Disposed

Shri Prashant Rajaram Naik and 8 Ors., v. the State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2016PILWP/25/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa disposed of a PIL challenging development activities on alleged private forest land by respondent No.7, holding that authorities had already initiated action under relevant laws. Petitioners expressed apprehension about a tribunal stay but the court was satisfied regarding status quo maintenance, leading to the petition being disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of by refusing to exercise jurisdiction in view of existing official action. Petitioners permitted to intervene in Administrative Tribunal proceedings.

Shri Prashant Rajaram Naik and 8 Ors., Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

PILWP No.25/2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WP NO.25 OF 2015

¶5

1 Shri Prashant Rajaram Naik, s/o. Rajaram Naik, 38 years of age, Occupation : self employed, R/o. House No.522, Girvaswada, Kundaim, Ponda-Goa 403 115, FAX Number : Nil Mobile Number : 7798669882 Resident Number : Nil PAN Number : AHBPN5508N National Unique Identity Number : Nil Email Address : [email protected] Annual Income Rs.72,000/- approx.

¶6

2 Shri Santosh Mahanandu Naik s/o. Mahanandu Naik, 51 years of age, Occupation : business, R/o. House No.203, Near Hanuman Temple, Wadiwada, Kundaim, PondaGoa 403 115, FAX Number : Nil Mobile Number : 9823558212 Resident Number : Nil PAN Number : ABSPN6150H National Unique Identity Number : Nil Email Address : [email protected] Annual Income Rs.6 lakhs approx.

¶7

3 Shri Kamalakant Bhikaro Phadte s/o. Bhikaro Phadte, 47 years of age. Occupation : self employed (professional) R/o. House No.765, Manaswada,

¶8

¶9

PILWP No.25/2015

¶10

Kundaim, Ponda-Goa 403 115, FAX Number : Nil Mobile Number : 9822104487 Resident Number : Nil PAN Number : ADZPP6836D National Unique Identity Number : Nil Email Address : [email protected] Annual Income Rs.7 lakhs approx. 4 Shri Ushno Kanta Naik, s/o. Kanta Naik, 42 years of age, Occupation : service, R/o. H.No.124/1, Wadi-wada, Kundaim, Ponda-Goa 403 115, FAX Number : Nil Mobile Number : 9545384802 Resident Number : Nil PAN Number : Not available National Unique Identity Number : Nil Email Address : not available Annual Income Rs.1.8 lakhs approx.

¶11

5 Shri Sandesh Vithal Naik, s/o. Vithal Naik, 51 years of age, Occupation : service, R/o. H.No.214, Dassol wada, Kundaim, Ponda-Goa 403 115, FAX Number : Nil Mobile Number : 9673500249 Resident Number : Nil PAN Number : AEDPN1388K, National Unique Identity Number : Nil Email Address : not available Annual Income Rs.5,04,000/- approx.

¶12

6 Shri Ritesh Jagannath Narvekar, s/o Jagannath Narvekar, 37 years of age,

¶13

¶14

PILWP No.25/2015

¶15

Occupation : business, R/o. H.No.1144, Manaswadda, Kundaim, Ponda-Goa 403 115, FAX Number : Nil Mobile Number : 9822102960 Resident Number : Nil PAN Number : ACEPN7567P National Unique Identity Number : Nil Email Address : [email protected] Annual Income Rs.4.5 lakhs approx.

¶16

7 Shri Shivanand Mhablu Phadte, s/o. Mhablu Phadte, 41 years of age Occupation : service R/o. H.No.734, Phadte waddo, Kundaim, Ponda-Goa 403 115, FAX Number : Nil Mobile Number : 9423888857 Resident Number : Nil PAN Number : APBPP0627A National Unique Identity Number : Nil Email Address :-----------Annual Income Rs.5 lakhs approx.

¶17

8 Shri Jayesh Gajanan Tari, s/o Gajanan Tari, 39 years of age, Occupation : service, R/o. H. No.539, Manaswada, Kundaim, Ponda-Goa 403 115, FAX Number : Nil Mobile Number : 9850474138 Resident Number : Nil PAN Number : AKHPT2845F National Unique Identity Number : Nil Email Address : not available Annual Income Rs.3,60,000/- approx.

