Disposed

Reliance Builder, Rep. by Its Man. Part., Inesio Almeida Coutinho v. Village Panchayat of Benaulim, Thr. Its Secretary and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Apr 2024MCA/181/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suo motu writ petition on implementation of Solid Waste Management Rules in Goa, monitoring establishment of Material Recovery Facilities by Panchayats. Court disposed of the petition after GSPCB verified all Panchayats had set up MRFs, lifted restraint on Aldona, directed Bhati to set up an MRF within six months, imposed costs on recalcitrant Panchayats, and disposed of contempt petitions and mis

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; restraint on Aldona lifted; Bhati directed to set up MRF in six months; recalcitrant Panchayats to deposit ₹20,000 each; contempt petitions and misc. applications disposed.

Reliance Builder, Rep. by Its Man. Part., Inesio… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

4-SMWP-2-2007 & BUNCH

¶2

Niti

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF 2007 .... PETITIONER

¶5

V/S.

¶6

STATE OF GOA, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 44 ORS.

¶7

....RESPONDENTS

¶8

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.6 OF 2024

¶9

HIGH COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION (IN THE MATTER OF BREACHING DIRECTIONS IN SMWP 2/2007) ... PETITIONER V/S

¶10

CHANDRAKANT GAONKAR, SARPANCH VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF BHATI, GOA AND ANR. ....RESPONDENTS

¶11

WITH

¶12

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.568 OF 2024 (F)

¶13

VILLLAGE PANCHAYAT BHATI, SANGUEM, GOA. THR. ITS SECRETARY SANDESH KARMALI ....APPLICANT V/S STATE OF GOA. ....RESPONDENTS

¶14

WITH

¶15

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1535 OF 2022 (F) THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF SANTA CRUZ , REP. THR. ADMINISTRATOR AND SECRETARY ....APPLICANT V/S.

¶16

Page 1 of 12 22^nd April 2024

¶17

4-SMWP-2-2007 & BUNCH

¶18

NO PARTY ....RESPONDENTS WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2491 OF 2021 (F) THE SARPANCH, VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF ST. CRUZ AND ANR. ....APPLICANTS V/S. STATE OF GOA, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 46 ORS. ....RESPONDENTS WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.181 OF 2024 RELIANCE BUILDER, REP. BY ITS MAN. PART., INESIO ALMEIDA COUTINHO ....APPLICANT V/S VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF BENAULIM, THR. ITS SECRETARY AND ANR. ....RESPONDENTS

¶19

WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.529 OF 2023 CHINAKONDAIAH M MUTKUNDU ....APPLICANT V/S VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF SANCOALE THR SECRETARY/SARPANCH AND ANR. ....RESPONDENTS WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.594 OF 2021 (F) RANJIT CIPRIANO PEDRO DA SILVA ....APPLICANT V/S VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF SERNABATIM COLVA, THR.ITS SECRETARY/SARPANCH AND ANR. ....RESPONDENTS

¶20

WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.393 OF 2021 (F)

¶21

Page 2 of 12 22^nd April 2024

¶22

4-SMWP-2-2007 & BUNCH

¶23

MOHAN LAXMAN MESTRY ....APPLICANT V/S VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF SANCOALE, THR. ITS SECRETRY/SAPRANCH AND ANR. ....RESPONDENTS

¶24

WITH

¶25

STAMP NUMBER (APPLICATION) NO.1642 OF 2020 (F) SANTANINHO DE MENINO JESUS BRAGANZA ....APPLICANT V/S VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF SERNABATIM-COLVA, THR. ITS SECRETAR/SARPANCH AND ANR. ....RESPONDENTS

¶26

WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.92 OF 2024 (F) RUPA DAMODAR VERNEKAR ....APPLICANT V/S VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF BENAULIM THR ITS SECRETARY - SARPANCH AND ANR. ....RESPONDENTS

¶27

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.31 OF 2010 JOSE RODRIGUES ... PETITIONER V/S CARMELINA FERNANDES, SARPANCH, VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF BENAULIM ....RESPONDENTS

¶28

WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2135 OF 2023 (F) THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF BENAULIM THR ITS SARPANCH XAVIER PEREIRA ....APPLICANT

