Town & Country Planning Board Vs. Mr. Serrao Francis Socorro & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1195 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10912/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10912/2000)
Petitioner: Town & Country Planning Board
Respondent: Mr. Serrao Francis Socorro & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1195 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10912/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10912/2000)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 02, 2001
Head Note:
TOWN PLANNING
The Goa Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974
Section 45 – Powers of appellate authority – Alteration in building – If contrary to approved permission – Appellate Authority deciding in negative – High Court taking contrary view and directing the matter to be referred for inquiry – Justification. Held that when authority works under statute, in absence of material no inference of corruption can be drawn. High Court was not justified.
Held:
When an Authority functions under statute and is vested with appellate jurisdiction and exercises its powers in those provi-sions unless there is sufficient material before the Court, no inference can be drawn that the action taken by such Authority is the result of corruption or otherwise requiring investigation by the Commission constituted under the Goa Public Men’s Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act, 1988. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In a proceeding arising under the Goa, Daman and Diu Town & Country Planning Act, 1974 (the ‘Act’ for short) certain direc-tions had been issued by the High Court in relation to a building constructed by Mr. Serrao Francis Socorro. The question was whether the alteration in the building amounts to development which is contrary to the approved permission. The matter had two rounds of litigation. The original authority to which the question was referred took the view that such development was contrary to the approved permission and, therefore, directed to demolish the alteration. When the matter was carried in appeal to the Appellate Authority under Section 45 of the said Act, the Appellate Authority reversed that order. The matter was carried further to the High Court. The learned Judge of the High Court who considered the matter took the view that the Appellate Authority was not justified in passing the order and restored the order of the original Authority and while doing so took strong exception to the action of the Appellate Authority and stated as follows:
“In the order of the Appellate Authority, no reasons are discern-ible as to how the constructions put up are not development. Prima facie on the same reasoning, the petitioner’s construction would also be not development. Under Section 121 of the Planning Act, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintained against the Government, Planning and Development Authority or any of its officers or persons duly appointed or authorised by it in respect of anything in good faith done or purporting to be done under the provisions of the Act or the Rules or Regulations made thereun-der. The Town and Country Planning Board is an Appellate Authori-ty under the planning Act. Section 121 comes into play when the judgment is bona fide. Prima facie, I am of the opinion, the judgment is not bona fide. Hence, the office to issue notices to the persons listed in paragraph (21) at serial nos. 1 to 8, as to why the matter should not be referred to the hon’ble Governor of Goa under Section 24 of the Goa Public Men’s Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act, 1988 and Rules, 1993. Notices made returnable on 14.7.2000. Office to serve notice through Bailiff.”
3. When an Authority functions under statute and is vested with appellate jurisdiction and exercises its powers in those provi-sions unless there is sufficient material before the Court, no inference can be drawn that the action taken by such Authority is the result of corruption or otherwise requiring investigation by the Commission constituted under the Goa Public Men’s Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act, 1988.
4. In the present case apart from the proceedings in the case no other material is available on the record. By merely looking at the proceedings or the order of the Appellate Authority or when the Appellate Authority has stuck to its view taken earlier, no inference can be drawn that the same calls for such action in the matter. In this view of the matter, we do not think that the High Court is justified in having proceeded to direct that the appellant herein deserved to be referred to the Governor of Goa under Section 24 of the Goa Public Men’s Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act, 1988 and Rules, 1993. There-fore, that part of the orders deserves to be and is set aside. In other respects the order made by the High Court shall remain intact.
5. Inasmuch as the respondents are not appearing in this case at our instance Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Advocate of this Court, ably as-sisted us as amicus-curiae and we are beholden to him.
6. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.
1. Leave granted.
2. In a proceeding arising under the Goa, Daman and Diu Town & Country Planning Act, 1974 (the ‘Act’ for short) certain direc-tions had been issued by the High Court in relation to a building constructed by Mr. Serrao Francis Socorro. The question was whether the alteration in the building amounts to development which is contrary to the approved permission. The matter had two rounds of litigation. The original authority to which the question was referred took the view that such development was contrary to the approved permission and, therefore, directed to demolish the alteration. When the matter was carried in appeal to the Appellate Authority under Section 45 of the said Act, the Appellate Authority reversed that order. The matter was carried further to the High Court. The learned Judge of the High Court who considered the matter took the view that the Appellate Authority was not justified in passing the order and restored the order of the original Authority and while doing so took strong exception to the action of the Appellate Authority and stated as follows:
“In the order of the Appellate Authority, no reasons are discern-ible as to how the constructions put up are not development. Prima facie on the same reasoning, the petitioner’s construction would also be not development. Under Section 121 of the Planning Act, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintained against the Government, Planning and Development Authority or any of its officers or persons duly appointed or authorised by it in respect of anything in good faith done or purporting to be done under the provisions of the Act or the Rules or Regulations made thereun-der. The Town and Country Planning Board is an Appellate Authori-ty under the planning Act. Section 121 comes into play when the judgment is bona fide. Prima facie, I am of the opinion, the judgment is not bona fide. Hence, the office to issue notices to the persons listed in paragraph (21) at serial nos. 1 to 8, as to why the matter should not be referred to the hon’ble Governor of Goa under Section 24 of the Goa Public Men’s Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act, 1988 and Rules, 1993. Notices made returnable on 14.7.2000. Office to serve notice through Bailiff.”
3. When an Authority functions under statute and is vested with appellate jurisdiction and exercises its powers in those provi-sions unless there is sufficient material before the Court, no inference can be drawn that the action taken by such Authority is the result of corruption or otherwise requiring investigation by the Commission constituted under the Goa Public Men’s Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act, 1988.
4. In the present case apart from the proceedings in the case no other material is available on the record. By merely looking at the proceedings or the order of the Appellate Authority or when the Appellate Authority has stuck to its view taken earlier, no inference can be drawn that the same calls for such action in the matter. In this view of the matter, we do not think that the High Court is justified in having proceeded to direct that the appellant herein deserved to be referred to the Governor of Goa under Section 24 of the Goa Public Men’s Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act, 1988 and Rules, 1993. There-fore, that part of the orders deserves to be and is set aside. In other respects the order made by the High Court shall remain intact.
5. Inasmuch as the respondents are not appearing in this case at our instance Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Advocate of this Court, ably as-sisted us as amicus-curiae and we are beholden to him.
6. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.
