HC quashes ODPs for 5 villages, asks Goa govt to follow RP 2021
Panaji:
In a major setback to the TCP department's plans for allowing construction activities in the North Goa coastal belt, the Bombay high court on Monday set aside govt's ODPs or outline development plans for five villages and directed state to follow Regional Plan 2021 for approval of plans and grant of permissions in these villages.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The two ODPs — Calangute-Candolim and Arpora-Nagoa-Parra — cannot operate and the five villages of Calangute, Candolim, Arpora, Nagoa, and Parra will not be governed by them, a division bench comprising justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta ruled.
However, on the request of state govt, the HC stayed the implementation of its own judgment for four weeks, subject to govt ensuring that no permissions be granted and no construction or development take place in the five villages.
The high court order on the ODPs comes after a series of legal back and forth with even the matter reaching the Supreme Court as the TCP department desperately tried to defend its implementation.
The apex court flagged it off as a serious issue of unbridled construction when hearing a special leave petition by state govt against Bombay HC's order restraining construction based on the ODPs, Supreme Court justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while dismissing the SLP, said: 'Please don't turn Goa into a concrete jungle.'
From issuing circulars to even an Ordinance, state govt has been trying hard to keep alive the ODPs despite initially suspending it due to large scale illegalities. But in between all the legal wrangles, the TCP department went ahead with zone changes on its own.
The chief town planner even issued a circular taking away all the powers from the North Goa Planning and Development Authority (NGPDA) and directing that the TCP would issue clearances for development and zoning certificates.
The circular was never notified but merely circulated among the district collectors, town planning officials and registrars among others.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
SC refuses to entertain Lalit Modi's plea seeking that BCCI pay penalty imposed on him by ED
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by former Indian Premier League chairperson Lalit Modi seeking directions to the Board of Control for Cricket in India to pay a Rs 10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate for violating the Foreign Exchange Management Act, Live Law reported. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan said that Modi could pursue civil remedies seeking indemnification. The bench was dealing with an appeal filed by the former IPL chairperson against a Bombay High Court order dismissing his plea, Bar and Bench reported. Modi has been under investigation by Indian authorities for alleged foreign exchange violations and a Rs 425-crore television rights deal for the 2009 edition of the IPL with World Sports Group. He fled India after attending only one interrogation session with the Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate officials in Mumbai. In 2018, the Enforcement Directorate imposed a fine of Rs 121.56 crore on several entities, including the BCCI, its then chairperson N Srinivasan and others. Out of this amount, Modi had been ordered to pay Rs 10.65 crore, Bar and Bench reported. The penalty, which was part of the larger Enforcement Directorate investigation into the 2009 edition of the IPL, was imposed after it was alleged that over Rs 243 crore was allegedly transferred outside India in contravention of Foreign Exchange Management Act regulations. On December 19, the High Court had dismissed a petition filed by Modi seeking an order to the BCCI to pay the penalty, calling it 'frivolous' and 'wholly misconceived', PTI reported. It also imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine on Modi. In his petition, Modi had said that he served as the BCCI vice president and the chairperson of the IPL governing council when the alleged violations took place. He argued that on this account, the BCCI was obligated to indemnify him under its bylaws. However, the High Court, citing a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, said that the BCCI was not considered a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence no writ could be issued against it, PTI reported. Modi subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision. In the Supreme Court on Monday, the bench reiterated that the BCCI was not a 'state' under Article 12 and hence not directly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, except in certain limited functional public duties like organising sports events, Live Law reported.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
Supreme Court rejects Lalit Modi's plea asking BCCI to pay ₹10.65 crore FEMA penalty
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed former cricket administrator Lalit Modi's plea seeking an order directing the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to pay a penalty of ₹ 10.65 crore imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan ruled that Lalit Modi could pursue civil remedies available under the law but refused to compel the BCCI to bear the penalty amount. This Supreme Court decision follows a December 19, 2023, ruling by the Bombay High Court which had termed Lalit Modi's petition 'frivolous and wholly misconceived,' while imposing a cost of ₹ 1 lakh on him. The Bombay High Court had observed that the penalty was personally imposed on Lalit Modi by the adjudicating authority under FEMA, and there was no legal basis to direct the BCCI to pay the fine. Lalit Modi had contended that during his tenure as the BCCI's vice-president and chairman of the Indian Premier League (IPL) governing council—a subcommittee of the BCCI—the board was obliged under its bylaws to indemnify him for actions taken in his official capacity. However, the Bombay High Court referred to a 2005 Supreme Court judgment clarifying that the BCCI does not qualify as a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Bombay HC held that no writ could be issued against the BCCI in matters unrelated to the discharge of public functions. 'In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner in the context of penalties imposed by the ED, there is no question of discharge of any public function, and therefore, for this purpose, no writ could be issued to the BCCI,' the High Court had stated. Despite clear directions from the Supreme Court, Lalit Modi had filed the petition in 2018, which the High Court dismissed. The Supreme Court on Monday, 30 June, upheld this dismissal, reiterating that Lalit Modi's plea was without merit.
Hans India
4 hours ago
- Hans India
Letter petition urges SC to take suo motu cognizance of Kolkata law college gang-rape case
A letter petition has been addressed to the Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, urging the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognizance of the heinous gang-rape of a law student within her college premises at Kasba in South Kolkata. On June 25, a first-year female law student was allegedly raped on the premises of South Calcutta Law College by three accused, all linked to the Trinamool Congress' student wing, Trinamool Chhatra Parishad (TMCP). The plea urged the top court to take suo motu cognizance of the incident and sought directions for an immediate and impartial investigation into the matter. It prayed for immediate transfer of the investigation of the rape case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with a direction for time-bound conclusion of probe. Further, the plea filed by advocate Satyam Singh sought directions to the West Bengal government to pay interim compensation of Rs 50 lakh to the victim for medical treatment, rehabilitation, and legal expenses. Apart from seeking directions to provide immediate and comprehensive protection to the victim, her family members and all witnesses related to the case, the letter petition demanded for framing of comprehensive directions for women's safety in educational institutions. The plea urged the apex court to direct appropriate action against Trinamool Congress leaders, including Kalyan Banerjee and Madan Mitra, and other public representatives who engaged in victim-shaming and made derogatory remarks. Trinamool legislator Madan Mitra, infamous for his frequent loose comments, made a controversial statement claiming that the rape incident had sent a message to all girls that they should not go the college when it is closed. Following Mitra's controversial comments, the Trinamool Congress issued a statement claiming that the remarks were made in his individual capacity and hence the party had unequivocally disassociated itself from his statements and strongly condemned them. The party later served a show-cause notice to Mitra.
