MARGAO
Over a decade after the then State government in 2009 issued an order, retrospectively exempting basalt/stone crusher units from obtaining conversion sanads, the High Court has quashed and set aside the order and has directed the government to take consequential action, including implementation of the directions issued by the Court against the units.
The High Court order implies that the fate of basalt/stone crusher units operating across the state without the mandatory conversion sanads now hangs in balance across the State.
“The impugned order issued by the respondent-state by invoking statutory power delegated under section 35 of the Code is found to be manifestly arbitrary and hence wholly unsustainable. The order dated 2/3/2009, issued under section 35 of the Land Revenue Code cannot be sustained and it deserves to be quashed and set aside”, a two-Judge bench of the High Court ruled.
The High Court has passed the Judgement in a writ petition filed by the Sao Jose de Areal Villagers Union challenging the government’s order retrospectively exempting basalt/stone crusher units from obtaining conversion sanads. The government had issued the order after the High Court in 2008 had passed a host of orders concerning the operation of the stone crusher units. However, before action against the stone crushing units could be initiated, the government on March 2, 2009 invoked powers under section 35 of the Goa Land Revenue Code and retrospectively exempted the basalt, stone crusher units, which were having valid registration issued by the department of Mines, Industries, Trade and commerce and were in operation up to December 31, 2007 from obtaining conversion sanads for the area they are presently occupying in the respectively holding.
The State had justified in invoking the power to exempt such lands from operation of sections 30 to 34 of the Code, submitting the order was issued in public interest and in furtherance of the objects of the Code, for the reason that activities of stone crushing were of immense importance for projects of public interest and infrastructure like roads, being undertaken by the respondent-state.
The Court, however, observed that the tenor of the orders passed in Writ Petition no.2o/2008 dated 6/2/2008 to 30/9/2008, sufficiently demonstrate that the respondent-state was facing adverse orders from this Court in the said Writ petition, wherein it had become evident that the stone crusher units had been rampantly functioning illegally for a long period of time and that no steps in that regard were taken by the respondent-State.
“It was when the respondent-State faced such adverse orders with specific reference to failure of stone crusher units to obtain conversion sanads, that the respondent-state all of a sudden issued the impugned order granting exemption, that too retrospectively to such stone crushing units who had failed to obtain conversion sanads while they were rampantly indulging in stone crushing activities”, the Court observed.
On the plea the order was made with public interest in mind, the High Court observed the contention is also misplaced and it is wholly misconceived, saying the State has failed to place on record any material to indicate as to what was the public interest that was being hurt if the stone crusher units were not retrospectively exempted from obtaining conversion sanads, thereby exempting them from paying the necessary charges and penalties.
“The State chose to make only hollow statements in the reply affidavit to claim that all development activity in the State would come to a halt if such step of exempting the stone crusher units retrospectively was not taken. There is no material on record to show that development activities in public interest, like construction of roads etc. would come to a standstill, but for issuance of the impugned order under section 35 of the Code. The material on record, on the other hand indicates that the impugned order came to be issued only to benefit certain stone crushing units, which had been operating illegally and in the absence of the conversion sanads and payment of relevant charges and penalties”, the Court observed.
