With neither the Mormugao Planning Development Authority (MPDA) nor the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Department able to provide proof that a site inspection was conducted before granting permission under Section 17(A) for hill cutting in the proposed project by Bhutani Infra in Sancoale, Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta, while hearing final arguments in PIL WP 1884/2024 and PIL WP 2020/2025, directed both authorities to “file an affidavit giving details whether any inspection was conducted before granting the permission.”
The second day of final arguments saw MPDA counsel Nikhil Pai present his case after advocate Nigel da Costa Frias, representing intervening petitioner Goa Bachao Abhiyan (GBA), concluded by arguing: “Without an Environment Clearance (EC), respondents Parmesh Constructions could not have been granted any permission.”
Advocate Pai began his submission by stating that, at the time the disputed property was sold, it was classified as C-I land.
Pai defended the 200 FAR granted by MPDA, saying it was within the legal framework.
“This amendment you are suggesting was made in 2016. The 200 FAR is supposed to be given to all properties within Municipal Council limits, and this project is coming up within the jurisdiction of a Village Panchayat. Yours is no argument at all,” remarked Justice Dangre, questioning the applicability of the FAR provision.
As advocate Pai tried to rely on various notes exchanged between departments and petitioners, Justice Dangre pressed further: “We want to know one thing. Tell us if you physically went to measure the contours of the place?”
Unconvinced by the response, Justice Dangre then asked advocate Sinai Nadkarni, representing respondent M/s Parmesh Construction, how gradients are measured. “That is the work done by the technical team which visits the site,” replied advocate Nadkarni.
“The Environment Clearance (EC) takes time since a lot of tests need to be done before the clearance is given,” Nadkarni further explained.
“Do you have a fresh EC?” asked Justice Dangre.
“No. We have applied for an EC,” Nadkarni replied.
"You need to tell us when factual measurements were carried out. By showing us notes, you are not getting to what we want to know,” Justice Dangre clarified, turning again to MPDA's counsel.
“We have carried out observations in January,” responded the MPDA advocate.
“You have not actually measured?” asked Justice Dangre. “Both parties — Petitioners and MPDA, TCP — are saying that they did not carry out measurements,” she said, visibly amused. “So, who has carried out the measurements?” she questioned further.
“The job is theirs (MPDA). They should do the measurements and produce them in court,” said advocate Nadkarni. “They have to produce the files,” he added.
Justice Dangre, after perusing MPDA’s report, remarked: “They are saying in their report that the bushes have been cut. This does not say anything and has no context.” The judges noted the absence of any credible slope analysis or evidence of physical inspection.
MPDA has now assured the court that an affidavit detailing any inspection done prior to the 17(A) permission will be submitted by Thursday. The final hearing in the case is scheduled to continue on August 11, 2025.