PANAJI
If Michael Lobo was a political commentator, he would have earned accolades for his "all is not well in the government" comment in the context of the ignominy suffered by the Pramod Sawant government on the floor of the House: Five legislations, already introduced, were withdrawn and a sixth sent to a select committee.
But then, the former minister and Calangute MLA is no political commentator. He is a politician, legislator and to top it all belongs to the treasury benches. Instead of accolades, he earned a public reprimand from his party boss, Sadanand Shet Tanavade.
The Michael Lobo sideshow apart, the manner in which senior ministers have gone about indulging in a round of blame-game and one-upmanship only goes to prove that all is indeed not well in the cabinet.
At the receiving end has been the law department, which plays a crucial role in vetting every government-sponsored legislation for its constitutionality.
The argument proffered to put all blame on the law department is that the bills were poorly drafted, had legal and technical flaws which put the government in the embarrassing situation of having to withdraw them.
But, it's more than just the law department where 'all is not well' in this government.
====
Buck stops at cabinet
For a government bill to make it to the agenda of the House goes through an elaborate back and forth process in a multi-layered system. Stage-I is when the department in whose subject domain the legislation falls drafts the bill. It is then vetted by the Secretary, usually an IAS officer, before the Minister concerned okays it and his office forwards it to the law department for legal vetting.
The file containing the draft of the bill is then reverted back to the minister to be moved to the cabinet. It is only when the cabinet approves it that the bill can be piloted by the concerned minister in the House where it goes through the three-stage process -- introduction, consideration and passing.
Obviously, therefore, all the five bills withdrawn by the government had been "cleared" by the cabinet for the minister concerned to pilot them in the Assembly and whatever the outcome is the collective responsibility of the entire cabinet.
====
Rane's four bills down
The contentious Goa Town and Country Planning (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2024, piloted by TCP Minister Vishwajit Rane was rolled back by the minister after its introduction in the House, but not before a verbal slugfest in a cabinet meeting held on the sidelines of the monsoon session.
Although this piece of legislation had already been approved by them in the preceding cabinet meeting, three ministers -- Mauvin Godinho, Atanasio (Babush) Monserrate and Rohan Khaunte -- had second thoughts on it and raised concern over the ramifications it will have for them and the BJP at the next electoral battle in 2027.
One controversial provision in the Bill proposed to insert a section in the TCP law which sought to nullify any past court verdict against approvals granted for zoning and land-use conversions under the controversial Outline Development Plans (ODPs) of Calangute-Candolim and Arpora-Nagoa-Parra.
These were the same two ODPs which Rane had held in abeyance in 2022, and took an aggressive stance against Lobo, accusing him of incorporating in them largescale illegalities when the latter was the chairman of the North Goa Planning and Development Authority. It was all forgotten when Lobo switched camps.
The bill also had another clause which stated: “no suit or other proceeding shall lie or be maintained or continued in any court challenging such approvals/certificates/reports”.
It was this clause that evoked sharp reactions from the Opposition, particularly the Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party, besides civil society and a large number of activists who were already up in arms over large-scale land-use and zoning conversions of eco-sensitive areas in villages by the TCP department under equally controversial sections 17(2) and 35A of the TCP Act.
Rane, at the time of seeking leave of the House to withdraw the bill, also sought to blame the Law department saying: “I did not insert the validation clause in the Bill. The validation clause was a suggestion of the Law department, not my department. Due to this, there is a sentiment among the people that we are running the government in the form of a dictatorship.”
So riled was Rane with the encounter with the Godinho-Monserrate-Khaunte trio in the cabinet meeting that he announced in a huff that he would withdraw three other bills he had introduced in the House -- the Goa Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) (Amendment) Bill 2024, Goa Municipalities (Amendment), Bill 2024 and City of Panaji Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2024.
===
Mauvin 2 bills down
Then was the turn of Industries Minister Mauvin Godinho, who was forced to withdraw the Goa Industrial Development (Amendment) Bill, 2024, the very same day he introduced the piece of legislation which under the garb of enhancing the 'ease of doing business' quotient had sought to give sweeping powers to the GIDC, its managing director and other officials overriding other laws and also local authorities like panchayats and municipalities.
Bamboozled by objective and high octane resistance to the legislation from MLAs in the Opposition, especially Leader of the Opposition Yuri Alemao, Aam Aadmi Party's (AAP) Venzy Viegas, Congress' Carlos Alvares-Ferreira and Goa Forward Party's (GFP) Vijai Sardesai, Godinho himself volunteered to withdraw the bill moments after he had introduced it.
"I will withdraw this bill and bring it back after redrafting it. But I want to say that the intention behind it was to improve transparency and the ease of doing business," Godinho said while withdrawing it.
Another Bill that Godinho had introduced -- The Goa Investment Promotion and Facilitation of Single Window Clearance (Amendment) Bill, 2024 -- was similarly opposed by the Opposition MLAs when it was taken up for consideration on August 7, the last day of the monsoon session.
Godinho was indisposed on that day and Sawant who stood in for him agreed to the buoyant Opposition's demand to send the Bill to a House Select Committee.
Sawant said the Bill was aimed at strengthening the Goa Investment Promotion and Facilitation Board (IPFB) for enhancing ease of doing business. However, the Opposition Opposition MLAs were unwilling to take his word and raised objections to the provision which sought to create a 'planning, development and construction committee' with unbridled powers to convert land, approve plans, issue construction licences and collect fees on behalf of all other departments besides being the arbitrator for all other State laws in force.
The Opposition termed this committee which had the Chief Secretary as chairman a 'super government' which would trample upon the powers of local bodies like panchayats and create strife in the villages.
