proceeding abroad for employment
filed an application for passport and got a passport which allegedly
had wrongly incorporated his parents name as Sebastian and Lavina
Fernandes due to "typographical" error.
He further contended that based on the public documents (death
certificates), which are presumed to be true under the law, the
Passport Officer ought to have effected the necessary changes. The
counsel for the petitioner is BD Nazareth and the counsel for the
respondent is PG Narulkar.
However, the Passport office maintained that prima facie it appeared
impermissible since the same was sought to be done after the death of
the parents and even Goa Change of Nam and Surname doesn't permit it.
They added that Sebastian's moves clearly amount to act of
impersonation for reasons best known to the plaintiff.
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.
admissions to Goa College of Architecture (GCA) will be
PANJIM: The admissions to Goa College of Architecture (GCA) will be
stalled for sometime.
The Supreme Court has ordered to maintain status quo regarding
admissions to GCA after the Council for Architecture (CoA) approached
the Supreme Court, challenging the order of High Court of Goa at
Panjim, which had granted permission to the state government to go
ahead with the permissions.
The counsel for CoA, Naveen Nath, approached the Supreme Court stating
that the High Court had passed an order without giving CoA a fair
hearing. He also submitted that the High Court has itself admitted
that the college has failed to maintain minimum standards required to
run an architecture college and therefore the college shouldn't be
allowed to go ahead with admissions.
After hearing the counsel on July 25, the Court ordered to maintain
status quo till the final hearing on August 3. In other words, the
letter dated June 14, 2007 to the officiating principal and a public
notice on July 7, 2007 put by CoA communicating to the students
desirous to take admission into first year BArch course that GCA has
been put under "No admission" for the Academic Session 2007-08 stands
till final hearing on August 3.
Meanwhile, the Technical Education department has already conducted
the first round of admission on July 24, 2007. They have admitted 12
students on the spot to GCA and asked them to attend classes
immediately. The total number of seats available in the first in year
of architecture course at the GCA is 30. Reliable sources at Technical
Education reveal that the second round of admission would be held on
August 1, 2007.
But now the fate of 30 students is uncertain till the final order of
the Supreme Court on August 3. It must be recalled that CoA had
stopped the admissions to GCA, as the college had failed to fully
comply with the minimum standards and requirements lay down by CoA.
However, the Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto
at High Court of Bombay, Panjim bench, had rejected this argument
stating that CoA can't directly freeze the admission of students to a
college and had not followed the procedures.
stalled for sometime.
The Supreme Court has ordered to maintain status quo regarding
admissions to GCA after the Council for Architecture (CoA) approached
the Supreme Court, challenging the order of High Court of Goa at
Panjim, which had granted permission to the state government to go
ahead with the permissions.
The counsel for CoA, Naveen Nath, approached the Supreme Court stating
that the High Court had passed an order without giving CoA a fair
hearing. He also submitted that the High Court has itself admitted
that the college has failed to maintain minimum standards required to
run an architecture college and therefore the college shouldn't be
allowed to go ahead with admissions.
After hearing the counsel on July 25, the Court ordered to maintain
status quo till the final hearing on August 3. In other words, the
letter dated June 14, 2007 to the officiating principal and a public
notice on July 7, 2007 put by CoA communicating to the students
desirous to take admission into first year BArch course that GCA has
been put under "No admission" for the Academic Session 2007-08 stands
till final hearing on August 3.
Meanwhile, the Technical Education department has already conducted
the first round of admission on July 24, 2007. They have admitted 12
students on the spot to GCA and asked them to attend classes
immediately. The total number of seats available in the first in year
of architecture course at the GCA is 30. Reliable sources at Technical
Education reveal that the second round of admission would be held on
August 1, 2007.
But now the fate of 30 students is uncertain till the final order of
the Supreme Court on August 3. It must be recalled that CoA had
stopped the admissions to GCA, as the college had failed to fully
comply with the minimum standards and requirements lay down by CoA.
However, the Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto
at High Court of Bombay, Panjim bench, had rejected this argument
stating that CoA can't directly freeze the admission of students to a
college and had not followed the procedures.
Hotel in Goa violating CRZ
PANJIM: The whip is clearly on the hoteliers who indulge in CRZ
violation in Goa, what with the High Court getting taking stringent
action against the hotels which indulge in CRZ violation.
After Vanila Lounge, the three other hotels -- La Calypso, Hotel
Estrela do Mar and Shree Par Fragrance face the demolition axe, though
partially. As per the report submitted by the North Goa Collector, few
structures of La Calypso, Hotel Estrela do Mar and Shree Par Fragrance
fall within the CRZ.
