Advocate General also states that in most cases, no permissions or occupancy certificates are obtained. He submits that undertaking commercial activities through structures which have neither any licences nor occupancy certificates is not permissible.
Goemkarponn desk
PANAJI: Further to the High Court orders directing action against illegal dance bars or pubs in Calangute, it has now come to fore that the illegal establishements, which were facing demolition, had interim relief from Additional director of Panchayat.
The High Court passed teh orders based on petition filed by residents of Calangute Sudesh Mayekar and Kundan Kerkar.
Pranay Kamat, learned Counsel for the Calangute Panchayat, stated in the High Court that the following establishments have neither any licences nor any occupancy certificates.
i. Mehfil Gajanan Singh alias Chotu ii. Devils Club Vipin Singh/Dev Yadav iii. Three Kings Narayan Nirlikar iv. Club Tao Sunny Pandey v. Posh Nosh Sunil Bhomkar vi. Chawla Dilliwala Ravikant Yadav vii. Black Heart Deepak Kumar 5.
Accordingly, Kamat points out that the Panchayat has already issued demolition notices.
Mr Kamat states that the above seven parties have obtained interim orders from the Additional Director of Panchayats.
“For the past year, no effective hearings have taken place before the Additional Director because the post of Additional Director is not filled in or is vacant. Because of the interim orders, the demolitions could not be carried out, and the parties continued with their commercial activities through the said illegal structures,” Kamat said before the HC.
Kamat states that insofar as the establishment of “Plantain Leaf” operated by Respondent No.28 is concerned, the show cause notice is issued by the Panchayat and Mr Pranay Kamat states that the same will be disposed of within one month.
Kamat states that show cause notices in respect of Norms Pub, 39 Steps, Codda and Shield/Next will be issued within one week from today and the same will also be disposed of within one month from the receipt of response.
Interestingly, learned Advocate General submitted in High Court that in most cases, no permissions or occupancy certificates are obtained.
He submits that undertaking commercial activities through structures which have neither any licences nor occupancy certificates is not permissible.
“In such matters, the Additional Director of Panchayats or the Director of Panchayats, before granting interim orders, are duty-bound to ascertain whether the Appellants have any permissions from the competent authorities,” the AG said.
He says based on interim orders which are almost routinely granted without issuing any reasons, the parties cannot be allowed to continue with commercial activities through structures which have neither any licences nor any occupancy certificates.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Director of Panchayats, in case no Additional Director of Panchayats is available, to dispose of the appeals instituted by the parties referred to in paragraph 4 above as expeditiously as possible and in any case by 05.01.2024.
“We request Mr Priolkar to place a copy of this order before the Director of Panchayats for necessary compliance,” court ordered.
Mr Pavithran learned Counsel for the GSPCB, states that the GSPCB officials will inspect the establishments operated by Respondent Nos.16 to 28 within a week from today.
In case it is found that consent to operate is necessary and the same has not been obtained, then the GSPCB will act in accordance with the law, including action for sealing the premises, he said.
The statement was accepted, and the GSPCB officials must act accordingly.
Considering the allegations in the petition that five of the structures have been put up in areas which would be affected by the CRZ notification, HC permitted the Petitioner to implead the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority as Respondent No.29 in the petition.
