MARGAO
In an interesting development, the petitionfiled by BPS Club, Margao against the order issued by the Goa Lokayukta to keepin abeyance the NOC issued by the Margao Municipal Chief Officer in theproceedings for confirmation of the BPS property in the name of the club, didnot find favour with the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
The club had filed a writ petition seeking awrit of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any otherappropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugnedorder dated October 7, 2026, in proceedings bearing No. 8 of 2026 issued by theGoa Lokayukta.
Justice S G Chapalgaonkar, however, disposedof the writ petition, saying the club was at liberty to raise all contentionsand objections before the Lokayukta instead of impugning an interlocutory orderby filing a writ petition. The court said the petitioner club had everyopportunity to appear before the Lokayukta on the given date, i.e. November 3,2026, and seek modification or reversal/recall of the order.
“The petitioner may oppose continuation of theinterim order beyond November 3, 2026. In that view of the matter, the writpetition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise allcontentions before the Lokayukta and seek appropriate directions,” JusticeChapalgaonkar observed.
The club had contended that the Lokayukta hadpassed the order without hearing the petitioner club or giving it any notice ofthe hearing. “In the two hearings that took place before the Lokayukta, thepetitioner was not noticed. The powers of the Lokayukta are recommendatory innature and no substantive orders can be passed, particularly curtailing thecivil rights of a third party,” the club stated in its writ petition.
The club further argued that the Lokayukta’sorder directly curtailed the petitioner’s right to pursue its remedy before thecompetent authority having jurisdiction to deal with property rights. “TheLokayukta does not possess the powers to pass any interim direction,particularly one that would affect the civil rights of a third party,” the clubsubmitted.
Counsel representing respondent SavioCoutinho, however, drew the High Court’s attention to the Goa Lokayukta Rules,2012, particularly Rule 7 and sub-clauses (c) and (h), to contend that theLokayukta had the power to pass interlocutory orders that were just andnecessary to meet the ends of justice. He further pointed out that the club hada remedy to appear before the Lokayukta and seek recall of the interim ex parteorder if it was aggrieved by it.
Hailing the court order, Coutinho said thegovernment should have intervened in the proceedings since the BPS Clubproperty belonged to the Margao Municipal Council. “When the value of the BPSClub property was pegged at around Rs 14 crore in 2017, the value of theproperty must have gone up to over Rs 100 crore, considering its primelocation. Hence, the government should intervene to protect the publicinterest,” he added.