¶29

Page 3 of 12 22^nd April 2024

¶30

4-SMWP-2-2007 & BUNCH

¶31

V/S STATE OF GOA THR ITS CHEIF SECRETARY OF GOA ANR. ....RESPONDENTS WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.530 OF 2023 PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORT LLP, REP. BY DATTATRAYA KALLAPA PATIL ....APPLICANT V/S VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF BENAULIM, THR. ITS SECRETARY/SARPANCH AND ANR. ....RESPONDENTS WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2677 OF 2021 (F) ELSA FERNANDES AND 3 ORS. ....APPLICANT V/S STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 44 ORS. ....RESPONDENTS WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2278 OF 2021 (F) SANDEEP MARTIN WARLIKAR AND 4 ORS. ....APPLICANT V/S STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 44 ORS. ....RESPONDENTS WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1012 OF 2022 (F) VARUN D. MALHOTRA ....APPLICANT V/S STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANR. ....RESPONDENTS WITH

¶32

Page 4 of 12 22^nd April 2024

¶33

4-SMWP-2-2007 & BUNCH

¶34

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.653 OF 2023 (F) TRIDENT REALTOR, THR. ITS AUT. ATTORNEY, SYDNEY ALIAS SIDNEY JOHN ADOLFO DIAS ....APPLICANT V/S VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF BENAULIM, THR. ITS SECRETAR/SARPANCH AND ANR. ....RESPONDENTS WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.504 OF 2024 (F) VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF ALDONA THR ITS SECRETARY/SARPANCH ....APPLICANT V/S STATE OF GOA THR ITS CHIEF SECRETARY ....RESPONDENTS WITH

¶35

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2788 OF 2023(F) VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF ALDONA THR ITS SECRETARY/SARPANCH ....APPLICANT V/S STATE OF GOA THR ITS CHIEF SECRETARY ....RESPONDENTS AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO.43 OF 2017 AIRES RODRIGUES ... PETITIONER V/S PREMDAS KARAPURKAR AND 4 ORS. ....RESPONDENTS

¶36

Ms. Norma Alvares, Amicus Curiae with Mr Om D’Costa and Mr H. Patil, Advocates.

¶37

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent–State in SMWP No.2/2007.

¶38

Page 5 of 12 22^nd April 2024

¶39

4-SMWP-2-2007 & BUNCH

¶40

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. Tukaram Gawas, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent–State in MCA No.594/2021(F).

¶41

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. Shubham Priolkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent–State in MCA No.653/2023(F).

¶42

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. Neehal Vernekar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent–State in MCA No.2278/2021(F).

¶43

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr Geetesh Shetye, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent–State in MCA No.2491/2021(F).

¶44

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent–State in MCA No.393/2021(F).

¶45

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr Siddharth Samant, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent–State in STA No.1642/2020(F).

¶46

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr Manish Salkar, Government Advocate for Respondent–State in WP No.621/2022.

¶47

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Ms. Maria Correia, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent–State in PILWP No.20/2017.

¶48

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. Siddharth Samant, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent–State in MCA No.653/2023(F).

¶49

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. Suhas Parab, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent–State in WP No.9/2024.

¶50

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Ms Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent-State in MCA No.1012/2022(F).

¶51

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General, with Mr Shivdatt Munj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent-State in WP No.621/2022.

¶52

Page 6 of 12 22^nd April 2024

¶53

4-SMWP-2-2007 & BUNCH

¶54

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General, with Ms M. Correia, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent-State in PILWP No.20/2017.

¶55

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Ms Akshata Bhat, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent-State in CP No.43/2017.

¶56

Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General, with Mr Suhas Parab, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent-State in WP No.9/2024.

¶57

Mr. Pavithran A.V. with Mr. P. Kholkar, Advocates for Respondent No.2-GSPCB.

¶58

Mr Dhaval Zaveri with Mr N. Govekar and Mr S. Kamulkar, Advocates for Applicant in MCA No.504/2024(F).

¶59

Mr A.D. Bhobe with Ms. A. Bandekar, Ms A. Fernandes, Ms R. Prazeres and Ms N. Mayekar, Advocates for Respondents No. 11, 15 and 18 in SMWP No.2 of 2007, Respondents No. 1 and 2 in CP No.43 of 2017, PILWP No.4 of 2007, Respondent No.2 in PILWP No.20 of 2017, for the Petitioner in WP No.935 of 2017, V.P. of Merces, V.P. of Amona, Corporation City of Panaji, Quepem Municipal Council, Curchorem, Cacora Municipal Council, Village Panchayat of Anjuna and for the SGPDA.

¶60

Mr. Zeller D'Souza, Advocate for V.P., Assolna and for Respondents Nos. 33, 35, 36 and 38 and for Sarpanch and Secretary of Assolna Village Panchayat.

