AUGUSTO RODRIGUES
PORVORIM/VAGATOR: The High Court of Bombay at Goa show its displeasure with Advocate General Devidas Pangam for not being able to justify as to why the police could not present CCTV footage in the premises alleged to have played music beyond 10 pm during the Christmas week and that most petitioners had objected to the two names suggested by Amicus Curiae Nigel Costa Frias as members of the Noise Monitoring Committee (NMC).
“This is what happens when intentions are not clear. That you are unable to get CCTV footage a few days later is completely ridiculous. Serious note is being taken of your explanation,” said an annoyed Justice
MS Karnik.
Amicus Curiae Nigel Costa Frias, through his junior advocate Shane Coutinho, suggested the names of Inacio Fernandes and Jeremy Ferreira to be the new members of the NMC.
“All the respondents are against the two names suggested and, instead, want me to suggest the names,” Pangam informed the Justices. “We will decide this matter after the Amicus Curiae returns to Court,” informed Justice Karnik.
“That the respondents are against the two names suggested by the Amicus Curiae is understandable, but by accepting the recommendation of the Advocate General, we will be back to square one because it is the government’s ineffectiveness that is the cause of this mess,” explained Agnes D’Souza from Anjuna.
As advocate Gilman Coelho Pereira rooted for the AG to suggest the two names, Costa Frias’s junior advocate Shane Coutinho brought to the attention of the Court that the police has yet to give the CCTV footage as ordered. (See O Heraldo edition dated January 29, 2025 – HC questions Goa govt’s handling of noise pollution plaints).
“How can they say that the footage has been overwritten? It is because of such explanations that we have still not been able to solve this problem. You are trying to avoid the truth all along and, that is why we have reached a stage where appointment of two new nominees to the noise monitoring committee is so crucial,” said Justice Karnik as the AG tried to throw in explanations which were shot down as unsatisfactory.
“Now that we know there is a problem with their CCTV, we will get the footage as soon as we are made aware by the Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) that there is a violation,” the AG tried to explain to Justice MS Karnik and Justice Nivedita P Mehta.
“How can the CCTV footage be overwritten in a matter of few days? This explanation is not something we are ready to accept. There has to be a system to retract the footage,” observed Justice Karnik.
Unable to counter the judges’ reasoning, AG Pangam informed the Court that many times, “people make false allegations and that makes it difficult to believe everything they say.”
Justice Karnik shot back saying, “Don’t say they make allegations, when you cannot produce the CCTV footage which was supposed to be presented to this Court.”
“There are 15 FIRs filed so far,” replied the AG, justifying that the government was keen on adhering to the Supreme Court directives on noise pollution.
“This is not an acceptable justification. We have to check why this overwriting happened because technology does not allow such things to happen. There has to be a mechanism where the footage can be retrieved,” said Justice Karnik.
“How can footage of first January get erased in a few days?” asked a surprised Justice Karnik.
“Who is the highest police authority of this place? queried Justice Karnik to which AG Pangam said, “ The Deputy Superintendent of Police.” “It cannot be,” shot back Justice Karnik. “If the SP is unable to appear physically, ask him to be present online because, he has to explain,” stated Justice Karnik.
“We want to ensure there is monitoring, where there are complaints, where loud music is played,” emphasised Justice Karnik.
“My Lord” AG Pangam interjected and claimed that, “there have been instances where the petitioner has said loud music is being played and on inspection, such places do not exist.”
“When the police reached the spots mentioned, there was no music being played as the places mentioned could not be found,” the AG informed.
“Are they sealed? They could be in violation of sealed orders,” wondered Justice Karnik.
“We are satisfied with what we are doing,” stated GSPCB Advocate Manish Salkar. “Please give an affidavit stating what you are saying and the petitioner (Desmond Alvares) should also file an affidavit stating what has been presented by him. In this way, both are accountable,” added
Justice Karnik.