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

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.S. Sonak, Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ.
Raul Aires Fernandes - Appellant
Versus
State of Goa - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 415 of 2016
Decided On : 07-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate, P. Naik, Advocate, D. Pangam, Advocate, Manish Salkar, Advocate, Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate, Bavina Kukalekar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Members of committees like the Conservation Committee must disclose any direct or indirect interest in proposals and abstain from participation in discussions regarding such proposals to avoid conflicts of interest, as mandated by the regulations.

Headnote:

DISQUALIFICATION - CONSERVATION COMMITTEE - GOA (REGULATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION) ACT, 2008, SEC. 4; GOA LAND DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS, 2010, CLAUSE (5)(n) - The court discussed the provisions of the Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Act, 2008, particularly Section 4, which empowers the government to frame regulations for land development and building construction. The court emphasized Clause (5)(n) of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, which outlines the disqualification of members of the Conservation Committee for failing to disclose conflicts of interest. The court interpreted these provisions as requiring strict adherence to prevent conflicts between personal interests and public duties, ultimately influencing its decision to declare Respondent No.4 disqualified from the committee.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners sought a writ of quo warranto or a declaration that Respondent No.4 was disqualified from the Conservation Committee due to failure to disclose his professional interest in a proposal he was involved with as an architect. Respondent No.4 participated in the committee's proceedings regarding this proposal without disclosing his interest.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that Respondent No.4 had a direct professional interest in the proposal and failed to disclose this interest as required by the regulations. The court concluded that his participation in the committee's proceedings constituted a breach of the disqualification provisions outlined in Clause (5)(n)(v) of the regulations.

Issues: Whether Respondent No.4 was disqualified from being a member of the Conservation Committee due to his failure to disclose his interest in a proposal he was involved with as an architect.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the clear provisions of Clause (5)(n)(v) necessitate that members disclose any direct or indirect interest in proposals before the committee and abstain from participation in discussions regarding such proposals. The failure to comply with these provisions results in disqualification.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition without issuing a writ of quo warranto or a declaration of disqualification for Respondent No.4's current term, as he had already been reappointed after the disqualification period. However, it directed the Conservation Committee to ensure compliance with the regulations regarding member disqualification.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

M.S.SONAK, J. - Heard Mr Rohit Bras De Sa, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr D. Pangam, learned Advocate General along with Mr Manish Salkar, learned Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned counsel for Respondent No.4.

2. The Petitioners, by instituting this petition, had sought a writ of quo warranto or, in any case, a declaration that Respondent No.4 stood disqualified to continue as a member of the Conservation Committee constituted under the Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Act, 2008 ( the said Act ) and the Regulations made thereunder ( the said Regulations).

3. The Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction ) Act, 2008, was enacted to provide for the regulation and control on building construction and land development in the State of Goa and other incidental and ancillary matters connected therewith. Sec. 4 of the said Act provides that the Government may by notification in the Official Gazette frame regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act, for carrying out the provisions of the said Act by following the procedure specified under Ss. 5, 6, and 7 of the said Act.

4. In the exercise of powers conferred by Sec. 4 of the said Act, and all other powers enabling it on this behalf, the Government of Goa has made the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, and published the same in the Official Gazette.

5. Annexure -IX appended to and forming part of the said Regulations is concerned with the Regulation for Conservation. Detailed provisions have been made to regulate the construction and development in the conservation zone. This Annexure, inter alia provides the constitution and composition of the Conservation Committee.

6. The Regulations also provide for the conduct of the proceedings of the Conservation Committee. Clause (5) inter alia provides for special powers vested in this Committee, term of office and tenure of members, and several other aspects relating to the conduct of proceedings of the Conservation Committee.

7. Sub-clause (n) of clause (5) referred to above is concerned with the disqualification of Member/Barring of Member from proceedings. Since the same is relevant to the issue raised in this petition, the same is transcribed below for the convenience of reference.

    "(n) Disqualification of Member/Barring of member from proceedings: -A member shall cease to be member of the Committee if he-

i) is declared to be of unsound mind by a competent Court; or

ii) is adjudged insolvent; or iii) has been convicted by any Court in India of any offence, and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years; or iv) is absent without the permission of the Committee in writing from three consecutive meetings thereof or from all the meetings of the Committee for six consecutive meetings;

v) A member, who is directly or indirectly concerned or interested in any proposal before the Committee, or is professionally interested on behalf of a principal or other person in any manner concerning the Committee, or is engaged at the time in any proceedings against the Committee, shall at the earliest possible opportunity, disclose the nature of his interest to the Committee and the disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the Committee. The said member shall not be present at any meeting of the Committee when such a proposal is discussed, unless his presence is required by the other members for purpose of eliciting information, but no member so required to be present shall vote on such proposal."

8. The Petitioners have alleged that Respondent No.4, being a member of the Conservation Committee, participated in the proceedings of the Conservation Committee held on 26/8/2013, where the proposal of addition/alteration to the existing structure in the property bearing Chalta No.178 and 179 of P. T. Sheet No.45 at Panaji by Mr Barnabe Sapeco (File No. 27/15-3/728/TCP/2013/4082 dtd.

      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