Team Goemkarponn
PANAJI: The Bombay High Court at Goa has ruled that a writ petition challenging an order issued by the Senior Town Planner, Mapusa, can be heard by a single judge, rejecting a preliminary objection raised by a respondent developer.
Justice Valmiki Menezes delivered the ruling while hearing a petition filed by activist Avertino Miranda against the Village Panchayat of Socorro, ONS Housing Pvt Ltd, and others. The court dismissed ONS Housing’s contention that the matter could not be entertained by a single judge under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules.
The developer had argued that the impugned order dated November 22, 2024, was not covered by the provisions of Chapter XVII, Rule 18(3) of the Rules and therefore required a division bench.
Miranda, a resident of Harmony Co-operative Housing Society, had approached the court alleging irregularities in land development at Survey No. 376/2, Socorro. He claimed that two open spaces — measuring 525 sq m and 645 sq m — were designated when the land was subdivided in 1980. However, developers later merged the 525 sq m open space with an adjoining plot of 900 sq m and obtained construction permissions for the entire 1,425 sq m, allegedly without maintaining the 35-metre highway setback required by law.
Despite his repeated complaints, Miranda said construction continued unabated. Acting on directions from the High Court in an earlier case, the Senior Town Planner had issued show-cause notices to the developers, but these were subsequently withdrawn, prompting Miranda’s present challenge.
The central issue before the court was whether the withdrawal of the show-cause notices by the town planner was a quasi-judicial act, which would determine if the writ petition could be maintained before a single judge.
Justice Menezes held that while the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 does not specifically empower town planners to revoke permissions, any decision relating to the issuance or withdrawal of technical clearances must adhere to principles of natural justice. Hence, such decisions possess a quasi-judicial character and are subject to judicial review.
Citing Regulation 3.10 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, the court noted that planning and local bodies such as municipal councils and panchayats are legally bound to follow due process when revoking development permissions. The same procedural safeguards, the judge said, apply to town planners.
“Revocation or withdrawal of permission has significant civil consequences and must therefore follow notice and hearing,” Justice Menezes observed, concluding that the Senior Town Planner’s decision was amenable to review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
