PANAJI
The Supreme Court has adjourned to July the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Goa government challenging the High Court’s decision to read down Section 17(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974.
When the matter came up for hearing on Friday in Court No. 3, the government sought an adjournment after which the Bench listed the case before a regular bench for hearing on July 21.
The State government has filed two appeals against the High Court’s judgment dated March 13 in PIL Writ Petition No. 16 of 2023, PIL Writ Petition No. 17 of 2023 and PIL Writ Petition (F) No. 2317 of 2023, which read down Section 17(2) of the Act.
The adjournment request came after the matter was initially listed before a vacation bench, following a specific request for an urgent hearing by the state government through a letter dated May 28.
The letter, issued from the office of senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, was circulated to the Supreme Court lawyers representing NGO Goa Foundation, which had earlier filed a caveat in the case.
“Significantly, the High Court has itself stayed the operation of the impugned judgment for a period of six weeks to enable the Petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before this Court. The Petitioner will suffer irreparable harm and irreversible consequences if Section 17(2) is not implemented in accordance with the legislative framework, especially as the impugned decision directly affects the exercise of statutory powers and ongoing planning processes. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that several cases pertaining to Section 17 (2) are currently pending before the High Court, and the impugned judgment will impact the outcome of those cases,” it stated.
“In view of the grave and urgent nature of the matter, it is most respectfully prayed that the present petition be listed for hearing before this Court at the earliest, and preferably on or before May 29, 2025, failing which the Petitioner would be put to serious prejudice and irretrievable loss.”
The Goa Foundation, expressing disappointment over the government's approach, noted that it now appears the state has filed two SLPs -- one in the name of the Chief Secretary and the other in the name of the TCP Department -- “to enable it to be represented by two senior counsel, and not just one, thus raising the stakes of the two appeals.”
