HC says town planner’s action has legal consequences, open to judicial review

MAPUSA
The Bombay High Court at Goa has ruled that a writ petition challenging an order passed by the senior town planner, Mapusa, is maintainable before a single judge.
Justice Valmiki Menezes dismissed a preliminary objection raised in a writ petition filed by activist Avertino Miranda against the Village Panchayat of Socorro and others, including real estate firm ONS Housing Pvt Ltd.
The objection, raised by the respondent (ONS Housing), contended that the petition could not be heard by a single judge under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, as the impugned order dated November 22, 2024 ” passed by the senior town planner ” was not covered under Chapter XVII Rule 18(3) of the Rules.
Miranda, who owns a flat in Harmony Co-operative Housing Society, Socorro, alleged that land bearing Survey No 376/2 was subdivided in 1980 with two designated open spaces ” one measuring 525 sq m and another 645 sq m. According to him, subsequent owners and developers illegally merged an open space of 525 sq m with an adjoining plot of 900 sq m and obtained construction permissions on the entire 1,425 sq m area without maintaining the mandatory 35-metre setback from the national highway.
Despite his complaints to the authorities, construction allegedly continued. Following a High Court direction in an earlier petition, the town planner issued show-cause notices to the developers but later withdrew them ” which became the subject of the present challenge.
The key question before the High Court was whether the order passed by the town planner in withdrawing the show-cause notices was quasi-judicial in nature, and therefore, whether the writ petition challenging such an order could be heard by a single judge.
Justice Menezes held that although town planners are not expressly empowered under the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, to revoke or withdraw permissions, the act of issuing or revoking a technical clearance necessarily involves adherence to principles of natural justice. Therefore, when a town planner decides on a complaint or revocation matter, the act assumes a quasi-judicial character.
The court observed that under Regulation 3.10 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, authorities such as Planning and Development Authorities, Municipal Councils and Panchayats are required to follow due process while revoking development permissions. A similar procedure, it said, must be followed by town planners as well.
“By its very nature, revocation or withdrawal of permission entails serious civil consequences, and such an order must follow notice and hearing,” Justice Menezes said, adding that the town planner’s decision to withdraw the show-cause notice was a quasi-judicial act amenable to judicial review by a single judge.
Holding that the petition was maintainable before a single judge under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the court dismissed the preliminary objection raised by ONS Housing and directed that the matter be proceeded with accordingly.