The State government's hurried move to take the ordinance route and amend the Goa Municipalities Act 1968, and later decide to keep it in abeyance reflects not only the indecisiveness but also exposes a conceivable motive to push through a significant piece of legislation without debate and scrutiny. The Goa Municipalities Amendment Ordinance 2020 promulgated on December 22, 2020, proposed sweeping changes to the existing Act including an assessment of all houses for tax, irrespective of permissions granted, regularization of current occupiers of municipal premises, auto-renewal of all licenses issued by the municipality and fixing accountability on municipal staff for the verification process. It also prescribes a jail term of up to 3 years and fines of up to Rs 2 if any person sub-lets leased premises of the civic body, an offence which was to be treated cognizable and non-bailable.
The fact of the matter is that these amendments are sensitive yet crucial because, in some cases, they seek to rectify wrongs that have been overlooked and passed down over decades. Revenue leakages could be plugged and lease rights may have been sought to be redefined within the parameters of the Act putting an end to unauthorized transfer or sub-letting of shops and business establishments. However, as much as these changes will go into streamlining systems, they would impact businesses of many local traders and shopkeepers who have been active stakeholders for nearly six decades. In this context, the amendment should have been in the public domain, and those involved need to be appraised before the process of law-making begins.
We do not doubt the recommendations of the ND Agarwal report vis-a-vis changes to the Goa Municipalities Act 1968. What we suspect is the implementation part, and we don’t understand why the government has not acted on any of the critical reports submitted earlier by ND Agarwal, including the one on the functioning of the Goa Medical College and the Panaji Market Scam. Lest we forget, the submission on Simplification of Procedures for Effective Delivery of Public Services has gathered enough dust since forwarding it in June 2015 to the then Chief Minister Laxmikant Pareskar.
Interestingly, a government which is so adamant in defending issues which the public is vehemently fighting against, by putting across an argument of development and welfare of the State, has now succumbed meekly to the slightest of pressure. It goes a long way to show that the subject matter and its implications are not thoroughly studied.
It would have made better sense if the government allowed the normal course to follow instead of pressing the emergency ordinance route. Can the government explain why it chose to circumvent a debate before the Legislative Assembly which gathers for a 4-day session from January 25? With civic polls looming, the move only raises strong suspicion of an attempt to misuse amendments and leverage equations in the run-up to elections.
