PANAJI
A public interest litigation filed before the High Court has challenged the “wholly unjustified and colourable” decisions of the Captain of Ports (CoP) and the North Goa District Magistrate to de-notify and transfer a public pay parking area near the Panaji Ferry Wharf to a private casino operator, M/s Golden Peace Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.
The petition, filed by Jack Sukhija, alleged that the decision to allocate the public space to the casino for operating a private reception and passenger aisle for its clients is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of public interest. The High Court has issued notices to the government, Collector, Public Works Department, CoP, casino operator and others seeking a reply by June 16.
As per the petition, the Panaji Ferry Wharf and its adjoining pay parking area were upgraded and beautified by the PWD at an estimated cost of Rs 20“22 crore. The infrastructure was developed after a request dated June 15, 2015, from the CoP to the District Magistrate, with the stated objective of revenue generation and traffic management.
A notification dated May 24, 2017 issued by the District Magistrate thereafter designated 627 sq mtrs of the area as a ‘Pay Parking Area’.
Despite this, the petition claims that the CoP arbitrarily leased a portion of the upgraded area, including the designated Pay Parking zone, to Golden Peace bypassing all procedural norms. Subsequently, the District Magistrate issued two orders dated December 13, 2023 and March 22, 2024 de-notifying the parking area.
These orders, the petitioner argued, were passed without due application of mind, were never published in the Official Gazette and were not made known to the public.
“The arbitrary transfer of public resources to a private casino operator deprives the petitioner and the citizens and visitors of Panaji of essential parking facilities,” the petition stated, adding the transfer violates statutory requirements and constitutes a gross irregularity.
Sukhija sought quashing of the de-notification order and the NOC granted to the casino operator; reinstatement of the public pay parking facility; cancellation of the permission and all renewals for the erection of temporary sheds; demolition of the existing permanent structure and a judicial enquiry and disciplinary/criminal proceedings against the CoP and the District Magistrate/Collector for alleged illegal transfer of public property.
In addition, the petitioner has requested interim reliefs to restrain the casino operator from continuing any business-related activities in the disputed area and for a stay on the de-notification orders pending final adjudication.
