The court upheld the requirement for setting up a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and Garbage Disposal Facility for a building complex based on the technical clearance order dated 18.03.2013, emphasizing the importance of waste management and the lack of modification or omission of this requirement.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Shivan Desai for the petitioner.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the following orders/ communications:-

(a) the communication dated 14.02.2020 by which the Village Panchayat of Se-Old Goa has denied occupancy certificate in respect of the Block-E comprising of 11 apartments in a building complex described as "Samarth Enclave";

(b) The judgment and order dated 20.03.2020 made by the Block Development Officer (BDO), dismissing petitioner's appeal against the communication dated 14.02.2020;

(c) The judgment and order dated 22.09.2020 made by the Deputy Director of Panchayats dismissing petitioner's revision against the BDO's order dated 20.03.2020.

3. At the outset, Mr. Desai, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will pay the demanded cess in terms of the building and other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 as demanded by the Panchayat. This means that there is no challenge to the orders concurrently made demanding the payment of such cess as a pre-condition of issuance of occupancy certificate in respect of Block-E.

4. In addition to the aforesaid demand, the Panchayat, has refused to issue the occupancy certificate in respect of Block-E, inter alia on the following main grounds:

(a) Non-payment of construction license fees by the petitioner and the insistence of the petitioner that the license fees paid by one Mr. M. V. Ghatkar be treated as full and final;

(b) The non-setting up of a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) for the project;

(c) Non-setting up of the Garbage Disposal Facility for the project.

5. Mr. Desai, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that most of the aforesaid grounds, including in particular the ground of non-setting up of STP or Garbage Disposal Facility were mentioned in the communication dated 14.02.2020 denying occupancy certificate to Block-E. He relies on the principle in Mohinder Singh Gill and others v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 SCC 405 to submit that the statutory orders cannot be supplemented by giving additional reasons in affidavits. Besides, Mr. Desai points out that in terms of the rules and regulations as existing at the time of issue of license and clearance by various authorities, there was no requirement of either setting up of STP or Garbage Disposal Facility. He further points out that the requirement of setting up of STP or Garbage Disposal Facility was introduced by an amendment which came in December 2016. He points out that it is for this reason that the condition for setting up of STP was in fact omitted in the final technical clearance issued for the project in the year 2015. He submits that the occupancy certificate has already been issued in respect of Blocks A to D without insisting upon either setting up of STP or Garbage Disposal Facility. He submits that at this stage it will not be possible for the petitioner to set up an STP and Garbage Disposal Facility. He submits that in the absence of any legal requirement to provide STP or Garbage Disposal Facility, the Panchayat cannot insist upon compliance with such conditions. He submits that the impugned communication as well as orders are therefore vulnerable and warrant interference.

6. Mr. Desai submits that initially the entire project which was to comprise about 5 building blocks was described as Block A and Block B and even the license fees were paid on the said basis. He points out that at a later stage there were revisions and the plea was, for sake of convenience, described as Block A to Block E. He points out that there was no change in the FAR consumed and therefore, there could have been no requirement paying additional construction fees as demanded by the Panchayat. He submits that since this aspect has not been considered by the BDO as well as the Deputy Director of Panchayats, the impugned orders warrant interference.

7. Mr. Desai submits that the completion certificate has already been issued in res