Meanwhile, the counsel for Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority
(GCZMA) Subodh Kantak submitted to the Court that while they have
already issued demolition notice to La Calypso as per the report
submitted by the Collector, they have issued show cause notice to
Shree Par Fragrance in terms of the report of the Collector and matter
would be taken to its logical conclusion within 3 months. So far as
Hotel Estrela do Mar is concerned, advocate Kantak stated that they
would soon be issuing demolition notice as per the report of the
Collector.
The Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto while
disposing of a petition filed by Floriano Lobo has asked the three
hotels to deposit a sum of Rs 5000 each within a period of one week to
the petitioner as compensation.
Lobo, after perusing the report filed by the Collector (North) on the
extent of CRZ violation carried out by La Calypso, Hotel Estrela do
Mar and Shree Par Fragrance had made his submission before the High
Court. He submitted that four structures in La Calypso are within the
200 metres from the HTL.
He further submitted that in hotel Estrela do Mar, the total built up
area beyond 200 metres from HTL is in excess of 33 percent, which is
permissible maximum limit. Further, he also submitted that there is no
permission of the Environment Ministry or GCZMA for construction of
six structures and is illegal.
As regards to Shree Par Fragrance, Lobo submitted that no permission
has been sought from Environment Ministry or GCZMA and all structures,
including the temporary ones fall within 500 meters of HTL. He also
stated that there is an on-going enquiry before the Deputy Collector
of Bardez at Mapusa against Shree Par Fragrance for cutting and
destroying the sand dunes within the property.
violation in Goa, what with the High Court getting taking stringent
action against the hotels which indulge in CRZ violation.
After Vanila Lounge, the three other hotels -- La Calypso, Hotel
Estrela do Mar and Shree Par Fragrance face the demolition axe, though
partially. As per the report submitted by the North Goa Collector, few
structures of La Calypso, Hotel Estrela do Mar and Shree Par Fragrance
fall within the CRZ.
Meanwhile, the counsel for Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority
(GCZMA) Subodh Kantak submitted to the Court that while they have
already issued demolition notice to La Calypso as per the report
submitted by the Collector, they have issued show cause notice to
Shree Par Fragrance in terms of the report of the Collector and matter
would be taken to its logical conclusion within 3 months. So far as
Hotel Estrela do Mar is concerned, advocate Kantak stated that they
would soon be issuing demolition notice as per the report of the
Collector.
The Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto while
disposing of a petition filed by Floriano Lobo has asked the three
hotels to deposit a sum of Rs 5000 each within a period of one week to
the petitioner as compensation.
Lobo, after perusing the report filed by the Collector (North) on the
extent of CRZ violation carried out by La Calypso, Hotel Estrela do
Mar and Shree Par Fragrance had made his submission before the High
Court. He submitted that four structures in La Calypso are within the
200 metres from the HTL.
He further submitted that in hotel Estrela do Mar, the total built up
area beyond 200 metres from HTL is in excess of 33 percent, which is
permissible maximum limit. Further, he also submitted that there is no
permission of the Environment Ministry or GCZMA for construction of
six structures and is illegal.
As regards to Shree Par Fragrance, Lobo submitted that no permission
has been sought from Environment Ministry or GCZMA and all structures,
including the temporary ones fall within 500 meters of HTL. He also
stated that there is an on-going enquiry before the Deputy Collector
of Bardez at Mapusa against Shree Par Fragrance for cutting and
destroying the sand dunes within the property.
High Court orders inspection of Cuncolim units
PANJIM: Goa Pollution Control Board (GPCB) has been asked by the High
Court to inspect the nine industrial units in Cuncolim, allegedly
producing hazardous and non-hazardous waste, and check out whether
they have complied with the National Environmental Engineering
Research Institute (NEERI) recommendations.
Once the inspection is over, they would have to submit a report to the
Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto.
Further, the state government has been asked make a statement on
affidavit about how long it will take to set up the hazardous waste
landfill site in Dharbondara, which falls in Sanvordem constituency.
The Court was hearing the petition filed by Oscar Martins, against the
nine industrial units in Cuncolim, which are producing hazardous, and
non-hazardous waste.
The counsel for the petitioner, Aires Rodrigues, stated that two
companies - Sunrise Zinc Ltd and Nicomet - continue to produce
hazardous waste and there is need for a landfill site as between the
two, they are produce 18 tonnes of hazardous waste. This is as per the
NERI report. The Court then asked the government how long it would
take for them to set up the landfill site for disposition of hazardous
waste.
