The High Court of Bombay at Goa has strongly reprimanded the secretary of the Varca Vil lage Panchayat for impos ing additional conditions on a construction licence despite clear directions from the court to issue it in accordance with an or der passed by the Salcete Block Development Officer (BDO)-I. The division bench com prising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S Jamsandekar observed that adding conditions beyond the court’s direc tions amounted to placing restrictions on the High Court’s own order and could amount to contempt of court. The matter relates to a construction licence sought by petitioners Peter Jacob Barreton and Isabel Eu femia Pires e Barreto.
The High Court had directed the panchayat secretary to im mediately issue the licence in accordance with the BDO’s order dated March 18, 2025. However, when the licence was issued on May 30, 2026, the secretary included additional condi tions at his discretion. Taking serious exception to the action, the bench questioned the panchayat secretary, asking, “On May 6, we had issued clear direc tives to grant the licence in accordance with the Block Development Officer’s or der dated March 18, 2025. How, then, could you im pose additional conditions on the High Court’s order?” During the hearing, the court made it clear that the additional conditions had not been imposed by it and that the secretary had no authority to modify or sup plement its directions. When the panchayat sec retary sought permission to file an affidavit explain ing the circumstances, the court rejected the sugges tion, observing that an af fidavit would not alter the situation. The bench treat ed the action as a deliberate lapse rather than a mere error and warned that the secretary could be held lia ble for contempt. “How could you do this? Our directives were ab solutely clear.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
You cannot modify them or impose additional conditions. The panchayat secretary has no authority to lay down their own conditions,” the bench observed. During the previous hearing, the petitioner’s counsel, Adv Nigal da Costa Frias, informed the court that the petitioner had com menced construction based on the licence. However, the construction will remain subject to any interim or ders that may be passed by the Civil Court. In the event of an inter im order restraining the petitioner from interfering with the motorable access claimed by respondents Magno Barreto and Michael Juliano, construction shall be stopped.
Both respond ents have objected to the construction, claiming a right of way and motorable access through the proper ty covered by the licence granted by the Salcete BDO-I. Meanwhile, the High Court permitted Barreto to amend his writ petition to challenge Sections 43 and 44 of the construction li cence issued by the Varca Village Panchayat on May 30, 2026. The petitioner has been directed to complete the amendment within one week. The matter will next be heard on Septem ber 29.
