Disposed

Alison Britto., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2020WP/212/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court upheld the cancellation of a shack allotment due to the petitioner's disqualification as an employed person. While refusing the refund of the shack fee used for commercial purposes, the Court granted a refund of the security deposit conditioned on the petitioner dismantling the shack within a week.

What did the court decide?

Refund of security deposit of 30,000/- to petitioners; shack fee of 50,000/- forfeited; order contingent on dismantling shack within one week.

Alison Britto., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

 WP No.212/2020 dtd. 05.03.20

¶3

suchitra

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.212 OF 2020

¶6

Alison Britto.... Petitioners

¶7

 Versus
State of Goa, thr. its Chief
Secretary and others..... Respondents

¶8

Mr. Padgaonkar Chaitanya Prakash, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Maria Correia, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents
No.1 and 2.

¶9

Mr. Shivan Desai and Mr. Varun Bhandankar, Advocates for
Respondent No.3.

¶10

Coram:- M.S. SONAK &

¶11

 SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ.

¶12

Date:- 5th March, 2020

¶13

ORAL ORDER(Per M.S. Sonak, J.)

¶14

Heard Mr. Padgaonkar Chaitanya Prakash for the Petitioner, Ms.
Maria Correia, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents
No.1 and 2 and Mr. Shivan Desai for Respondent No.3.

¶15

2.The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 02.03.2020
made by the Director of Tourism cancelling the allotment of shack in
favour of the petitioner.

¶16

2 WP No.212/2020 dtd. 05.03.20

¶17

3.Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the
petitioner has clearly breached the condition of allotment namely that
he should have been unemployed at the time of seeking the allotment.
Though, the petitioner had filed an affidavit to the effect that he was
unemployed, record indicates that the petitioner had a goods carrier
vehicle registered in his own name. The contention that the vehicle in
fact belonged to the petitioner's father but was registered in the name
of the petitioner can hardly be accepted. In the circumstances which
were less severe than the present case, the Division Bench of this Court
in Alex J. Fernandes and another v. State of Goa and others –
decided on 06.11.2017 in Writ Petition No.796 of 2017, declined
the relief in favour of a petitioner who claimed that the vehicles in his
name had already been transferred but the transfer remained to be
recorded with the RTO Authorities.

¶18

4. We find that the Director of Tourism has considered the matter in the proper perspective and there is really no case made out for interference with the impugned order.

¶19

5. Mr. Padgaonkar, on instructions submits that the petitioner will not pursue the challenge to the impugned order any further but the respondents no.1 and 2 may be directed to return to the petitioner the security deposit of 30,000/- and the shack fee of 50,000/-.

¶20

3 WP No.212/2020 dtd. 05.03.20

¶21

6.Ms. Correia points out that the clauses of the Shack Allotment
Policy clearly provides that in case of breach the security deposit has to
be forfeited. She points out that the petitioner, on the basis of
incorrect statements in the affidavit has undertaken business through
the shack and therefore there is no question of the refund of fees.

¶22

7.According to us, the contentions of Ms. Correia are well
founded. Atleast insofar as the shack fee is concerned, there is really no
question of any refund now that the petitioner has utilized the shack
for commercial purposes at the height of the season.

¶23

8. Mr. Padgaonkar however points out that the petitioner is hardly 25 years of age and the amount of 30,000/- will mean much to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner, on his own, within a week will dismantle the shack and therefore, the respondents no.1 and 2 will be spared the requirement of incurring expenses for this purpose. Accepting this statement as an undertaking on behalf of the petitioner, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we direct respondents no.1 and 2 to return 30,000/- to the petitioner, provided the petitioner, within one week from today, dismantles the existing shack and restores the land beneath the same in its original condition. However, if this is not done within one week from today as undertaken, there will be no obligation to return the amount of 30,000/-. We clarify that this order is made in the peculiar facts and`

¶24

4 WP No.212/2020 dtd. 05.03.20

¶25

circumstances of the present case where, the petitioner has expressed
remorse and has pointed out that this amount will enable him to
atleast make a new beginning.

¶26

9. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

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

¶28

 SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.

¶29

 M. S. SONAK, J.

¶30

ss

Alison Britto., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alison Britto., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Palan and Anr., Vs Yogesh Jagdale.

Xavier Mario Leonardo Jose Almeida., Vs State of Goa, through Chief Secretary and 57 Ors.

Dinesh Amonkar., Vs State of Goa, through Chief Secretary and 57 Ors.

Concord Exotic Voyages (India) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Vice President, Sheik Ismail., Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise and Anr.

Goa State Co-Op Milk Producers Union Ltd., Rep. by Its Man. Director, Dr. Anil N. Fadte., Vs State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Kanchan Chodankar, Constable, Badge No. 3818, Attached to Assolna Outpost of Cuncolim P. S. Vs State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.