Later, hearing the petition filed by Ratnakar Dessai, also against the
pollution caused by the industrial units operating in Cuncolim
industrial estate and how it has led to the destruction of fields,
nullahs and storm water drains, the Court has asked Water Resources
and Agriculture department to take immediate steps.
The two departments have been asked to assess the extent of damage to
the fields and submit a report regarding the damage of the fields and
canal. Further, Water Resources department has been asked to inspect
whether any industrial units are dumping their waste, hazardous or
non-hazardous, into the storm water drains and nullahs.
Water Resources department has also been asked by the Court to issue
prior notices regarding inspection to the amicus curiae Advocate Tamba
and concerned respondents, to enable the concerned parties to remain
present at the time of inspection
Court to inspect the nine industrial units in Cuncolim, allegedly
producing hazardous and non-hazardous waste, and check out whether
they have complied with the National Environmental Engineering
Research Institute (NEERI) recommendations.
Once the inspection is over, they would have to submit a report to the
Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto.
Further, the state government has been asked make a statement on
affidavit about how long it will take to set up the hazardous waste
landfill site in Dharbondara, which falls in Sanvordem constituency.
The Court was hearing the petition filed by Oscar Martins, against the
nine industrial units in Cuncolim, which are producing hazardous, and
non-hazardous waste.
The counsel for the petitioner, Aires Rodrigues, stated that two
companies - Sunrise Zinc Ltd and Nicomet - continue to produce
hazardous waste and there is need for a landfill site as between the
two, they are produce 18 tonnes of hazardous waste. This is as per the
NERI report. The Court then asked the government how long it would
take for them to set up the landfill site for disposition of hazardous
waste.
Later, hearing the petition filed by Ratnakar Dessai, also against the
pollution caused by the industrial units operating in Cuncolim
industrial estate and how it has led to the destruction of fields,
nullahs and storm water drains, the Court has asked Water Resources
and Agriculture department to take immediate steps.
The two departments have been asked to assess the extent of damage to
the fields and submit a report regarding the damage of the fields and
canal. Further, Water Resources department has been asked to inspect
whether any industrial units are dumping their waste, hazardous or
non-hazardous, into the storm water drains and nullahs.
Water Resources department has also been asked by the Court to issue
prior notices regarding inspection to the amicus curiae Advocate Tamba
and concerned respondents, to enable the concerned parties to remain
present at the time of inspection
Petition against Goa MLA's
PANJIM: Five separate petitions were filed in the High Court yesterday. While one petition each was filed against UGDP MLA Babush Monserrate, Independent candidates Anil Salgaocar and Vishwajeet Rane, two petitions were filed against Finance Minister Dayanand Narvekar calling in question their election to the state Assembly.
The 45 days period from the date of election as required under section 81 of the Representation of People's Act, 1951 for filing election related petition ended yesterday.
The Goa Assembly elections were held on June 2 and the results were declared on June 5.
According to reliable sources, while the petitions against Salgaocar, Rane and Narvekar dealt with alleged over-expenditure during the election campaign, the petition against Babush challenged the improper acceptance of his nomination paper and asked for his election to be declared void.
Naresh Shigoamkar of CPI (M) has alleged that Salgaocar dug 13 bore wells in seven villages in Sanvordem constituency and also provided ambulances to the villagers. In his petition Shigoamkar alleged that the total expenditure by Salgaocar during the election campaign was more than Rs 6 lakh, which is therefore more than Rs 5 lakh permitted to be spent during the elections by the Election Commission. He has alleged that Salgaocar has indulged in corrupt practice in his petition.
On the other hand, Puti Gaonkar in his petition against Rane has alleged that the junior Rane has distributed 600 wrist watches having symbols of aeroplane and his photos in the constituency. It is also alleged that Rane had distributed television sets and sewing machines to the people in his constituency Valpoi. Besides, he also allegedly held mahila melava at various places and the petitioner sited 10 instances when it was held at the supporters place.
It is learned that Somnath Zuwarkar in his petition has submitted that the election of Babush is liable to be declared void in view of the fact that his nomination paper was improperly accepted. Zuwarkar has stated that when Babush filed his nomination as a candidate set up by UGDP, he was a member of the Legislative Assembly, belonging to the Indian National Congress. He has further stated that the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to allow Babush to produce either documentary evidence or affidavit to prove that he had become a member of UGDP and submitted that Babush's nomination was improperly accepted by the RO.
