*The GBA as co-petitioner to PIL WP 16/2023 against TCP Amendment 17(2) had in its prayer asked for striking down of 17(2) in totality as well as the rules therein, as section 17(1) already has a provision for change and revision to the Regional Plan. *
The judgement retained the amendment section 17(2) yet struck down the rules due to the following - i) The word error is not defined effectively allowing limitless powers and action under 17(2). ii) They invoked the Regional Plan on which errors were supposedly based yet operated independently and regardless of the Regional Plan. iii) Processed error correction using ‘Zone’ change fees indicating this to be a zone change exercise. Indeed all the changes sought in the name of errors were from Eco zones to settlement. iv) The department had gone beyond its powers in setting up a non-statutory committee to scrutinize applications. v) Bypassed public participation as no space for public objection provided. *The order and judgement of 13th March cited numerous other judgements wrt planning that place private interests as subordinated to public good, and clearly states that rules of 17(2) expand beyond the parent act, and therefore are struck down.* It is a matter of shame that the TCP minister Vishwajit Rane continues to assert in news bytes his interest to protect ‘investors’, displaying absolutely no understanding of the intent of the TCP Act, and no interest in planning for the people and the good of Goa. In addition, there is clear proof of him using 17(2) for conversions of land and sale furthering his own personal interests in Karapur village of Bicholim. Profiting from both amendment 17(2) and the property deals, he becomes an investor, bound to protect his interests, and is in direct conflict of interest towards his post. The post of TCP minister is to serve in public interest and not private interest. If he cannot fulfil that duty, he must step down as TCP minister. The onslaught of undermining regulations and amendments has been greedy, impatient, relentless, and without balance, 17(2) being just one of many. The damage is not only to the fragile ecosystem of Goa, but to the exchequer due to having to defend ill thought out concepts through litigation using citizens tax money against themselves! Not to mention the ‘outside investors’ who lose confidence in the state. Amendment 17(2) is one sided due to its focus on land owners as a class above the public, at whose convenience purchase of zone changes as errors was allowed with no limitation. Without doubt, it was one sided, with eco-zones being converted to settlement, so much so that Chopdem recorded a 130% increase in settlement under ‘errors’. 17(2) did not allow public scrutiny and objections as the changes were treated as ‘miniscule’ errors, notifications final and deemed not necessary for public objection. GBA maintains that planning holds private interest subordinated to public good, and that the TCP Act has the same at its core; all chapters should flow to maintain public interest, including public participation and transparency. The same needs updating to include the public participation and planning interests of villages, as in the 73rd Amendment to the Constitution, as well as other enlightened acts that hold environmental concern. Goa is not for sale, it is our home. We must collectively protect it from hostile takeovers. Sabina Martins - Convenor Reboni Saha - Secretary
