GURUDAS G PAI Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, party in person, had initially addressed a letter dated 7th July, 2004 to this Court and the same was directed to be registered as a PIL Petition as per Order dated 12.7.2004. The petitioner had contended that a high rise building Menino Regency was constructed in gross violation of the Planning and Development Authority (Development Plan) Regulation 2000, as well as Part IV of the fire protection provisions in the National Building Code of India. It was alleged that the Statutory Authorities, namely, the Planning and Development Authority, at Panaji, as well as the Corporation of the City of Panaji, and the Director of Fire and Emergency Services, Goa had failed in performance of their licensing and supervisory functions needed for strict adherence to fire protection regulation while planning, approving and constructing the high rise building, was sought to be implemented strictly through the orders of this Court, not only in the case of Hotel Menino Regency, but also to stop similar violations in future, so as to serve the public interest in right earnest.

(2.) ON notice by this Court, the Member Secretary, Panaji Planning and Development Authority, as well as the Director of Fire and Emergency Services, Goa filed their affidavits-in-reply contending that the subject-building was constructed as per the approved plans and there were no deviations/violations of the terms and conditions. This Court, by order dated 2.8.2004, directed the hotel owner to be impleaded as an additional respondent and issued notice to him as well. By the said order Mr. Joseph Vaz, a learned Member of the Bar was appointed as a Commissioner to verify the width of the existing entry/exit and also to verify whether the same was in conformity with the plans or not. He submitted his report dated 4.8.2004 and thereafter, the petitioner filed a rejoinder along with some photographs. The Director of Fire and Emergency Services, State of Goa filed an additional affidavit. The hotel owner also has filed affidavit-in-reply. By order dated 4.8.2004, M. J.A. Lobo was appointed to act as an amicus curiae and the petition was admitted by order dated 11.8.2004 and was directed to be finally heard on 6.9.2004.

(3.) THE Court Commissioner, in his report dated 4.8.2004 pointed out the following lapses/violations.