MARGAO
The Margao Municipal Council on Wednesday heaved a sigh of relief as the High Court disposed of a Contempt Petition in respect of a road issue with a direction to the Civic body to asphalt the stretch of road from two points within two months.
The Court, however, ordered that the amount of around Rs 2.73 crores deposited by the MMC can be withdrawn by the Civic body only after it asphalts the stretch of the road between the two points and files a compliance report with photographs in this Court. The MMC will, therefore, have to apply for the withdrawal of this amount after filing the compliance report, the Court stated.
The issue had generated much heat in the Civic body couple of month ago when the High Court had ordered the MMC to deposit the amount in the court. The Civic body had agreed to deposit the amount, after a marathon Council meeting wherein the City Fathers had given a brief to the legal counsel to fight the legal battle and save the tax payers money.
While disposing of the Contempt petition and other miscellaneous petitions, the High Court said the MMC must asphalt the stretch of the road from points D and E within a maximum of two months from today.
“Although the original owners were responsible for such asphalting, MMC was also not diligent in ensuring compliance. Therefore, MMC is directed to complete this asphalting. There is no question of the original owners objecting to such asphalting because it was their case that they had already provided for this road, including the stretch between points D and E, in compliance with the conditions in the permissions granted to them”, the court observed.
The Court further added: “If, curiously, the road or asphalting has disappeared or is now not found at the site, it only means that the road was never provided, and the MMC officials certified it was provided without any verification or collusion or that the road which was provided strangely disappeared by the time the petition was filed in the Court in 2007. In either of the situations, the MMC cannot avoid asphalting the stretch from D to E, and the original owners cannot object to MMC undertaking this exercise. The Court’s orders must not be construed as pretexts for parting with crores of municipal funds to the original owners for works which they claimed to have already carried out and even benefited by way of FAR, completion certificates, occupancy certificates, etc”, the Court added.
