Petitioner challenged unconstitutionality of beach shack leasing terms. Court dismissed petition, noting personal nature of grievance and adequacy of enforcement/clauses.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WP NO. 25 OF 2012
Mrs. Rosy Fernandes, w/o Mr. Jack Fernandes, 29 years of age, r/o House No.E-1/7/56 Sauntovaddo, Calangute, Bardez Goa. Phone No.00832-2282683 Fax No. Mobile No. PAN Number AARPF 8635m National Unique Identity No. E-mail address: [email protected]... Petitioner
V e r s u s
Through the Chief Secretary of Tourism, having office at Secretariat, Alto Porvorim, Bardez Goa.
Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr. P. Dangui, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
:2:
CORAM : S. J. VAZIFDAR & U. V. BAKRE,JJ.
Reserved on : 9 th OCTOBER, 2012
Pronounced on : 11th OCTOBER, 2012.
JUDGMENT ( Per S. J. VAZIFDAR, J)
Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally.
Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondents.
:3:
25, 26 and 32 of the terms and conditions for the grant of permission for erection of temporary shacks/deckbeds/umbrellas on the identified beaches of Goa for the tourist season of 2012-2013 ( October, 2012 to 31st May, 2013) are unconstitutional. The petitioner also seeks an order directing respondent no.1 to implement her suggestions stated in the writ petition.
:4:
“40. The Government has right to set up an enforcement cell/flying squads with powers to the designated Officers to demolish illegal shacks and confiscate deck-beds etc., and to impose penalties including cancellation of license for the rest of the season.
:5:
Government treasury.”
The learned Advocate General stated that the enforcement cell/flying squad has been set up/constituted.
under :
“20. Where the number of eligible applicants is more than the number of shacks permitted on any particular beach, the selection shall be decided by draw of lots. The selection of site shall also be done by draw of lots.
(a) 90% of the shacks shall be allotted by draw of lots to those applicants who are
:6:
having past experience.
(b) The remaining 10% shall be allotted
by draw of lots from among the new applicants who have no prior experience.
In case there is any fraction arising while arriving at 90% figure, the benefit of the fraction shall go to higher side only if the fraction is 0.5 and above.
Explanation:
i) For the purpose of experience, the applicant shall enclose copies of past permissions/valid document issued by the Tourism Department only. No other documents shall be accepted.
ii) Permissions issued in the name of a person who is deceased shall be allowed for the purpose of experience in case the applicant is the spouse of the deceased person or in his/her absence a legal heir.”
:7:
Petition No. 702 of 2009. It is clear that clause 20 is in compliance with the order of this Court. It is not necessary for us to consider in this writ petition whether the first respondent was bound to frame a policy on the basis of the ad-interim order.
:8:
validity of clause 25 which reads as under :
“25. Association with Lamanis, Masseurs, hawkers and sale/display of any other items other than food and beverages shall not be permitted.”
Mr. De Sa contended that the clause discriminates
against the lamanis, masseurs, hawkers and debars them from applying under the policy as well as availing the services and facilities offered by shack owners.
:9:
rightly done so. The same provides for better and more orderly regulation and running of the shacks which is undoubtedly in the interest not merely of the allottees but the public in general. The association that is referred to in clause 25 is a business or trade association in connection with the running of the shacks pursuant to the allotment.
“32. The shack allottee shall not practice
any discrimination for entering into the shack against any person based on Nationality or any other such factors, and allotment is liable for cancellation in case of such complaints received, after due verification”.
The policy does not even remotely discriminate against any particular person, type of people or trade.
:10:
thereof. They are comprehensive and genuine public interest litigations. There is no warrant for keeping this writ petition pending.
S. J. VAZIFDAR, J
U. V. BAKRE,J
at*
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition No. 702 of 2009Relied on¶51
Mrs. Rosy Fernandes
State of Goa
Department of Tourism
Village Panchayat of Calangute
S. J. Vazifdar
U. V. Bakre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