¶18

9 Shri Vaman Shridhar Satarkar,

¶19

¶20

PILWP No.25/2015

¶21

s/o. Shridhar Satarkar, 53 years of age, Occupation : Business R/o. H.No.662, Manaswada, Kundaim, Ponda-Goa 403 115, FAX Number : Nil Mobile Number : 7798676104 Resident Number : Nil PAN Number : FUKPS4690P National Unique Identity Number : Nil Email Address :not available Annual Income Rs.72,000/- approx. …. Petitioners

¶22

V/s

¶23

1 The State of Goa, Through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa.

¶24

2 The Deputy Collector & SDO, Ponda, Goa.

¶25

3 The Block Development Officer, Ponda, Ponda-Goa.

¶26

4 The Deputy Director of Panchayats, North Goa, Panaji, Goa.

¶27

5 The Deputy Conservator of Forests, North Goa Division, Ponda, Goa.

¶28

6 The Deputy Town Planner, Town & Country Planning Department, Ponda-Goa.

¶29

7 M/s. Ramesh Phadte & Others A partnership firm, registered under the Partnership Act, 1932, with office at C/o. Tapobhoomi, Kundaim, Ponda,

¶30

¶31

PILWP No.25/2015

¶32

Goa, 403115, through its partners (i) Shri Ramesh G. Phadte Son of Gurudas J. Phadte, major.

¶33

(ii) Shri Madhusudan Krishna Naik, major, son of Krishna Naik.

¶34

(iii) Shri Gajanan Ladu Mandrekar, Son of Shri Ladu Mandrekar, major.

¶35

(iv) Shri Jaivas Naik, Son of Mr. Jaganath Naik, major.

¶36

(v) Shri Amar Narendra Parsekar Son of Mr. Narendra Parsekar, major All c/o. Tapobhoomi, Kubdaim Opp. Kundaim Industrial Estate, Ponda, Goa.

¶37

8 The Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Works Division XII, Sub Div-1, Margao, Goa.

¶38

9 The Village Panchayat of Kundaim Through its Secretary, Kundaim, Ponda, Goa. …. Respondents

¶39

Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr. P. Dangui, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 6.

¶40

Mr. S.S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr. I. Agha, Advocate for Respondents No.7(i) to 7(v).

¶41

Mr. S. Karpe holding for Mr. V. Pangam, Advocate for Respondent No.9.

¶42

CORAM : F.M. REIS & K.L. WADANE, JJ.

¶43

DATE : 22^nd MARCH, 2016

¶44

¶45

PILWP No.25/2015

¶46

ORAL JUDGMENT :(Per F.M. REIS, J.)

¶47

Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents no.1 to 6, Mr. S.S. Kantak, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents no.7(i) to 7(v) and Mr. S. Karpe holding for Mr. V. Pangam, Advocate for respondent no.9.

¶48

Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service.

¶49

Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the above petition can be disposed of on a short point raised by the petitioners that inspite of objections raised by the petitioners with regard to the development activity carried out by the respondent no.7 in the subject property, no action was taken by the concerned authority.

¶50

Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that according to the petitioners the subject property is a private forest and that without obtaining the conversion certificate or any permission from the local Panchayat, the respondent no.7 started some development. The learned Counsel further pointed out

¶51

¶52

PILWP No.25/2015

¶53

that despite of complaints lodged before the concerned authority no action was being taken by the authorities with regard to the subject development carried out by the respondent no.7.

¶54

On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Kantak, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.7 has submitted that the authorities have already acted in the matter and in fact according to him the Deputy Collector has already issued an order dated 18/12/2015, inter alia, directing the respondent no.7 to restore the land to its original condition. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the respondent no.7 has also preferred an appeal against the said order before the learned Administrative Tribunal and a stay has been obtained of the operation of such order. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Deputy Director of Panchayat has assumed powers under Section 66(5) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act and has issued notice for inspection to the respondent no.7 in connection with the subject development. The learned Senior Counsel, as such, submits that since action has already been contemplated by the concerned authorities, the question of entertaining the petition would not arise at all. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that in any event the remedies available to the respondent no.7 in accordance with law have to be protected while

¶55

¶56

PILWP No.25/2015

¶57

disposing the above petition.

