MILIND PRABHU Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the validity of Regulations No.17.1 to 17.10 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ''the said Regulation '') being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) MR . Pangam, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that Regulation No. 17.5 will have an effect of taking away the business of hoarding, as most of the roads in Goa are having width of less than 10 metres. The learned Counsel submits that the said Regulation is taking away the right guaranteed to a citizen under clause (g) of sub -section (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees right to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The learned Counsel submits that though, in view of sub -section (6) of Article 19 it is permissible for the State to impose reasonable restrictions, the onus is on the State to establish that the restriction so imposed is in public interest. The learned Counsel relies on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Faruk vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 1969 (1) SCC 853.

(3.) THE third submission raised by Shri Pangam is that the subject of hoarding would be within the domain of the Goa Municipalities Act and the Goa Panchayat Raj Act and, therefore, the regulations which are in conflict thereto have to give way to the provisions of the Municipal Act and the Panchayat Raj Act are concerned.