The petitions against Narvekar were filed by his political opponent during the elections Fermina Khaunte and Pradeep Khaunte.
The 45 days period from the date of election as required under section 81 of the Representation of People's Act, 1951 for filing election related petition ended yesterday.
The Goa Assembly elections were held on June 2 and the results were declared on June 5.
According to reliable sources, while the petitions against Salgaocar, Rane and Narvekar dealt with alleged over-expenditure during the election campaign, the petition against Babush challenged the improper acceptance of his nomination paper and asked for his election to be declared void.
Naresh Shigoamkar of CPI (M) has alleged that Salgaocar dug 13 bore wells in seven villages in Sanvordem constituency and also provided ambulances to the villagers. In his petition Shigoamkar alleged that the total expenditure by Salgaocar during the election campaign was more than Rs 6 lakh, which is therefore more than Rs 5 lakh permitted to be spent during the elections by the Election Commission. He has alleged that Salgaocar has indulged in corrupt practice in his petition.
On the other hand, Puti Gaonkar in his petition against Rane has alleged that the junior Rane has distributed 600 wrist watches having symbols of aeroplane and his photos in the constituency. It is also alleged that Rane had distributed television sets and sewing machines to the people in his constituency Valpoi. Besides, he also allegedly held mahila melava at various places and the petitioner sited 10 instances when it was held at the supporters place.
It is learned that Somnath Zuwarkar in his petition has submitted that the election of Babush is liable to be declared void in view of the fact that his nomination paper was improperly accepted. Zuwarkar has stated that when Babush filed his nomination as a candidate set up by UGDP, he was a member of the Legislative Assembly, belonging to the Indian National Congress. He has further stated that the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to allow Babush to produce either documentary evidence or affidavit to prove that he had become a member of UGDP and submitted that Babush's nomination was improperly accepted by the RO.
The petitions against Narvekar were filed by his political opponent during the elections Fermina Khaunte and Pradeep Khaunte.
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.
What happens when the Panchayat fails to listen to people's complaints?
PANJIM: What happens when the Panchayat fails to listen to people's complaints? They have to shell out Rs 10,000 as compensation.
The Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto has asked Candolim Panchayat to pay compensation of Rs 5000 each to the petitioner Dr Jairam Karmalkar and amicus curiae Norma Alvares.
Karmalkar had written to the Court of December 5, 2006 regarding violation of Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000 and the CRZ notification by Vanilla Lounge Bar, which is operational since January 2005. The letter, later converted into a PIL, stated that the lounge bar openly flaunts deafening amplified sound of music, bursting of firecrackers and the vehicles moving to this location blare their vehicular horns throughout the night due to which they are unable to sleep. They also stated that despite their repeated complaints and protests no action was taken.
While disposing off the PIL, the Court has asked the Panchayat to issue a show cause notice within 10 days to Vanilla Lounge and take a final action within 60 days. The permission from the Panchayat to construct a temporary structure expired on May 31, 2007.
Meanwhile, the owners of Vanila Lounge Bar has filed a petition yesterday challenging the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority's demolition order of June 11, 2007 directing Vanila Lounge to demolish the structure. They have also challenged the validity of the notification dated February 19, 1991 of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, as the same purports to apply to non-industrial premises or structures.
Stating that the Vanila Lounge is a temporary structure, the petition submitted that no permission under Environment (Protection) Act or Rules or Notifications issued there under, is necessary or required for erecting temporary structures in CRZ since temporary structures have temporary periods and they are removable after the expiry of the periods.
(an earlier version appeared in Gomantak Times, Panaji edition, Goa)
The Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto has asked Candolim Panchayat to pay compensation of Rs 5000 each to the petitioner Dr Jairam Karmalkar and amicus curiae Norma Alvares.
Karmalkar had written to the Court of December 5, 2006 regarding violation of Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000 and the CRZ notification by Vanilla Lounge Bar, which is operational since January 2005. The letter, later converted into a PIL, stated that the lounge bar openly flaunts deafening amplified sound of music, bursting of firecrackers and the vehicles moving to this location blare their vehicular horns throughout the night due to which they are unable to sleep. They also stated that despite their repeated complaints and protests no action was taken.
While disposing off the PIL, the Court has asked the Panchayat to issue a show cause notice within 10 days to Vanilla Lounge and take a final action within 60 days. The permission from the Panchayat to construct a temporary structure expired on May 31, 2007.