¶58

The learned Advocate General appearing for respondents no.1 to 6 has submitted that the authorities have already acted in the matter and in fact the learned Deputy Director of Panchayat issued an order under the Land Revenue Code. The learned Advocate General further pointed out

¶59

that though the Deputy Director has assumed powers under Section 66(5) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, nevertheless, in the meanwhile the local Panchayat has already taken action by taking a resolution in connection with the subject development. The learned Advocate General further pointed out that as far as the contention of the petitioners that the subject land is a private forest, this aspect has already been examined by the concerned authorities and necessary action for any violation would be taken with that regard in accordance with law.

¶60

We have considered the submission of the learned Counsel and we have also gone though the records. Based on the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, we find that the concerned authorities have already taken action in connection with the subject development by initiating proceedings under the Land Revenue Code as well as under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act. The learned Advocate

¶61

¶62

PILWP No.25/2015

¶63

General has also pointed out that in case of any violation by the respondent no.7 as the subject land is identified as a private forest, necessary action on that count would be taken by the concerned authorities, in accordance with law..

¶64

Considering the above and as such action has already been initiated, we find that the question of entertaining the above petition at this stage would not arise. Needless to state that the concerned authorities shall proceed with the action initiated or to be initiated after hearing the concerned parties in accordance with law. All the contentions of the respondent no.7 on merits are left open.

¶65

At this stage, Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to our notice that though an order was passed by the learned Deputy Collector on 18/12/2015, inter alia, directing the respondent no.7 to restore the land to its original position and further directing the electricity department, the water department and the Panchayat not to grant any essential services to such project, by an ex-parte stay obtained from the learned Administrative Tribunal, would permit the respondent no.7 to change the status quo at the site.

¶66

¶67

PILWP No.25/2015

¶68

Mr. S.S. Kantak, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.7, upon instructions, submitted that respondent no.7 would not change the status quo at the site during the pendency of such proceedings before the learned Administrative Tribunal and that the respondent no.7 shall proceed with the development only after obtaining all the requisite permissions from the concerned authorities in accordance with law. In view of the said statement of the learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.S. Kantak, which is accepted, we find that the apprehension of the petitioners that the respondent no.7 would change the status quo based on the ex-parte stay order passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, would not survive.

¶69

We dispose of the above petition on the aforesaid terms. Rule stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. In case any applications are filed by the respondent no.7 with regard to the subject development, the concerned authorities shall examine such applications as expeditiously as possible.

¶70

Mr. Nigel Da Csota Frias, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he desires to intervene in the proceedings before the learned Administrative Tribunal. Mr. S.S. Kantak, the learned Senior

¶71

¶72

PILWP No.25/2015

¶73

Counsel for the respondent no.7 has no objection. Hence, the petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate application before the learned Tribunal or any concerned authority to seek appropriate relief with that regard, in accordance with law.

¶74

K.L. WADANE, J. F.M. REIS, J.

¶75

NH/-

Shri Prashant Rajaram Naik and 8 Ors., v. the State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Prashant Rajaram Naik and 8 Ors., v. the State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Benaulim Civic and Social Form, through Its Vice President Mr.Jose Rodrigues. Vs M/S.Triumph Realty Private Limited, through Its Managing Director and 2 Ors.

M/S Vedanta Real Estate Developers, Represented by Its Partners., Vs State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Sociedade Timblo Irmaos Limitada, Rep. by Its Director Mr. Francisco Lume Pereira and Anr., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.

Smt. Kamini Vishvanath Naik. Vs State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Shri. Vasant S. Naik. Vs State of Goa, through Chief Secretary and 8 Ors.

Margao Municipal Council, Thr. Its Chairperson Smt. Babita Prabhudessai and 3 Ors., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.