The Bombay High Court at Goa disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the vires/validity of certain amendments to Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010.
The petitioners also challenged the certain permissions granted to respondent no.5 (Private Limited) based on such amendments.
In February 01,, the affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no.5 stating that respondent no.5 does not propose to undertake any activities based upon the impugned permissions. Further, the affidavit states that the respondent no.5 does not propose to even apply for any renewal of the technical clearance order and the construction licence dated 15.09.2015.
Affidavit of respondent no.5 dated 30.01.2023 reads as follows:-
‘3. I say that the Technical Clearance Order was issued to the Respondent No.5 with the condition that the same shall be valid for 3 years from the date of issuance of Construction License, provided the Construction License is issued within the period of 3 years. I say that the Construction License was issued on 15.09.2015 and hence the Technical Clearance Order dated 28.05.2015 as also the Construction License dated 15.09.2015 presently stand lapse on completion of the period of 3 years, viz., on 15.09.2018.
4…
5…
6. I say that with a view to avoid further delay in the matter, the Respondent No.5 has taken an in principle decision not to implement the project in the said property, viz., group housing as per Exhibits D and M to the Writ Petition. 7. I say that the Respondent No.5 will not apply for renewal of the Technical Clearance Order dated 28.05.2015 as also the Construction License dated 15.09.2015, as the Respondent no.5 does not wish to go ahead with the project which is the subject matter of the licenses impugned by the Petitioners in the present PIL Writ Petition.’
Considering the aforesaid, Costa Frias, Counsel for the petitioners agrees that the reliefs in the petition stand worked out and the petition could be disposed of. However, he submits that the challenge to the vires and the amendments may be kept open to be agitated in an appropriate case.
Accordingly, by accepting statements in the affidavit of respondent no5, the Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande dispose of the petition. Since the High Court have not adjudicated on the issue of constitutional validity/vires of the impugned amendments, it is obvious that such issue is left open , the Court observed.