PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has directed petitioners Telotin Domingo Cabo and three others to deposit Rs 1,97,12,500 in the Court within four weeks from the date of order and further to deposit an amount of Rs 5 lakh towards security for costs, within two weeks for filing purported public interest litigation (PIL).
While hearing the PIL, the Division Bench comprising Justice Mahesh S Sonak and Justice B P Deshpande said, “This is purported public interest litigation. The petitioner No 1 (Telotin Domingo Cabo) had filed an affidavit indicating that he has no personal interest in the matter. The Advocate General now produces an order dated 28.06.2023 made by the Director of Mines and Geology, pointing out that Petitioner No. 1 was himself involved in the alleged illegal extraction of laterite in Costi village. The order requires Petitioner No. 1 to pay the State an amount of Rs 1,97,12,500 within 60 days.”
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Though the petitioner’s counsel Adv Nigel Costa Frias told the Court that the petitioners have appealed against the order of the Directorate of Mines and Geology, the Court said that the Petitioner No.1 should at least deposit this amount in this Court. The fate of this amount can always be made depending upon the revision, it said.
The Advocate General Devidas Pangam pointed out that as of date all the respondents have a valid lease or have deemed an extension of the lease under the Goa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1985. He further pointed out that in the case of two of the respondents, the inspection revealed that the extraction was carried out beyond the leased area. Accordingly, the steps have already been taken and penalties have been imposed upon them. In one case, the extension was about 212 square metres and in the other case the extension was 767 square metres, he said.
This petition was filed alleging that illegal quarrying was taking place without obtaining requisite permissions from the authority. Therefore, the Court said that before proceeding further in the matter, it is only appropriate that the Petitioner No.1 deposit some amount towards security for costs.
