Carmona Village Social And Welfare Forum, Thr. Its President, Wausvel J.S.S. Miranda And 2 ORS., v. The State Of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary And 6 ORS.,
Maria S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF Carmona Village Social And Welfare Forum, C/o. Wausvel J. S. S. Miranda, H. No.433, Tambdeg, Carmona, Salcete-Goa. 403 717 Through its President, Mr Wausvel J. S. S. Miranda Phone No.9823024169 Fax No. Nil.
PAN Number:
National Unique Identity Number:Nil Email:
2 Mr. Joaozinho Da S. F. A.
Martins r/o 319, Sambatty, Orlim, Salcete, Goa-403724 Phone No:0091-9975941068 Fax No. Nil.
PAN Number:
AQUPM3908P Email:jsfmartins@yahoo.com Income: 2 lakhs p.a. (Retired school teacher) 3 Mr Lenin Sebastiao D'Costa, r/o. H. No.593/2, Xirro, Carmona, Salcete, ... Petitioners
Goa-403717 Phone No:0091-8805577202 Fax No. Nil.
PAN Number: BHYPD4686F Email:lenindcosta@gmail.com Income: 30 lakhs p.a.
Versus
1 THE STATE OF GOA, Through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa 2 THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF CARMONA, Through its Secretary Carmona, Salcete-Goa 3 THE TOWN PLANNER Town & Country Planning Department, South Goa District, MargaoGoa 4 THE COLLECTOR, South Goa District, Margao-Goa 5 RAHEJA UNIVERSAL PVT.
LTD., Raheja Center, Point 294, CST Road, Near Mumbai University, Of Bandra Kurla Complex, Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai400 098.
6 The Chief Town Planner Government of Goa Panaji, Goa.
7 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (TCP) Government of Goa Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa.
....Respondents Mr Nigel Da Costa Frias with Mr G. Malik, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr S. P. Munj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7.
Mr J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr Vilas Pavithran, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
Mr Ryan Da Piedade Menezes, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: M. S. SONAK & BHARAT P. DESHPANDE,JJ.
DATED : 1 st FEBRUARY 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT :
(Per. M. S. Sonak, J ) 1.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
The challenge in this petition is to the vires/validity of certain amendments to Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010. Further, the petitioners also challenge certain permissions granted to respondent no.5 based on such amendments.
3.
Today, the affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent no.5 stating that respondent no.5 does not propose to undertake any activities based upon the impugned permissions. Further, the affidavit states that the respondent no.5 does not propose to even apply for any renewal of the technical clearance order and the construction licence dated 15.09.2015.
4.
Paragraphs 3, 6 and 7 of affidavit of respondent no.5 dated 30.01.2023 reads as follows:- '3. I say that the Technical Clearance Order was issued to the Respondent No.5 with the condition that the same shall be valid for 3 years from the date of issuance of Construction License, provided the Construction License is issued within the period of 3 years. I say that the Construction License was issued on 15.09.2015 and hence the Technical Clearance Order dated 28.05.2015 as also the Construction License dated 15.09.2015 presently stand lapse on completion of the period of 3 years, viz., on 15.09.2018.
4...
5...
6. I say that with a view to avoid further delay in the matter, the Respondent No.5 has taken an in principle decision not to implement the project in the said property, viz., group housing as per Exhibits D and M to the Writ Petition.
7. I say that the Respondent No.5 will not apply for renewal of the Technical Clearance Order dated 28.05.2015 as also the Construction License dated 15.09.2015, as the Respondent no.5 does not wish to go ahead with the project which is the subject matter of the
licenses impugned by the Petitioners in the present PIL Writ Petition.'
5.
Considering the aforesaid, Mr Costa Frias, learned counsel for the petitioners agrees that the reliefs in this petition stand worked out and the petition could be disposed of. However, he submits that the challenge to the vires and the amendments may be kept open to be agitated in an appropriate case.
6.
Accordingly, by accepting statements in the affidavit of respondent no5, we dispose of this petition. Since we have not adjudicated on the issue of constitutional validity/vires of the impugned amendments, it is obvious that such issue is left open. 7.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
8.
Miscellaneous Civil Applications, if any, will not survive the disposal of the main petition. Accordingly, even miscellaneous civil applications are disposed of.
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.
M. S. SONAK, J.
MARIA SUZANA REBELLO SUZANA REBELLO Date: 2023.02.02 17:07:16 +05'30'