Disposed

Indrajit Banerjee., v. the State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2020WP/128/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition where the petitioner sought habeas corpus or similar relief from the sealing of his saloon and spa premises. The High Court of Bombay at Goa, acting by its leave, ordered the desealing of the premises to facilitate inspections by statutory authorities for processing a No Objection Certificate application. The Court directed authorities to coordinate for prompt disposal of p

What did the court decide?

Premises to be desealed to facilitate inspections by statutory authorities for NOC processing.

Indrajit Banerjee., Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

 wp128-20dt.13-02-20

¶3

 Santosh

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 128 OF 2020

¶5

Indrajit Banerjee,
s/o. Chandan Banerjee,
26 years of age, business,
r/o. House No.103,
Opp. Monginis, Cake Shop,
Near Baga Circle,
Bardez, Goa.

¶6

 ...…. Petitioner.

¶7

Versus.

¶8

1) The State of Goa,
through its Chief Secretary,
having office at Secretariat,
Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.
2) The Collector, North,
Having office at Collectorate Bldg.,
Panaji, Tiswadi - Goa.

¶9

3) The Deputy Collector North,
 Mapusa, Bardez, Goa.
4) The Mamlatdar of Bardez,
Mapusa, Goa.
5) The Medical/Health Officer,
Primary Health Center,
Porvorim, Goa.
6. The Police Inspector,
Porvorim Police Station,
Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. ….. Respondents.

¶10

2 wp128-20dt.13-02-20

¶11

 Mr. Kapil D. Kerkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. D. J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. Sagar Dhargalkar,
Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondents.

¶13

Coram : M.S. Sonak &

¶14

 Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, JJ.

¶15

 Date : 13h February, 2020.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT :(Per M.S. SONAK, J.)

¶17

Heard Mr. Kapil Kerkar for the Petitioner and Mr. D.
Pangam, learned Advocate General with Mr. Sagar Dhargalkar,
learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the Respondents.

¶18

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent
of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶19

3. The complaint in this Petition is that the premises, through
which the Petitioner was operating the saloon and spa, have been
sealed by the Collector (Respondent No.2), without complying with
the principles of natural justice and fair play.

¶20

4.There is no dispute that the Petitioner was required to
obtain NOC from the Medical/Health Officer prior to commencing

¶21

3 wp128-20dt.13-02-20

¶22

the activity of saloon and spa from the premises, which have now
been sealed. There is also no dispute that till date, the Petitioner does
not have any such NOC from the Medical/Health Officer. Therefore,
even if some show cause notice were to be issued to the Petitioner, in
the absence of any NOC from the Medical/Health Officer the
position of the Petitioner would remain the same. In such a situation,
the action of the Collector cannot be interfered with on the basis of a
mere technical breach, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case. Besides, the learned Advocate General points out that the
sealing is, otherwise, in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under law.

¶23

5. Be that as it may, the Petitioner has now applied for the
NOC to the Medical/Health Officer. The learned Advocate General
states that the Medical/Health Officer has found out some
deficiencies in the application and has, today in the Court, handed
over a communication dated 12/02/2020, to the learned Counsel for
the Petitioner, in which such deficiencies have been set out.

¶24

6.Mr. Kerkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that
the Petitioner will address the issue of deficiencies within a period of
one week from today. He, however, points out that since the premises

¶25

4 wp128-20dt.13-02-20

¶26

are sealed, various statutory Authorities will not be in a position to
inspect the premises and give their clearances. He, therefore, requests
that suitable orders be made for desealing, at least for the purpose of
enabling the statutory Authorities to inspect the said premises.

¶27

7.We find the request made by Mr. Kerkar is quite reasonable
and the same is not even opposed by the learned Advocate General.
Further, since the premises are sealed, we expect the Authorities to
dispose of the Petitioner's application for NOC/permissions
expeditiously. The learned Advocate General states that the Medical/
Health Officer shall dispose of the Petitioner's application for NOC
within one week from the date of receipt of the response to the
communication dated 12.2.2020.

¶28

8.Further, we direct that if any of the statutory Authorities
wish to inspect the Petitioner's premise for the purpose of
considering/processing his application for NOC/permissions, then,
the Collector, North Goa shall, for this limited purpose, deseal the
premises, so as to facilitate such inspection. Obviously, the Collector
will reseal the premises after such inspection.

¶29

9.Further, we hold that if the Petitioner secures all the

¶30

5 wp128-20dt.13-02-20

¶31

necessary NOCs/permissions from the statutory Authorities, the
Collector, North Goa shall immediately make report to the Director
of Health Services and the Director of Health Services shall,
thereafter, make immediate orders for desealing of the premises.

¶32

10.We make it clear that there should be proper coordination
between the Collector and the Director of Health Services, so that if
and when the Petitioner secures NOCs/permissions from all the
statutory Authorities, there is no unnecessary delay in desealing of
the premises.

¶33

11.Rule is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.

¶34

12. All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy
of this Order.

¶35

 Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J. M.S. Sonak, J.

Indrajit Banerjee., v. the State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajit Banerjee., v. the State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Edwin Kamaraj, Thr. Poa, Peter a J., Vs Shiva Petro-Synth Specialities Ltd., Rep. Thr. Their Duly Const. Att., Sajan Pillai and Anr.

The United Goans Foundation, Thr. Its Secretary, Avinash Tavares., Vs the State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Ajit Narayan Parulekar and Anr., Vs the State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Maura Gonsalves., Vs the State of Goa, Thr. the Director of Sports and Youth Affairs and Anr.

Cobra Personnel and Intelligence Services, Thr. Its Successor, Clayton Rodolfo Savio Fernandes., Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Panaji.

Sheela Sansgiri., Vs the State of Goa, Thr. the Director of Sports and Youth Affairs and Anr.