TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2024
Team Herald
PANJIM: Reacting sharply to the State government’s decision to engage Supreme Court lawyers to defend amendment to Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act 1974, in the Bombay High Court at Goa, lawyers and politicians opined that it only implies that the Advocate General (AG) is incompetent and the government is apprehensive of its court matters.
Speaking to O Heraldo, former Judge Cleofato Almeida Coutinho said, “Our AG is competent. He has argued so many matters. But the government, it appears, is not very confident of its positions. If it was very confident of its positions, this was not required. It is unnecessary. Even earlier when Section 16 (B) of TCP Act was amended, the then government engaged senior counsel Darius Khambata to defend it. But Section 16 (B) judgment is awaited. It looks like when it comes to TCP Department, the government is supremely not confident about its position and that appears to be their fear.”
Adv Coutinho said he was clueless why the State government should spend taxpayers’ money on a matter of this nature. “The newly-added Section 17(2) of the Goa TCP Act 1974 is another Section 16 (B). It gives them power to just convert land at their whims and fancies. Where is the need to defend this much, if they are confident of what they are doing? It shows that they lack confidence in anything they are doing. And it has to be defended at any cost. Private parties can engage anyone, but why should the government engage private counsels when they already have legal machinery in place?” he questioned.
Senior Advocate Surendra Desai said, “Maybe the government thinks that local lawyers are not used to the atmosphere of the Supreme Court. That is why they have engaged them. Otherwise the government should have a competent Advocate General, who can defend the government at all levels. Then it’s a strategy.”
The message the government is trying to send is that it is engaging ‘incompetent people’ at local levels, Adv Desai remarked.
“The government itself is saying that it is incompetent, else it should engage lawyers at all levels. Amendment to a particular law is a general sequence. If you are a government lawyer, you should be able to defend it. The decision shows that the government has no faith in its battery of lawyers,” he said.
Former Minister for Law Adv Ramakant Khalap said, “It is always questionable. We have a whole team there. There is a double engine Sarkar. We have the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Additional Solicitor General and the Law Minister. The government, in fact, does not require all this. It could have been easily contested in the Supreme Court with the existing team of lawyers.”
He, however, said that the government has its own policies and prerogatives.
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) State president Adv Amit Palekar said, by roping in the senior counsels to defend the amended TCP Act, the government is trying to send a message that the Advocate General and the entire team is incompetent and not capable of defending government decisions.”
“We have Advocate General and a team of lawyers. It is never heard that senior counsels are working for the government. It amounts to insulting the AG. Either somebody has private interest or they have no faith in the AG and his team,” he said.
According to Adv Palekar, Supreme Court senior counsel charge Rs 7 lakh, Rs 10 lakh or Rs 15 lakh for appearing in a case. Why spend taxpayers’ money? Dismantle the entire legal team, including the office of the Advocate General and bring counsels from outside. This is what you are trying to do in every case including the Supreme Court directing State to declare Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary as Tiger Reserve.
Goa Pradesh Congress Committee (GPCC) president Amit Patkar said, “There are two power houses within BJP. Advocate General is appointed to protect the interest of the State. By engaging Supreme Court senior counsels are you trying to undermine AG? Is AG incompetent? AG has to appear to defend State and the government should stop wasteful expenditure.”
The State government has engaged legal eagles to defend the newly-added Section 17(2) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, which seeks to allow ad-hoc and arbitrary conversions of privately owned plots in the Regional Plan 2021.
