PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has opined that the Conservation Committee constituted under the Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Act, 2008 and the Regulations made thereunder, must ensure that the members having direct or indirect interest or professional interest appointed, must disclose such interest and if such disclosure is made, the same must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee.
If there is any breach, then, such interested member would cease to be a member of the Conservation Committee as provided under Clause (5)(n) of the Act. This provision must be scrupulously observed so that there is no conflict between the interest and duties of the members of the Conservation Committee, the Court stated while, disposing a writ petition filed by Raul Aires Fernandes and John Aires Fernandes, both residents of Corte De Oiteiro, Panjim.
The petitioners had sought a writ of quo warranto or a declaration that Architect Ketak Nachinolkar stood disqualified to continue as a member of the Conservation Committee.
The petitioners had alleged that Nachinolkar, being a member of the Conservation Committee, participated in the proceedings of the Conservation Committee held on August 26, 2013, where the proposal of addition/alteration to the existing structure in the property bearing Chalta No.178 and 179 of P.T. Sheet No.45 at Panjim by Barnabe Sapeco was taken up for consideration.
The petitioners alleged that the plans for this proposal were prepared by architect Nachinolkar but the latter failed to disclose his involvement and interest in the said subject matter and participated in the meeting of the Conservation Committee held on August 26, 2013, where proposal was recommended for approval.
In view of this, the petitioners counsel Adv Rohit Bras de Sa urged for a writ of quo warranto or in the alternate, a declaration that Nachinolkar stood disqualified as a member of the Conservation Committee.
Nachinolkar in his affidavit admitted that Sapeco had engaged him as an architect for the project in question much before he was appointed as a member of the Conservation Committee. He denied that there was undue favouritism to Sapeco by the Conservation Committee.
The Division bench comprising Justice Mahesh Sonak and Justice B P Deshpande observed that Nachinolkar did not disclose his interest nor abstained from participating in the proceedings when the proposal was considered.
But the Court refrained from disqualifying Nachinolkar since his disqualification was sought for the term — July 2012 to 2015 and that no purpose will be served by issuing a writ of quo warranto or a declaration as prayed for, during his current term.
The Conservation Committee must, however, ensure that there is scrupulous compliance with the Conservation Regulations, the Court remarked.
