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.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
