It needs to be appreciated that the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 which was notified on 15th November, 1975 is an Act to provide for planning the development and use of rural and urban land in the Union territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and for purposes connected therewith.
For the purposes of the present evaluation of the statutes, the following amendments categorically pertaining to the State of Goa would be reviewed.
The Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the TCP Act has been organised into the following sections:
CHAPTER III
Regional Plans
9. Power to direct preparation of regional plans.
10. Preparation of regional plans.
11. Contents of regional plan.
12. Board to consider the regional plan.
13. Public notice of the regional plan.
14. Approval by Government.
15. Publication of regional plan.
16. Effect of regional plan.
16A. Development to conform to regional plan.
16B. Change of zone in Regional Plan.
17. Revision of regional plan.
As per the Goa Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill, 2023, the newly inserted sub-Section 17(2) reads as follows:
“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if the Government is of the opinion that alteration/modification is necessary to be carried out to the regional plan for the purpose of rectifying any inadvertent error that has occurred in the regional plan, and for correction of inconsistent/incoherent zoning proposals in the regional plan, it may direct the Chief Town Planner (Planning) to carry out such alteration/ modification to the regional plan and the Chief Town Planner (Planning) shall by notification in the Official Gazette carry out such alteration/modification to the regional plan in such manner and only to such extent as prescribed.”
Section 17 which bears the long title:
17. Revision of regional plan
Consecutively follows after Section 16B which bears the long title:
16B. Change of zone in Regional Plan
Therefore, the natural progression of the statutes happens to be in consonance with the recent amendments to the TCP Act, 1974.
Hence, in the event that the newly inserted sub-Section 17(2) is reviewed before the Court of Law under Article 13 of the Constitution of India, the potential petitioners who assail the correctness of 17(2) would have to demonstrate an inconsistency which can be detected in the interpretation of the two statutes while reading them in succession of one after the other.
In other words, sub-Section 17(2) would be qualified by Section 16B and both the provision would most likely be interpreted in a manner so as to afford consistency with the ultimate intention of the legislature.
Relatedly from a perspective of legal interpretation, it needs to be understood that well-established legal principles govern the resolution of such inconsistencies.
In Project Blue Sky Inc. v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 [70], the High Court of Australia considered a statute which appeared both to permit and to prohibit the making of certain decisions by an administrative agency.
The Austrailian High Court resolved the apparent inconsistency by working out the ‘hierarchy of the provisions’ in the statute, and it did this by examining the statute’s structure and the obligations to which it purported to give rise.
‘Reconciling [inconsistent] provisions’, the court said, ‘will often require the court “to determine which is the leading provision and which the subordinate provision, and which must give way to the other”.
According to Andrew Currie (2020) in his thesis as a Postdoctoral Fellow UCLA Law and Philosophy Program, titled:
INTERPRETATION AND INCONSISTENCY
opined that:
“Something other than the legal content of a provision never gives rise to legal rights or obligations: effective content is always legal content, and so apparently inconsistent provisions do not operate one way before, and another way after, a court resolves the apparent inconsistency.”
The following latin maxims would need to be considered while looking into the constitutionality of Section 17(2) of the TCP Act, 1974:
Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant
A Latin term literally meaning “things general do not derogate from things special”.
This is a common law principle for construing legislation which holds that a syntactical presumption may be made that where there is a conflict between a general and a specific provision, the specific provision will prevail.
Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus
As the foundation is removed, the superstructure shall collapse.
Casus Omissus
Whether a situation is omitted from or not provided for by statute or regulation and therefore needs to be governed by the common law.
Ejusdem Generis
According to the Black’s Law Dictionary (8th edition, 2004.), “the principle of Ejusdem Generis is where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things by particular and specific words. Not only these general words are construed but also held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind as those specifically enumerated.”
Noscitur a Sociis
A doctrine or rule of construction: the meaning of an unclear or ambiguous word (as in a statute or contract) should be determined by considering the words with which it is associated in the context.
In conclusion, the prerogative of enacting new laws and promulgating subsequent amendments reside within the domain of the Legislative Assembly’s powers and functions enshrined in the Constitution of India.
