On 22 May 2010 18:39, Venantius J Pinto <[email protected]> wrote: [1] It is simply unconscionable that this tragedy occurred under these circumstances we now aware of. [2] Are these Punks in Honorable retirement living in the lap of luxury. Have they made any statements? A copy of this order is accessible at: http://bit.ly/94VoDE )
Dear Venantius, Some folks could be (and should be IF there is enough supportive evidence) hauled before the courts for Criminal Negligence. There might even be an (easier) case for civil liability in Tort. This does not include the Justices who made the order (I submit) based on the facts available to them......except for the part where they say " WE ARE SURE" I believe that the following is the most important part of the judicial order (CAPS are Mine) ***** "Thus it can be seen that the expnsion of Bajpe airport project is at the initial stage and the second respondent has in their objections mentioned above unequivocally stated that all the safety measures etc., stated by the petitioners in their writ petition WILL BE FOLLOWED during the progress of the project and nothing can be said before the lands are handed over to the second respondent. Considering these facts, we are of the view that the petitioners have rushed to this court before commencement of the project itself and the WRIT PETITION IS PREMATURE. It is not therefore, necessary to consider the various grounds taken by the petitioners in the writ petition to allege that the respondents have been proceeding with the project in a casual manner. There is nothing to doubt about the statement made by the second respondent in their objection statement and WE ARE SURE that the respondents will be taking ALL NECESSARY MEASURES under the different enactments etc.., BEFORE PROCEEDING with the project in question. The writ petition stands dismissed." ***** The issues here are as follows: 1: Did the "respondents" DO what they promised they would do? 2: On what basis did the Justices conclude that the respondents would DO what they said they would? 3: Did the originators of the PIL (the objectors) follow up to ensure that the respondent DID what they promised to do? Bottom line: To win against these hawks .....one needs good, focused, untainted, non-partisan and dogged lawyers. Hopefully, Goa (and Goa Sudharop) will recognise in an extra special way ...the decades of struggle put in by the Goa Foundation. jc
