However, as several litigations and the cognizance taken by the courts have indicated, the government has been called to account to explain the manner in which several “In-principle” approvals for projects have been given, which are apparently violative of existing acts as well as the Investment Promotion Act, on the basis of which the IPB has been formed. This could have been avoided, since a court observation or directive which questions the fundamentals of a body created for the ease of business, affects the very purpose of which it was created.
And while the petitioner Goa Foundation may well be dismissed as a disruptive element, the decision of the courts to accept these petitions and make observations in tune with them, gives substance to the challenge and puts the onus on the government to come out of this with clean hands.
Thus far, the Investment Promotion Board granted a spree of “In Principle” approvals hoping that these approvals would facilitate permissions from statutory bodies like the Coastal Regulation Zone and the Pollution Control Board. The High Court, discounting the government view that “In Principle” approvals were grated to speed up the process of approvals has said that ‘In-principle approval by the Investment Promotion Board (IPB) will not be a basis for grant of statutory permissions from the CRZ authority or local bodies’.
Here the Court seems to have upheld the basic premise of the legal challenge that ‘In-principle’ approvals are in violation of the Investment Promotion Act 2014 as the Act itself bars the government from granting any approval in protected areas.
The IPB is clearly battling on multiple fronts. Earlier the Bombay High Court (Goa bench) had issued bodices to the Government (through the Chief Secretary), the IPB and the Chief Town Planner challenging the Investment Promotion Act and the permissions given for the beer and alcohol factory of Vani Agro Farms at Amdai in Sanguem. Three Sanguem villagers and Goa Foundation moved this petition, stating that this permission to the beer factory overrides the Town and Country Planning Act, the Panchayati Raj Act.
The petition also challenges how the IPB could give permission to convert 1.24 lakh square metres of land from orchard to industrial, when such a change in zone can only be done by the Town and Country Planning Department after following due procedure.
What underlines these developments is that the government is being forced to defend and explain a charge that in order to push for investment, it is attempting to circumvent existing acts of parliament. Many within the government and industry have confirmed with utmost certainly that an ‘In Principle’ approval from the IPB, backed by the highest quarters in government, is a signal to statutory and environment bodies to fast track approvals for those projects.
The government must seriously introspect its development road map, especially using the IPB as a vehicle. While the intention of forming the IPB was to speed investments and jobs — and the nobility of this purpose cannot be questioned — the government must take equal care that its new found speed in this direction does not knock down well intentioned environment and ecological checks and balances.
If bodies like the TCP, the Goa Coastal Zone management Authority, the Pollution Control Board are not allowed to function as independent bodies, then the state will actually find itself aligning with forces which will damage the core of Goa, its land and its nature. Investments and jobs must come and here there cannot be any compromise, but it cannot be done by skirting controls set in place to prevent destruction.