Meanwhile, the owners of Vanila Lounge Bar has filed a petition yesterday challenging the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority's demolition order of June 11, 2007 directing Vanila Lounge to demolish the structure. They have also challenged the validity of the notification dated February 19, 1991 of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, as the same purports to apply to non-industrial premises or structures.
Stating that the Vanila Lounge is a temporary structure, the petition submitted that no permission under Environment (Protection) Act or Rules or Notifications issued there under, is necessary or required for erecting temporary structures in CRZ since temporary structures have temporary periods and they are removable after the expiry of the periods.
(an earlier version appeared in Gomantak Times, Panaji edition, Goa)
What does the government do with the recyclable non-biodegradable waste?
PANJIM: What does the government do with the recyclable non-biodegradable waste?
With the government failing to give an accurate reply, the High Court has asked the government to have an overall plan of action, especially for plastic and paper waste.
The Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto further asked the Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) to prepare a scheme regarding recycling of waste and the Department of Science, Technology and Environment to get a senior scientist to report what is to be done with the recyclable non-biodegradable waste. The report has to be submitted to the Court, which is hearing a PIL filed by Floriano Lobo regarding garbage disposal and landfill sites.
While the 13 municipal councils and corporation have identified landfill sites and some have got permissions from GSPCB to ensure that the sites is functional within 6 months, of the 189 village Panchayats, 122 Panchayats have selected the site for garbage disposal.
Director of Municipal Administration Daulat Hawaldar and Director of Panchayats Menino D'Souza, respectively, submitted this in their compliance reports. The Court has asked to join all municipal councils and corporation as respondents in order to inform to the Court their plan of action at the site once acquisition is complete.
Meanwhile, the Court has asked the Director of Panchayats to get clearance for pending 82 Panchayats from GSPCB within a period of 3 weeks and also directed them to look into the remaining Panchayats to identify the garbage disposal sites. While GSPCB has cleared 25 proposals till date, 17 have been rejected.
Since long, various Panchayats despite efforts had failed to have a proper garbage disposal site. To deal with the problem, the Panchayats department had formulated the "Rural Garbage Disposal Scheme 2005" for providing assistance to the Village Panchayats for collection, transportation, segregation, storage, processing and disposal of garbage in the Panchayat areas.
Under the scheme, various Panchayats were grouped into 43 clusters each comprising of 3 to 7 village Panchayats except Goltim-Navelim and Chodan-Madel (being islands) and one Panchayat in each cluster was designated as the Panchayat within whose jurisdiction the garbage is to be disposed off. The segregation, storage and disposal of the garbage collected from the cluster of Panchayats is the responsibility of the designated village Panchayat. Besides, they have also to identify a suitable land site and inform the BDO to refer it to GSPCB.
Once on obtaining clearance from GSPCB, they had to submit the proposal for acquisition of the land site to the Director of Panchayats for obtaining Administrative approval of the Government and for moving the proposal to government for acquisition of the land for recommending the proposal under the urgency clause of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
However, the scheme failed and had to be amended on April 23, 2007 to provide for individual village Panchayats to identify land sites within their jurisdiction and for disposal of their garbage in their areas, in case the designated village panchayat doesn't agree to receive their garbage. After the amendment of the scheme, most of the village Panchayats has now identified sites for the garbage disposal in their areas.
(an earlier version of the story appeared in Gomantak Times, Panaji Edition, Goa)
With the government failing to give an accurate reply, the High Court has asked the government to have an overall plan of action, especially for plastic and paper waste.
The Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto further asked the Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) to prepare a scheme regarding recycling of waste and the Department of Science, Technology and Environment to get a senior scientist to report what is to be done with the recyclable non-biodegradable waste. The report has to be submitted to the Court, which is hearing a PIL filed by Floriano Lobo regarding garbage disposal and landfill sites.
While the 13 municipal councils and corporation have identified landfill sites and some have got permissions from GSPCB to ensure that the sites is functional within 6 months, of the 189 village Panchayats, 122 Panchayats have selected the site for garbage disposal.
Director of Municipal Administration Daulat Hawaldar and Director of Panchayats Menino D'Souza, respectively, submitted this in their compliance reports. The Court has asked to join all municipal councils and corporation as respondents in order to inform to the Court their plan of action at the site once acquisition is complete.
Meanwhile, the Court has asked the Director of Panchayats to get clearance for pending 82 Panchayats from GSPCB within a period of 3 weeks and also directed them to look into the remaining Panchayats to identify the garbage disposal sites. While GSPCB has cleared 25 proposals till date, 17 have been rejected.
