MAPUSA
The Bombay High Court at Goa has initiated contempt proceedings against former Mapusa Municipal Council (MMC) Chief Officer Chandrakant Shetkar, now the council’s Administrator, for prima facie delaying compliance with its directions on action against unauthorised structures.
A division bench comprising Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar, in an order, observed that there appeared to be a clear intent on Shetkar’s part to delay action in terms of the court’s April 17, 2023 order.
The bench has issued a contempt notice to Shetkar and directed him to remain personally present before the court on December 15, warning that appropriate warrants could be issued if he fails to appear.
The proceedings arise from alleged non-compliance with directions to the MMC chief officer to decide three show-cause notices concerning offending structures.
The court had directed the disposal of two notices dated June 12, 2018 and December 6, 2018 by June 30, 2023. It had also directed that a third show-cause notice be issued within 15 days, by May 2, 2023, based on complaints made by the petitioners.
The bench noted that Shetkar was the chief officer in charge of the Mapusa Municipal Council as of June 26, 2023, and was therefore responsible for implementing the court’s directions.
Although the third show-cause notice was issued on May 5, 2023, the court found that the first notice was disposed of only on February 16, 2026, well beyond the stipulated deadline.
The court further noted that the orders passed on the notices were conditional, allowing the person who had erected the offending structures six months to seek regularisation, failing which the structures were to be removed.
However, it observed that Shetkar subsequently directed demolition of the structure through an order dated June 25, 2025, almost two years after the original directions.
The bench also took note of Shetkar’s failure to file an affidavit in the contempt proceedings despite the passage of more than a year after he was first served notice on June 4, 2025.
“Till date, i.e., after more than one year and three months, he has not yet filed his affidavit,” the court noted, adding that more than 19 hearings had taken place.
The bench rejected a request by his advocate for further time to file the affidavit.
The bench also recorded that Shetkar had not appeared in person at the hearing and directed him to remain personally present on the next date, cautioning that failure to do so could compel the court to issue appropriate warrants.
