Disposed

Ferdinando Fernandes., v. Pramod Faldessai and 10 Ors.

Bombay HC30 Aug 2021CP/17/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition filed for non-compliance of a prior order directing removal of temporary structures. The court held that while some affidavit-backed directions appeared complied, disputed factual issues regarding fresh structures were not examined, and the petitioner could file fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

petitioner ordered to file fresh proceedings if grievances persist regarding any structures at the site; petitioner's objection to petitioner's entitlement to take fresh proceedings accepted

Ferdinando Fernandes., Vs Pramod Faldessai and 10 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

17-CP 17-20.DOC

¶2

Amrut

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

CONTEMP PETITION NO.17 OF 2020
IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.406 OF 2019

¶6

FERDINANDO FERNANDES

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

Versus PRAMOD FALDESSAI AND 10 ORS …Respondents

¶9

Mr. B. Pacheco, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P. A. Kamat, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM: M. S. SONAK & SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ DATED: 30^th August 2021

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1. Heard Mr. Pacheco, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P. A. Kamat, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 - the then Secretary of the Village Panchayat of Agonda.

¶13

2. The complain in this petition is non-compliance with this Court's order dated 13^th August 2019 in Writ Petition No.406 of 2019.

¶14

3. The Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in this matter on 16^th April 2021. The Respondent No.2 has stated that the directions issued by this Court were complied with and temporary structures were actually removed.

¶15

Page 1 of 3 30^th August 2021

¶16

17-CP 17-20.DOC

¶17

4. Mr. P. Kamat submits that it is possible that now some further structures are visible at the same site. He further submits that these further structures are fresh structures put up by some parties based on the permissions issued by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority ( GCZMA).

¶18

5. Mr. Pacheco disputes the aforesaid position and attempts to point out that the orders of this Court were never complied with by the Panchayat or Secretary of the Panchayat, particularly in the context of Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 10 in the original petition.

¶19

6. According to us, in this Contempt Petition, it will not be appropriate for us to go into such disputed questions of fact. There is a statement made on affidavit which is backed by some prima facie material like panchanama. Besides, if the Petitioner has any grievances against the structures that are now seen at the site, it is always open to the Petitioner to take out fresh proceedings in regard to the same. However, it will not be appropriate to go into all such issues in this Contempt Petition.

¶20

7. Therefore, we dispose of this Contempt Petition but we clarify that the disposal of this Contempt Petition will not preclude the Petitioner from taking out appropriate proceedings on account of construction/structures, if any, at the same site.

¶21

Page 2 of 3 30^th August 2021

¶22

17-CP 17-20.DOC

¶23

8. The Contempt Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid

¶24

terms.

¶25

SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J

¶26

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶27

TARI AMRUT NAGESH Digitally signed by TARI AMRUT NAGESH Date: 2021.08.31 10:39:32 +05'30'

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

30th August 2021

Ferdinando Fernandes., v. Pramod Faldessai and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ferdinando Fernandes., v. Pramod Faldessai and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rishi Gupta., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Public Prosecutor and 2 Ors.

Seeta Anil Naik Vs State of Goa, Thr. Police Inspector, Verna Police Station, Verna and 2 Ors.

Krupa Maruti Hallikar Vs the State of Goa, in Its Ministry of Home Affairs, Thr. the Public Prosecutor and Anr.

P.N. Writer and Co. Pvt. Ltd., through Its Sr. Manager-Legal Neville Mukadam. Vs Shripad Vassudev Lad (Since Deceased) Represented by Legal Heirs and 2 Ors.

Andrew D'Cunha Vs the Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Other Backward Class Certificate Govt. of Goa and 5 Ors.

Rohidas B. Sakhalkar Vs Village Panchayat of Cortalim, Represented by Its Secretary and 3 Ors.