MARGAO
The decision of the Goa police to register FIR against the leaders of Goencho Ekvott and Goyant Kollso Naka in connection with the agitation at Chandor on November 2 has thrown up a question for debate “ whether the police is right in booking the protestors for unlawful assembly on the road at the Chandor railway crossing on November 2 when the road was ordered closed for traffic by the South Goa district Magistrate for five hours from 00.00 to 05.00 hours on November 2?
The FIR against the activists and others has indeed raised the pertinent question since the road in question was ordered to be temporarily closed by the district Magistrate for five hours. Technically speaking, the road remained closed for traffic for five hours since no official order was issued by the Magistrate to open the road for traffic. Those taking part in the agitation pointed out that both two-wheelers and four-wheelers were plying on the road during the Assembly of people even though the road remained technically closed for traffic.
A glance at the South Goa district Magistrate’s order states that the Magistrate Ajit Roy had issued the order under section 115 and 116 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read with government notification, 1989 for the temporary closure/blockage of road for cutting the existing road and making the Level crossing motorable for plying of vehicle and diversion of traffic as per the sit location for laying of double track subject to the compliance of the 23 conditions.
That’s not all. The Collector’s order states that the Superintendent of Police, South vide letter dated October 24 has submitted “no objection” for the temporary closure of the road at the level crossing for cutting the existing road and making the LC motorable for plying of vehicles and diversion of traffic.
As per the district Magistrate’s order, the road was scheduled to be closed at the Chandor level crossing for five hours between 00.00 hours to 05.00 hours on November 2 to facilitate the Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd to execute the work of laying the double track.
This has thrown up the question whether the assembly of persons on the road already closed for traffic amounts to unlawful Assembly with the district Magistrate’s order clearly stating that the road in question is closed for traffic for five hours.
When this question was posed to the South district Police Chief, SP Pankaj Kumar Singh, he defended the decision of the Maina Curtorim police to register the FIR against the six leaders of the organisations spearheading the anti-track doubling and coal transportation movement.
“The Collector might have issued the order for the closure of the road, but the road was not closed since the railways did not take up the work of laying the double track. The assembly of persons on the road becomes unlawful since they were told to disperse by the police as well as by the executive magistrate’, he said.
MainaCurtorim Police station in-charge, PI ShivramVaingankar also defended the decision to register the FIR against the six persons and others. “The police did not barricade and closed the road at the Chandor level crossing since the railways had decided not to take up the work of laying the double track. Hence, the road remained open before the agitators made the unlawful assembly and blocked the road”, he added.
