BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD Vs. SARPANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , has, inter alia, prayed that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to issue NOC for construction of project and letter dated 25th May, 2001 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,50,050/- as penalty and Rs. 1,00,000/- as health fees be quashed.

(2.) The petitioner is a Corporation. It is a government of India Undertaking. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the local authorities and respondent No. 3 is the over all incharge of the Panchayats in the State of Goa.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that in order to improve the telephone facilities and provide facilities in the fast developing area of Porvorim, the Government acquired a plot for staff quarters and for setting up of telephone exchange. According to the petitioner, inspite of the matter being urgent, respondents nos. 1 and 2 refused to process the file and submit the same to the Chief Town planner. In view of this conduct of respondents nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner filed an appeal under the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 for directions to the respondents to forward the construction file to the Senior Town Planner, mapusa. The Deputy Director of panchayats vide Order dated 17th September, 1999 directed respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to forward the file within one week's time to the Senior Town Planner. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the Director of Panchayats, which was dismissed by the Director of Panchayats on 6th June, 2000. According to the petitioner, inspite of the directions to forward the file to the Senior town Planner, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 continued sending notices, making unfounded and false allegations in order to cause delay. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 again issued show-cause notice dated 26th August, 2000. The petitioner sent a reply to it. According to the petitioner, the Senior Town planner approved the project vide NOC dated 19th September, 2000. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 demanded additional documents which were given by the petitioner on 24th October, 2000 only to avoid the delay. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter on 17th November, 2000 asked the petitioner to submit ownership documents indicating that the property stood in the name of the petitioner inspite of knowing that the land was acquired by the Government for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner addressed various letters and brought to the attention of the respondents the losses that were being caused to the petitioner. Prior to that the petitioner had also given additional documents to respondent No. 2. Inspite of all this, on 18th December, 2000, the petitioner again received a letter from respondent No. 1 demanding deed of partition indicating that the land was allotted to the petitioner. Respondent no. 1 then passed a resolution on 15th March, 2001 refusing to approve the plans and issue noc for the construction. The petitioner then approached the Director of Panchayats against the said resolution. The Director of panchayats set aside the said notice and directed the respondents to issue construction licence within 15 days. Respondent No. 1 then vide its letter dated 25th May, 2001 directed the petitioner to pay construction fee of Rs. 2,50,100/-, penalty of Rs. 2,50,050/-and sanitation and health fee of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Being aggrieved by this conduct of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred this petition for the aforestated reliefs.