The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the principles of natural justice, including affording an opportunity of being heard and passing a reasoned order, especially when serious civil consequences are involved.

S.J. Vazifdar, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith.

2. Respondents No.2 and 3 are the Secretary of Tourism and the Director of Tourism, Government of Goa, respectively.

3. The petitioner seeks a declaration that Clause 26 of the terms and conditions for erection of temporary shacks/decks/umbrellas on the identified beaches of Goa for the tourist season 2011-12 is ultra vires the Constitution. The petitioner invites the Court to read down Clause 26 of the said policy to interpret the words “criminal record” as conviction of a criminal offence. Lastly, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to quash an order dated 5th April, 2012, passed by respondent No.3, the Director of Tourism.

4. The petitioner had made an application dated 22nd September, 2011 for erection of a temporary shack for the tourist season 2011-12 (upto 31st May, 2012). The application was made in terms of the said policy. Clause 26 and the concluding portion thereof read as under:

“26, The applicant should not have any criminal record. A Certificate of antecedents from the Police Department shall be obtained by the Department, if required. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions and furnishing of incorrect information by the allottee, the Permission shall be cancelled forthwith and the Shack shall be demolished at the own risk and cost. The Shack allottee shall also be debarred for a minimum period of three years/permanently and the amount deposited as Fees/Security Deposit shall be forfeited to Government treasury”

The petitioner filed an affidavit in the form prescribed by the said policy. Clause 9 of the affidavit stated : “That I have not been convicted of any criminal offence as of date of application.” This statement was exactly as per the prescribed format.

5. Writ Petition No. 3/2012 was filed as a public interest litigation. The allotment in favour of the petitioner under the said policy was challenged, inter alia, on the ground that a criminal case had been registered against him with the Calangute Police Station, being Criminal Case No. 11/S/12/B and that the same was pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Mapusa, Goa.

Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Order of this Court in that writ petition read as under:

“9} A bare perusal of the Guidelines would indicate that what the Department has done, is to comply with the directives issued by this Court. These directives are to frame Guidelines enlisting the terms and conditions for grant of permission to place shacks/decks/beds/umbrellas on the identified beaches of Goa in the tourist season. After identifying the beaches, the nature of the permission and the requirements in that behalf, what the Guidelines proceed to indicate is, that the shacks can be erected by those who comply with the Guidelines. The Director has to bear in mind that the applicant to be eligible must possess such a character as would not make him unfit or ineligible for grant of such permission. The clauses of these Guidelines, if read in their entirety and together, would indicate that the intent is to discourage such persons whose background is questionable and by presence of whom there will be not only a nuisance, but the safety and security of those visiting the beach would be jeoparadised. Any person who is considered to be undesirable and having criminal background renders himself unfit, is the plain intent of the policy makers. Therefore, clause No.26 is worded accordingly. The words “should not have any criminal record” cannot be read in a restrictive manner as suggested by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

10} Ultimately, what the applicant discloses by way of an affidavit alongwith application may relate to his conviction in a criminal case and may not disclose the pendency thereof, but the Guidelines which are framed by the Department in pursuance of the orders and directives of this Court clearly bind them. The Authorities derive their power to grant the per