the goan I network
PANAJI
The court has issued notices in both cases to the relevant respondents in both cases.
The Goa Foundation has argued that there is a specific bar imposed on the Investment Board under Section 8 of the Investment Board Act which restrains it from granting approvals or recommendations for projects that are located in CRZ and khazan areas.
“Though the Board (IPB) cannot issue such recommendations, it nevertheless went ahead and granted in-principle clearance, despite the opposition of Alina Saldanha, Minister of Science and Technology,” Goa Foundation’s executive director Claude Alvares said in
a statement.
“The panchayat, which had earlier issued a stop work order, now did an about turn and issued an in-principle licence, despite the fact that the project authority had not received any CRZ or other clearances. The panchayat sarpanch now claimed his hands were tied and that he was bound to grant panchayat licence purely on the strength of the IPB clearance,” he said.
In the other case filed along with one José Lobo of Tuem panchayat, Goa Foundation has sought the cancellation of the licence for a shrimp aquaculture farm at Tuem on grounds that the farm was causing unbearable pollution of drinking water wells and paddy fields, and it was located on tenanted land in violation of the Goa Land Use Act 1991.
“The PIL has been filed to cancel the registrations granted to the farm by the Central Aquaculture Authority of India, based in Chennai. The PIL also states that the aquafarm does not have the consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board,”
Alvares said.
“The operation of the aquaculture farm has disturbed the peace of the village environment as the aerators operate day and night when the the aquafarms are with culture (shrimp). The periodic emptying of the ponds after the shrimp is harvested leads to gross stench which is unbearable for days, until the rotted remains of the shrimp finally dry,” he said in his petition.
Alvares also argues that the aquaculture farms are located in the CRZ where they are explicitly prohibited as per the 1996 Supreme Court judgement on aquaculture besides also being located on tenanted land.
“Any activity that is not ‘agricultural’ as per the Agricultural Tenancy Act 1964 cannot be conducted in tenanted land,” he said.
