AUGUSTO RODRIGUES
GONCOI, SANCOALE: Two legal opinions, one of which is an unsigned email, sent to the Sancoale Panchayat ended the hopes of any action against Parmesh Construction undertaking the controversy-ridden 650-plus swimming pool housing project in water-deficient Sancoale.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Of the two, Adv Zeller De Sousa pointed to PIL in the High Court and advised “no interference”, in the Bhutani construction licence, while advocate Amey Prabhudessai’s “opinion” (unsigned) gave a squeaky clean chit to Bhutani, saying they have all permissions.
Over 500 villagers were witness to an extraordinary farcical panchayat meeting where the two legal opinions were received and haphazardly discussed, with the secretary and acting sarpanch Derrick Valles trying to rush through the documents and allegedly stifle the voice of the three opposition members. Before the people could debate them, the meeting was called off and the secretary and acting sarpanch out of sight.
Part of Adv Zeller De Sousa’s three-page legal opinion dated November 11, 2024, reads: “As is evident the issue of the legality of the said construction license clearly being examined by the High Court and the issue being sub-judice, it is indeed surprising that your panchayat has issued a show cause notice as to why the said construction licence should not be revoked.”
The unsigned and undated legal opinion under the letterhead of Amey M Prabhudessai in the third paragraph reads: “Having meticulously perused the entire set of documents which came to be tendered by you, it is abundantly clear that the said construction licence issued to M/S Parmesh Construction Co. Ltd having offices at… is valid in the eyes of the law and does not suffer from any defects or infirmities.”
Whilst some panchas were ‘happy’ with the legal advice, the opposition – there were three members today: Tulshidas Naik, Maurelio Carvalho and Paulina Azavedo – cried foul terming the “legal advice, illegal”.
“The advice sent by advocate Amey Prabhudessai has no date or a signature,” said panch Tulshidas Naik, to which the panchayat secretary replied that it had been received by email.
“The meeting was legally completed and we are going to file a police complaint against Tulshidas Naik for tearing the legal opinion,” said acting Sarpanch Valles.
“If there was no signature and no date because it was emailed, the letter does not have the imprint of an email,” countered panch Maurelio Carvalho. “It appears that the advocate sent his advice without his footprints to avoid further legal implications,” he added.
“Since the matter is in the High Court, we will wait for it and we will be sending letters to the TCP and PDA for their say,” acting sarpanch Valles said on social media.
“If the panchayat is waiting for the High Court judgment, why is Derrick Valles saying that the panchayat will be sending letters to the TCP and PDA,” asked Peter D’Souza, the petitioner in the High Court.
“If they could give the licence in one day they can revoke the same with all the ammunition they have. Valles and his group of cronies think they can keep fooling us all the time. But we will not give up” stormed an upset D’Souza.
Tension grew after the meeting when the gathering spotted the three members against whom activist Pratima Coutinho filed a First Information Report (FIR) for fixing cameras in the panchayat toilet used by members of both sexes during the hunger strike.
Meanwhile, hunger strike activist, Premanand Naik’s wife Ujwala, on spotting one of the accused in planting the camera, challenged him to come out of the office to receive her garland of sandals. The individual was vociferously booed by the large crowd.
“The strength of the people can be seen in the gathering today, but the weakness of the same people can be seen inside the panchayat office. What the majority of elected people are doing is sick,” said social activist Ophelia Pereira.