¶61

Mr. Anand Shirodkar and Mr A. Sawant, Advocates for Respondent No.16 - Margao Municipal Council (MMC).

¶62

Mr P. Karpe, Advocate for Village Panchayat of Kundaim.

¶63

Mr Akshay Naik, Advocate for Village Panchayat of Socorro.

¶64

Mr P. Shirodkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.8,9,12,14,17,19,47.

¶65

Mr Dinesh Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.48.

¶66

Mr V. Braganza, Advocate for Village Panchayat of Moira.

¶67

Mr P.A. Kamat, Advocate for Respondent Nos.42 to 45, 53 – Village Panchayat of Siolem – Sodiem.

¶68

Mr D. Lawande with Mr P. Dangui, Advocates for Margao Wholesale Fish Market.

¶69

Page 7 of 12 22^nd April 2024

¶70

4-SMWP-2-2007 & BUNCH

¶71

CORAM: M. S. SONAK & VALMIKI MENEZES, JJ.

¶72

DATE: 22^nd APRIL 2024

¶73

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

¶74

1. Heard Ms Norma Alvares, learned Amicus Curiae with Mr Om D’Costa, the learned Advocate General for the State of Goa, Mr Pavithran A.V. for the Goa State Pollution Control Board and the learned Counsel for various Panchayats and Municipalities in the State of Goa.

¶75

2. Tis was a Suo Motu Writ Petition initiated in 2007 in the wake of the non-implementation of Solid Waste Management Rules. Tis petition was disposed of in 2013. However, once again, laxity was noticed after the disposal of this petition. In particular, there was an issue of Panchayats not complying with directions issued by this Court in establishing/operating Material Recovery Facilities (MRF).

¶76

3. Ms Alvares, the learned Amicus Curiae, submitted that practically all the Panchayats have established material recovery facilities by now. Mr Pavithran states that the GSPCB has verified this position and will continue inspecting these facilities periodically, preferably without notice to the Panchayats.

¶77

4. Te GSPCB should continue to monitor these MRFs periodically. If the GSPCB finds that the MRFs are not operational, directions must be issued to the Panchayats to operationalise them. If, despite directions and action by the GSPCB, the Panchayats are found

¶78

Page 8 of 12 22^nd April 2024

¶79

4-SMWP-2-2007 & BUNCH

¶80

to be violating directions, liberty is given to the GSPCB to apply to this Court so that this Court can consider whether any restraint should be imposed on the iterant Panchayats from issuing fresh construction permissions. In this matter, we noticed that while the Panchayats were tardy in implementing the waste management rules or setting up MRFs, they were in overdrive when granting building permissions. As a result, several buildings mushroomed, and there were very few facilities to treat the waste generated in the villages.

¶81

5. Ms Alvares pointed out that only the Village Panchayat of Aldona had not set up an MRF. Mr Zaveri states that even Aldona has now set up an MRF facility. Tis position is confirmed by Mr Pavithran, learned Counsel for the GSPCB. Mr Pavithran states that the MRF facility is set up and fully operational. Accordingly, the restraint imposed on the Village Panchayat of Aldona from issuing construction licences is lifted/vacated.

¶82

6. Te learned Advocate General pointed out that the Village Panchayat of Bhati has arranged with the neighbouring Panchayat, i.e., the Village Panchayat of Curdi. However, this Panchayat has also assured the Court that it would set up its independent and permanent MRF within six months. For this purpose, the Panchayat has deposited an amount of 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) in this₹ Court as a security for compliance. Accordingly, directions are issued to the Village Panchayat of Bhati to take the necessary steps. If no arrangements are made within six months, we grant the GSPCB liberty to point this fact out to the Court even though we propose to dispose of this petition presently.

¶83

Page 9 of 12 22^nd April 2024

¶84

4-SMWP-2-2007 & BUNCH

¶85

7. Now that all the Panchayats have an MRF and the GSPCB has assured the Court that it would monitor the functioning of these MRFs, this petition can be disposed of.

¶86

8. Tere are several Misc. Civil Applications filed in this petition which also would not survive disposal of the main petition.

¶87

9. Tis order today makes the interim orders made and modified from time to time in this petition absolute.

¶88

10. Te GSPCB, the Directorate of Panchayats, the Director of Municipal Administration and all other parties concerned with the implementation of the solid waste management rules are directed to keep the constraint vigil to see that the rules are implemented in letter and spirit. Further, these authorities must also ensure that all concerned parties comply with the directions issued by this court in this matter.

