PANJIM: Three public-spirited Goans, who have been seeking to quash and set aside the Section 17 (2) of the Goa Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act, deployed a drone to click photographs and video of the ongoing ‘illegal hill cutting and construction of an illegal road’ in the impugned zone change at Morjim and produced them to the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
However, senior counsels Shyam Mehta and Janak Dwarkadas respectively representing two respondents M/s Gangareddy Infra Private Limited and Konidela Ramcharan Tej, in virtual mode, denied of any construction activity in the disputed property.
Arguing on behalf of three petitioners – Pravinsingh Shedgaonkar, Mayur Shetgaonkar and Swapnesh Sherlekar, Adv Nigel Frias Da Costa submitted an affidavit pointing out that large scale activities are going on at the site in question, which includes felling of trees.
However, senior counsels Mehta and Dwarkadas dispute the petitioner’s contention and stated that no activity based upon the impugned zone change under Section 17 (2) of the TCP Act, 1974 is going on. They pointed out that after the zone was changed to settlement, no permissions had been granted to undertake the activities that are normally permitted in a settlement zone.
By another affidavit Adv Costa Frias brought to the notice of the court that the TCP Department was withholding the information sought under the Right To Information (RTI) Act
The Court then enquired with the Maharashtra Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the TCP. AG Saraf expressed his surprise and said that he will find out from the TCP and instruct them to furnish the information under RTI Act.
The Court has asked all the respondents to file their replies by September 8 and if the petitioners want to file rejoinder, then they should do so by September 15.
While hearing another PIL writ petition filed by the NGO Goa Foundation, the Khazan Society of Goa and the Goa Bachao Abhiyan (GBA), the Court gave the same time limit for filing replies by the respondents and to furnish copies of their replies to the petitioners.
Adv Norma Alvares stated that she has received several replies and will file their affidavit-in-rejoinder by September 15 and furnish copies to the counsel for respondents.
Asking all the parties to abide by the timelines, the Court posted the matter for further hearing on October 3.