Since long, various Panchayats despite efforts had failed to have a proper garbage disposal site. To deal with the problem, the Panchayats department had formulated the "Rural Garbage Disposal Scheme 2005" for providing assistance to the Village Panchayats for collection, transportation, segregation, storage, processing and disposal of garbage in the Panchayat areas.
Under the scheme, various Panchayats were grouped into 43 clusters each comprising of 3 to 7 village Panchayats except Goltim-Navelim and Chodan-Madel (being islands) and one Panchayat in each cluster was designated as the Panchayat within whose jurisdiction the garbage is to be disposed off. The segregation, storage and disposal of the garbage collected from the cluster of Panchayats is the responsibility of the designated village Panchayat. Besides, they have also to identify a suitable land site and inform the BDO to refer it to GSPCB.
Once on obtaining clearance from GSPCB, they had to submit the proposal for acquisition of the land site to the Director of Panchayats for obtaining Administrative approval of the Government and for moving the proposal to government for acquisition of the land for recommending the proposal under the urgency clause of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
However, the scheme failed and had to be amended on April 23, 2007 to provide for individual village Panchayats to identify land sites within their jurisdiction and for disposal of their garbage in their areas, in case the designated village panchayat doesn't agree to receive their garbage. After the amendment of the scheme, most of the village Panchayats has now identified sites for the garbage disposal in their areas.
(an earlier version of the story appeared in Gomantak Times, Panaji Edition, Goa)
Vanila Lounge Bar - Goa
PANJIM: The hot and happening party spot Vanila Lounge Bar will be totally removed and the place will be resorted back to its natural form within 14 days.
Rinan Ismail, partner at Vanila Lounge Bar, gave an undertaking to the High Court that that the structure will be totally removed and resorted back to its natural, original form within 14 days.
The Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto also made it clear that Vanila Lounge Bar will not be allowed to carry out any business in the premise. However, the Court has given them liberty to apply again next year for permissions to construct a structure or to obtain other necessary permissions as permitted under the law.
It must recalled that the owners of Vanila Lounge Bar had filed a petition on Tuesday, challenging the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority's demolition order of June 11, 2007 directing Vanila Lounge to demolish the structure. They have also challenged the validity of the notification dated February 19, 1991 of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, as the same purports to apply to non-industrial premises or structures.
Stating that the Vanila Lounge is a temporary structure, the petition submitted that no permission under Environment (Protection) Act or Rules or Notifications issued there under, is necessary or required for erecting temporary structures in CRZ since temporary structures have temporary periods and they are removable after the expiry of the periods.
Meanwhile, Vanila Lounge is at liberty to apply to the Panchayat not to initiate any action against them. It must be recalled that the High Court, w hile disposing off the PIL filed Dr Jairam Karmalkar had asked the Panchayat to issue a show cause notice within 10 days to Vanilla Lounge and take a final action within 60 days. The permission from the Panchayat to construct a temporary structure expired on May 31, 2007.
(an earlier version of the story appeared in Gomantak Times, Panaji edition)
Rinan Ismail, partner at Vanila Lounge Bar, gave an undertaking to the High Court that that the structure will be totally removed and resorted back to its natural, original form within 14 days.
The Division bench of Justice RS Mohite and Justice NA Britto also made it clear that Vanila Lounge Bar will not be allowed to carry out any business in the premise. However, the Court has given them liberty to apply again next year for permissions to construct a structure or to obtain other necessary permissions as permitted under the law.
It must recalled that the owners of Vanila Lounge Bar had filed a petition on Tuesday, challenging the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority's demolition order of June 11, 2007 directing Vanila Lounge to demolish the structure. They have also challenged the validity of the notification dated February 19, 1991 of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, as the same purports to apply to non-industrial premises or structures.
Stating that the Vanila Lounge is a temporary structure, the petition submitted that no permission under Environment (Protection) Act or Rules or Notifications issued there under, is necessary or required for erecting temporary structures in CRZ since temporary structures have temporary periods and they are removable after the expiry of the periods.
Meanwhile, Vanila Lounge is at liberty to apply to the Panchayat not to initiate any action against them. It must be recalled that the High Court, w hile disposing off the PIL filed Dr Jairam Karmalkar had asked the Panchayat to issue a show cause notice within 10 days to Vanilla Lounge and take a final action within 60 days. The permission from the Panchayat to construct a temporary structure expired on May 31, 2007.
(an earlier version of the story appeared in Gomantak Times, Panaji edition)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