¶89

11. Ms Alvares, learned Amicus Curiae, states that in this matter, the Court has made at least 185 orders. Several affidavits have been filed by Panchayats, Sarpanchas, etc. Te State has also issued directions from time to time, as the learned Advocate General pointed out.

¶90

12. In this matter, Ms Norma Alvares learned Amicus Curiae has rendered commendable service to the Court and the State, considering the importance of solid waste management. She has appeared numerous times, and she would prepare summaries and charts to assist us in monitoring the situation. Accordingly, we compute the costs

¶91

Page 10 of 12 22^nd April 2024

¶92

4-SMWP-2-2007 & BUNCH

¶93

payable to Ms Norma Alvares at 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty₹ Tousand only).

¶94

13. Te record shows that the Panchayat of Rachol had deposited ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Tousand), the Panchayat of Colva 90,000/-₹ (Rupees Ninety Tousand), the Panchayat of St. Lawrence ₹1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten Tousand only) and the Panchayat of Bhati 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Tousand only). Out₹ of these, the amounts deposited by the Panchayats of Colva, St. Lawrence and Bhati totally amounting to 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two₹ Lakhs Seventy Tousand only) were ordered to be forfeited. Te said amount is in the Court Registry. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to pay an amount of 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Tousand₹ only) out of this amount to Ms Norma Alvares. Tis amount can be transferred by the Registry into Ms Alvares’s bank account at the earliest.

¶95

14. In addition to the above Panchayats, we find that the Panchayats of St. Cruz, Chimbel, Aldona, Anjuna, Arambol, Cana Benaulim, Sancolae, Merces, Calangute, Morjim and Rachol were quite recalcitrant when it came to compliance with solid waste management rules and the directions issued by this Court from time to time. Accordingly, we direct these Panchayats to deposit an amount of 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Tousand only) each in this Court₹ within six weeks from today.

¶96

15. Since the Panchayat of Rachol has already deposited 50,000/-₹ (Rupees Fifty Tousand only), this Panchayat is granted liberty to

¶97

Page 11 of 12 22^nd April 2024

¶98

4-SMWP-2-2007 & BUNCH

¶99

withdraw the balance amount of 30,000/- (Rupees Tirty Tousand₹ only). So also, since the Village Panchayat of Aldona has already deposited 1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten Tousand only), this₹ Panchayat is granted liberty to withdraw 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety₹ Tousand only) from the Registry.

¶100

16. Te costs recovered from the above Panchayats must now be transferred to the Goa State Legal Services Authority.

¶101

17. Te Director of Panchayats must circulate an authenticated copy of this order to the above referred Panchayats and ensure that these Panchayats deposit costs of 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Tousand₹ only) each within six weeks from today. Te Director of Panchayats must file compliance report in this Court by 30.06.2024.

¶102

18. Once again, we thank not only Ms Alvares, the learned Amicus Curiae, but also the learned Advocate General and other Counsel appearing in the matter for their cooperation. We also express our gratitude to Mr Om D’Costa, who assisted Ms Norma Alvares, the learned Amicus Curiae, in this matter.

¶103

19. Te Contempt Petitions are also disposed of.

¶104

20. Te misc. applications in this matter are also disposed of.

¶105

VALMIKI MENEZES, J. M. S. SONAK, J.

¶106

NITI KISHOR Digitally signed by NITI KISHOR HALDANKAR HALDANKAR Date: 2024.04.24 12:01:21 +05'30'

¶107

Page 12 of 12 22^nd April 2024

Reliance Builder, Rep. by Its Man. Part., Inesio Almeida Coutinho v. Village Panchayat of Benaulim, Thr. Its Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance Builder, Rep. by Its Man. Part., Inesio Almeida Coutinho v. Village Panchayat of Benaulim, Thr. Its Secretary and Anr.

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

Alex Pereira Rep. Thr. Attorney Holder Liberata D Souza Vs State of Goa Thr Its Chief Secrtary and 25 Ors.

Edwin Rodrigues Vs State of Goa Thr Secretary ( Home) and 4 Ors.

Maria Eduarda Menezes Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Aires Rodrigues., Vs Premdas Karapurkar and 4 Ors.

Priya Distilleries through Arun Raikar vs Goa Industrial Devolpment Corporation and 2 Ors.

Brian Porto Dias Augustia Fernandes Thr Poa Cijoni Dias Vs Models Real Estate Developers, Thr. Its Partner, Natalina Vaz