The recent decision by the Goa Investment Promotion and Facilitation Board (Goa-IPB) to withdraw all the in-principle approvals granted to 17 projects, as they fall in the coastal regulation zone, seems to be a bolt from the blue.
Since its inception in 2014, Goa-IPB has cleared approximately 156 projects with an estimated investment of Rs.11, 482.66 crore with a potential to generate 25,980 jobs.
Some of the projects for whom the in-principle permissions were withdrawn included the development of the passenger ropeway and other allied tourism projects from Panjim to Reis Magos, initiated by the Goa Tourism Development Corporation.
Does this move cast a shadow over attempts by the government to attract investments in the State and more importantly generate jobs for young Goans, many of whom are forced to leave the State and work in other parts of the country or leave the country in search of greener pastures.
Senior corporate executives who were keen to speak on the matter had diverse opinions over the decision.
CEO of Magsons Group Kirit Maganlal felt it was not good move. “When something was sanctioned earlier, why do you have go through the entire process again. If there are blatant violations they have to be checked. The promoter was not possibly aware, why do we have to put him through all this; he should be taken into confidence? Violations have to be checked but let us not inconvenience people. Goa has a fragile ecology and it has to be protected but I am also very clear when it comes to development, these matters should be discussed by a separate authority and not like this,” he said.
The Chairman of Kineco Kaman Composites India Pvt Ltd (KKCI) Shekhar Sardessai, who is also the former Chairman of CII, Goa Chapter felt there would be no effect because of the move to withdraw in principle approval.
“The IPB does not have the authority to give permissions and it should be cleared by CRZ. The legislation is evolving and please remember the approval was in principle and now it will be done by the government. IPB is not overstepping its authority. Eventually in time IPB will become a single point window,” Shekhar emphasised.
Similar sentiments were expressed by a former corporate executive who did not want to be quoted.
Speaking off the record he said only 17 projects had been held back because as per law, they could not under any circumstance clear those projects. It would have to be passed by CRZ, he said, adding that it was important to remember that 65 per cent of the projects were cleared and 43 per cent were already executed. The 17 projects would be assessed by the government through the necessary bodies. Too much was being made out of a molehill, he protested.
Another senior executive and business owner, who did not want to be named, felt these developments were not surprising and even welcomed the decision to withdraw in-principle approvals to 17 projects.
He felt it was an indictment of the previous government and an apt display of the manner in which the IPB gave permission flouting the law. He asked how it was possible for the IPB to appropriate sweeping powers and it was assumed that getting an in-principal approval was the last word on the project. This would streamline the IPB.
Another senior executive, who was more than willing to speak, was Nitin Kunkolienkar. A former member of the board at the IPB and current President of Mait, Kunkolienkar said the IPB in its early years took some decisions and they were based on three perspectives – Section 7, settlement and RP 2007.
“If you read the Goa Invest Promotion Bill, it states the board shall be a one-point contact for all investments made in the State, which meet any or all the criteria specified i.e. investment above Rs 5 crore, requirement of area equal or above 3000 sq mtrs, expansion of any red category industry as classified under the state pollution control board guidelines,” he elaborated.
It was also important to note that notwithstanding anything contained in any other State law for the time being in force, the board would for the purpose of promoting and facilitating investments, exercise the powers of any statutory authority, board or agency under the government. However, it would be bound by all the laws made by the State legislature, rules framed under thereof including any special directions, notifications issued by the government. With regards restriction, the board he said could not recommend CRZ areas except where the foreshore facilities were required.
This meant they had to withdraw all the permission of properties in such areas. Nitin went as far as to say that work that had commenced on these projects would be illegal.
The technicalities involved have meant that laws were flouted and corrections are being made but one has to ask the question if such decisions could have been avoided the first time itself.
