Augusto Rodrigues
Vagator/ Porvorim: The government’s questionable stance on noise pollution in the Anjuna-Vagator belt came under the scanner in the High Court on Tuesday, with Amicus Curiae Nigel Costa Frias pointing out that the two names suggested by the government for the Noise Monitoring Committee (NMC) both had vested interests and were not acceptable.
“The two names suggested by the government cannot be considered, as they would create a conflict of interest and are not acceptable to those working to combat noise pollution in the affected areas,” Costa Frias explained. The two names put forward were Nyron Reginaldo Dias and Rohan Gadekar, both having involvement in the hospitality/ tourism industry, as per records.
Costa Frias presented three alternative names for consideration – noise pollution crusaders Janie Crasto and Jeremy Ferriera, and Dominic Pereira, who was in the previous NMC – and pointed out that none of them had any links with the tourism and nightlife industries.
Justice MS Karnik expressed interest in exploring the possibility of appointing non-practicing advocates. “Is it not possible to suggest the names of two lawyers who are not practicing?” the judge asked. Costa Frias acknowledged the challenge in finding such names but promised to attempt again.
Advocate General Devidas Pangam indicated support for Costa Frias' proposed names, stating, “If he is confident in the people he has suggested, we can proceed with their appointment.”
Justice Karnik, however, emphasised the need for trust in the new names. “We need a good retired government servant who can be trusted. The question of trust is very important because the reports that have been coming are all conflicting… The new people should not be linked to any organisation involved in tourism or any trade where music is played. Their work will be to make a report and to submit it to the authorities concerned, and not to the court,” clarified Justice Karnik.
During the hearing, petitioner Desmond Alvares questioned how businesses facing FIRs could still continue operations, prompting Justice Karnik to turn to the Advocate General for a response. Pangam, however, remained silent, prompting the judge to suggest that Alvares share his concerns with the Amicus Curiae for further presentation in the next hearing.
Following the hearing, local resident Anna Fernandes expressed relief over the decision. "It’s a relief to see the government’s nominees rejected," she said. "It’s clear they were trying to bring back the status quo with two government-friendly members. If the government truly cared about us, we wouldn’t have been in this situation.”
Desmond D’souza, another local resident, also voiced his concerns, saying, "We knew the government wouldn’t accept the Amicus Curiae’s suggestions. We approached the High Court because we felt the government was not supporting us, and our list of complaints keeps growing."
Curious case of the ‘missing’ CCTV footage
The High Court on Tuesday raised concerns about the lack of progress regarding the CCTV footage that had been requested during a previous hearing. Costa Frias reminded the Judges that the footage was crucial to ascertain the truth about noise violations.
“CCTV footage should be mandatory for the GSPCB before issuing operational licenses,” Costa Frias argued. “This will help ensure transparency, as different parties have been providing conflicting reports about the situation.”
Justice Karnik responded, stating, “We are not technically qualified to assess how CCTV systems work, but if you provide us with the necessary guidelines, we will pass an order to enforce it.”