Team Herald
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay Goa has directed the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Department to appoint any Town Planner other than from its Mapusa office to inspect the site of architect Dean D’Cruz and to submit the report.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The Court issued directions after petitioner D’Cruz in a writ petition alleged ministerial bias which was causing the government officials in taking decisions against him, thereby undermining the principles of ‘fairness’ and ‘impartiality’ in public administration. The TCP Department was delaying grant of completion order/occupancy certificate to the petitioner. This action was violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
The petitioner had sought direction to the State authorities more particularly the Mapusa Deputy Town Planner Zaidev Aldonkar to recuse himself from the matter and/or to step aside from the decision-making process and for a direction that the matter be reheard by different, unbiased decision-maker namely Vertika Dagur, the senior-most officer in the TCP Department (or any other senior official) for reasons stated hereunder.
The High Court had earlier asked the TCP Department to stop witch-hunting after it refused to approve revised technical clearance order and completion order towards construction of residential house by D’Cruz at Saligao
The petitioner has reiterated and stated that the construction carried out by him in Survey Number 193/1 of Saligao Village, Bardez Taluka was as per the construction license issued in 2014. He had also clarified that the construction was not encroaching on any road widening/setback, as falsely alleged by the TCP Department and the Senior Town Planner, Mapusa and that the said setback was in conformity with the Regional Plan 2021.
According to the petitioner, the Senior Town Planner, Mapusa was selectively targeting him by arbitrarily rejecting plans submitted by him as architect for various projects of clients in professional capacity as architect which was violative of Article 19 (1) (g) which guarantees that “All citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business,”
Adv Rohit Bras De Sa argued on behalf of the petitioner.
