WINSTON DIAS Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is praying for declaration that the provisions of Sec. 94A and 94B contained in Chapter X-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Health Act, 1985, amended by Goa Public Health Amendment Act, 2002 and the Guidelines in the office memorandum dtd. 22/11/2004 prescribing procedure for the purpose of carrying out instructions/order in Chapter X-A to be unconstitutional, null and void and be struck down as ultra vires the Articles 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is also praying for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature of certiorari or any order or direction quashing and setting aside order dtd. 13/3/2007 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Mapusa Municipal Council, Mapusa Goa, directing release of water connection to house no. 114 on consideration of application presented by respondent no. 5.

(2.) Petitioner contends that he and his wife are lawful owners of immovable property surveyed under Chalta No. 1 of P.T. Sheet no. 38 in the city survey of Mapusa situate at Zambulcalim of the Caraswaddo ward of the Mapusa city. Petitioner has leased out part of residential house in favour of respondent no. 5 which is in his occupation as a tenant. Petitioner presented petition seeking eviction of respondent no. 5/tenant under the provisions of Goa Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 in the Court of Rent Controller, Mapusa. Eviction petition presented by petitioner is still pending.

(3.) Respondent no. 5 presented suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 218/90/C in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Mapusa praying for grant of permanent injunction seeking restrain order against petitioner and his mother, since deceased, from blocking an alleged 3 meter wide access to the said house. Petitioner and his mother contested the suit and also presented counter claim seeking decree of perpetual injunction restraining respondent no 5 from interfering in petitioner's possession of the suit property and from doing any construction, cutting any trees, demolishing any structure, or filing up an pits and/or from interfering with the agricultural operations in the said property. The suit presented by respondent no. 5 came to be dismissed however, decree has been passed in favour of petitioner on consideration of counter claim. Appeal presented by respondent no. 5 also came to be dismissed upholding decree passed by the trial Court. It is thus contended that respondent no. 5 has been restrained by order of permanent injunction. It is further contended by petitioner that in the month of September 2001, there was an attempt at the instance of respondent no. 5 to secure water connection leading to the residential part in occupation of respondent no. 5. Petitioner objected for laying pipe line through his property and providing water connection without notice to him. On consideration of the objection tendered by petitioner, water connection issued to respondent no. 5 has been disconnected on 29/10/2001. Respondent no. 5 tendered application on 15/2/2004 to the Rent Controller praying for direction to petitioner not to raise any objection for providing water supply by the Government department to the residential premises in occupation of respondent no. 5. Petitioner contested the application by presenting his say. During the pendency of application, respondent no. 5 approached the public health authorities for providing water connection and the Chief Executive Officer, Mapusa Municipal Council, in his capacity as designated authority under Sec. 94A of the Goa Public Health Act, considered the request of respondent no. 5 favourably and directed to provide water connection to respondent no. 5. Order in that regard has been issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Mapusa Municipal Council on 13/3/2007. Having secured order from the designated officer, respondent no. 5 withdrew his application tendered to the Rent Controller.