MARGAO
Verda resorts has knocked on the doors of Carmona Panchayat for renewal of its license based on an order passed by the Additional Panchayat Director, South, allowing an appeal filed by it under section 72 (3) of the Goa Panchayati Raj Act.
Carmona Sarpanch Savita Mascarenhas has confirmed to The Goan that the panchayat has received the Additional Panchayat Director’s order only recently, adding that Verda has applied for the license. She, however, hastened to add that the panchayat will take a call on it at the forthcoming meeting of the body.
Verda had filed an appeal before the Court of Additional Panchayat Director after the panchayat had withheld renewal of the license by asking the resort to produce documents showing the change in use of the building from residential to commercial.
Incidentally, while allowing Verda’s appeal, the Additional Panchayat Director Florina Colaco did not issue any specific directions to the panchayat body to issue the license, but has asked the panchayat to take note of the observations made in the order and act accordingly.
In her order, Florina observed that if there had to be any such instance of health hazard or the activities conducted being obnoxious, the panchayat would have been justified in the actions contemplated by it to close down the trade.
Referring to the argument that commercial activities are being carried out in the building, the order stated that Regulation 6A.2I of the Goa Building Regulation 2010 does not prohibit the activities carried out by the appellant. “The respondents (panchayat) have harped upon the fact that section 70 pertaining to grant of permissions for trade has to be read in consonance with section 66 which pertain to construction license and that only if the construction was for commercial purpose, than and only the license could have been isused. This court is of the view that section 70 and section 66 are independent of each other. The legislature would have otherwise worded section 70 in such a way that section 66 would have had to be read with section 70 which has not been the case. In what way and in what manner the activity of conducting a trade, which is in the nature of bar and restaurant, resort and spa would constitute and mean to be an industry has not been justified by the respondents and to equate such an activity to that of an industry would be an fallacious,” the Additional Director stated.
In so far as regulation 6A,4(2) of the Building Regulations 2010 is concerned, the order stated that commercial use in zone S1, S3 and S4 is permissible and it is only because of this regulation, the department of tourism recognized the trade of using the said projects for commercial gain. “Just because a newly elected body has taken over the reigns from the previous body, acts done cannot be just reversed but a futuristic policy of how to go about as and when such type of applications can definitely be framed. Vindictive actions on permissions already granted unless there had to be grave and irreparable irregularity in the process of issuance of trade license, it would be improper to withhold such permissions on the principles of estoppels,” the order stated.
