PANAJI
An 84 sq m plot at Sada required more than 100 police personnel, the presence of the South Goa Collector and several senior officials to secure it, prompting the High Court of Bombay at Goa to question the scale of the State's response and the public money spent enforcing a decade-old demolition order.
The court said those who obstructed the exercise should bear the cost, rather than leave taxpayers to foot the bill.
The fencing of the site, where the ‘Murgao Cha Raja’ Ganesh festival shed once stood, was completed under police protection at 11.30 am on November 4. But the exercise left the Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar questioning why so much of the State machinery had to be deployed to secure a small piece of land belonging to the Mormugao Port Authority (MPA).
“Just this, and we had to go through all this trouble. Was this worth it? There has to be some rule. Goa was not like this. We have to do something,” the Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar remarked on Thursday, taking exception to the extensive deployment of police personnel and senior officials, and the public expenditure required to enforce its order.
The Bench also took exception to the South Goa Collector having to remain at the site, stating the officer's time could have been spent on more important administrative responsibilities. “It is a loss to the nation to keep the Collector in attendance for this job. The Collector has better work to do than this...,” it remarked.
The observations came after the court was informed that fencing of the site, where the alleged unauthorised ‘Murgao Cha Raja’ Ganesh festival shed once stood, had finally been completed at 11.30 am on November 4 under police protection.
During the hearing, the Bench questioned Mahesh Mesta and Vedant Chodankar, the two contemnors who appeared personally before it, about the circumstances that led to the obstruction of the authorities' earlier attempt to secure the property.
The Bench, communicating in Marathi, confronted them with the public expenditure incurred to complete the exercise. “Do you understand that lakhs of rupees have been spent on this? You will have to pay for this,” it said.
Questioning what prompted them to obstruct the authorities, the Bench also asked whether Ganapati (Lord Ganesh) had instructed them to do so and, if not, who had told them to carry out the act. “Just for fun?” the Bench asked.
Abhijit Gosavi, appearing for the contemnors, agreed with the Bench that the incident should not have happened.
In its order, the Division Bench recorded the personal presence at the ‘site in question’ and took note of an affidavit filed by the District Magistrate confirming completion of the fencing work.
The district administration's deployment records, as reproduced in the affidavit, also showed that the South Goa SP, Vasco Deputy SP, Vasco police inspector, Deputy Collector of Mormugao, concerned Mamlatdars, and officials of the Mormugao Port Authority, among others, were present at the site at 8.40 am on November 5.
Taking note of the substantial expenditure incurred by the State and the deployment of senior officials, the Bench directed the South Goa SP to submit a rank-wise breakdown of the total police personnel deployed to secure compliance with its order.
It also directed the SP to provide a detailed calculation of the expenditure incurred by the State, based on the prevailing per-day or per-hour rates charged for providing police protection to private parties.
The court directed the SP to place the report on record by November 25 and posted the matter for further hearing on November 30.
