SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, GOA BENCH
M.S. SONAK, R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
Antonio Joao Bosco Lobo S/o Jose Leles Lobo – Appellant
Versus
The State of Goa – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 265 of 2015
Decided On : 01-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias.
For the Respondents: Mr. D.J. Pangam, Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Mr. Y.V. Nadkarni.

Proper pleadings and a live lis are necessary for the court to entertain challenges to the constitutional validity of legislative amendments. Compliance with the provisions of Article 652 of the Code of Comunidades is required.

Headnote:

Code of Comunidades - Legislative Amendments - Article 652 - Article 41 - [Goa Daman and Diu Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.4.1961 (Amendment) Act, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2001, Second Amendment Act, 2001] - The court declined to strike down the legislative amendments to the Code of Comunidades due to lack of proper pleadings on how these legislative measures contravene the Constitution or are beyond the legislative competence of the State. The court also refused to entertain the challenge to the constitutional validity of the amended Article 41 of the Code of Comunidades due to absence of a live lis and proper pleadings. However, the court directed the concerned authorities to implement the provisions of Article 652 of the Code of Comunidades.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners sought to strike down various legislative amendments to the Code of Comunidades and to implement the provisions of Article 652 of the Code of Comunidades. The court found the pleadings to be sketchy and declined to entertain the challenges to the constitutional validity of the amendments and the amended Article 41 due to absence of proper pleadings and a live lis.

Finding of the Court:

The court declined to strike down the legislative amendments to the Code of Comunidades and the amended Article 41 due to lack of proper pleadings and a live lis. However, the court directed the concerned authorities to implement the provisions of Article 652 of the Code of Comunidades.

Issues: Lack of proper pleadings, absence of a live lis, and compliance with the provisions of Article 652 of the Code of Comunidades.

Ratio Decidendi: The court declined to entertain the challenges to the constitutional validity of the legislative amendments and the amended Article 41 due to lack of proper pleadings and a live lis. However, the court directed the concerned authorities to implement the provisions of Article 652 of the Code of Comunidades.

Final Decision: The court declined to strike down the legislative amendments to the Code of Comunidades and the amended Article 41, but directed the concerned authorities to implement the provisions of Article 652 of the Code of Comunidades.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias for the Petitioners, Mr. D. Pangam learned Advocate General who appears along with Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for Respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Y.V. Nadkarni for Respondent No. 3.

2. The Petitioners, who claim to be the Gaunkars/Jonoeiros/Jonkars and legitimate Components of the Comunidade of Serula, have instituted this Petition, seeking the following reliefs:

    “(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call upon the Respondent No. 1 to produce before it the records pertaining to the various amendments moved before the Code of Comunidades including the statements of objects and reasons, a record of deliberations, etc and on perusing the same be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction thereby quashing and striking down all the amendments effected to the Code of Comunidades listed at Annexure “D” colly.

(b) For a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby directing the Respondents no. 1 to forthwith comply with and implement the provisions of Article 652 of the Code of Comunidades.

(c) For such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(d) For an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and striking down the Goa Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.04.1961 (Amendment) Ordinance 2015 (Ordinance No. 9/15).”

3. The perusal of Annexure “D” collectively referred to in the index as appearing on pages 204-213, indicates that there is no list as such of the amendments to the Code of Comunidades which are sought to be struck down. However, on Pages 181-A, we find the following list:

    1. The Goa Daman and Diu Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.4.1961 (Amendment) Act, 1984.

2. The Goa Daman and Diu Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.4.1961 (Amendment) Act, 1985.

3. The Goa Daman and Diu Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.4.1961 (Amendment) Act, 1986.

4. The Goa Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.4.1961 (Amendment) Act, 1988.

5. The Goa Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.4.1961 (Amendment) Act, 1993.

6. The Goa Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.4.1961 (Amendment) Act, 1995.

7. The Goa Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.4.1961 (Amendment) Act, 1996.

8. The Goa Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.4.1961 (Amendment) Act, 1997.

9. The Goa Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.4.1961 (Amendment) Act, 2001.

10. The Goa Legislative Diploma No. 2070 dated 15.4.1961 (Second Amendment) Act, 2001.”

4. Similarly, prayer clause (d), seeks a writ to strike down Ordinance No. 9/2015. This ordinance no longer survives since the Legislative Assembly enacted a law in terms of what was provided by the ordinance. There is no challenge to such law in the Petition.

5. The pleadings in this writ petition in the context of a challenge to the validity of the various legislative amendments to the Code of Comunidades are also quite sketchy. The Petitioners have not pleaded in precise terms how according to them, the several amendments which they have challenged, contravene Part III of the Constitution or are beyond the legislative competence of the State. In the absence of proper pleadings, we do not think that it would be appropriate for us to entertain the challenges to the constitutional validity of the several amendments to the Code of Comunidades.

6. Mr. Costa Frias, however, referred to the provisions of Article 652 of the Code of Comunidades, which read as follows:

    “Article 652 - Every five years, in city of Panjim, on 2nd Sunday of January, a meeting shall be held of the delegates of all the Comunidades to deal with matters of general interest to them to foster its progress and propose to the Governor-General, some measures in this connection.

1. In the first fortnight of November, the Governor-General shall appoint a commission comprising of five members chosen from among the members of the managing committee of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top