------------------------------------------------------------------------
* G * O * A * N * E * T **** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy your holiday in Goa. Stay at THE GARCA BRANCA from November to May
There is no better, value for money, guest house.
Confirm your bookings early or miss-out
Visit http://www.garcabranca.com for details/booking/confirmation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WP NO. 2 OF 2006
FLORIANO C. LOBO, MOIRA BARDEZ GOA .... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF
SECRETARY, PORVORIM GOA AND 4 OTS.
Ms. Norma Alvares, Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.S Knatak, AG with Mr. M. Salkar, AGA for State.
Mr. V.A. Lavande for respondent No. 3. (Panchayat of Santa Cruz)
Mr. Mahesh Sonak with D. Pangam for respondent No.4. (Hara Houssing
Development- Bangalore)
Coram:- V.C. DAGA & N. A. BRITTO, JJ.
Date: 22nd. August, 2006
P.C.:
Parties to the petition have filed Minutes of the Order dated 22nd August
2006 duly signed by their respective Counsel . Petition stands disposed of
in terms of the Minutes of the Order with no order as to costs.
V.C. DAGA, J.,
N.A. BRITTO, J.
MINUTES OF ORDER
The petition be disposed of in terms of the following order:-
1. The Respondent No.3 shallforward the pans submitted by the Respondent No.
4 for construction of the Group Housing Scheme in Survey No. 540/2 and 541/4
of Village Panchayat of St. Cruz to the Respondent No. 5 i.e. Goa Coastal
Zone Management Authority (GCZMA)
2. The Respondent No.5 i.e. GCZMA shall consider the plans vis-a-vis the
applicability of CRZ Notification of 1991 and pass appropriate orders within
a period of two months, from receipt of plans from Respondent No. 3.
3. All the contentions of theparties to this petition are left open.
4. The Respondent No.5. shall take a decision in the matter after hearing
the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4.
5. The decision of the Respondent No.5, if is in favour of Respondent No.4,
shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of
communicatino of the decision.
Panaji, August 22, 2006
S/d:
1. Adv. Norma Alvares, Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner
2. Shri. Manish Salkar, Adv. for Respondenent No. 1 & 5 (State & GCZMA)
3. Shri. V.A. Lavande, Adv. for Resp. No. 3 (Panchayat St. Cruz)
4. Shri. M.S. Sonak, Adv. for Resp. No.4
END
COMMENTS:
The petition is temporarily disposed for being transfered to the CRZ
Authorities for conducting the inquiry if the Salt Pan is infact within the
jurisdiction of the CRZ. In case the CRZ Authorities rule in favour of the
Developer (HARA), then the Petitioner will have two weeks to go back to the
High Court with his arguments why his is not satisfied with the ruling by
the CRZ Authorities. Otherwise HARA goes home empty handed and the Salt
pans remains to add more ecological balance to Goa's depleting environment,
and, also be around to be harvested for natural salt to do away with the
new iodized salt culture which is generally believed to be the cause of
generating more sick people in Goa through over-doze of 'iodine' in the
human system.
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
