M.R.F.LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri G.K. Sardesai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri P. Dangui, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1, Shri S.N. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.5.

(2.) The above petition takes exception to the Notification dtd. 09/03/2015 issued by the State Government declaring a public holiday to the private establishments on account of Zilla Panchayat election.

(3.) When the matter was taken up for hearing on 18/03/2015, we refused ad-interim relief to the petitioner considering that the petitioner had already taken some steps to enable the concerned workmen to exercise their voting rights and observed that any action taken by the petitioner would be at their own risk and subject to the result of the above petition. The matter was thereafter placed for hearing. The Election Commissioner- respondent no.2 as well as Under Secretary of the State Government i.e. Respondent no.1 have filed their affidavit in replies. During the course of the hearing of the above petition, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly accepted that there was no specific provision in law which could entitle the State Government to declare a public holiday on the occasion of the Zilla Panchayats Election for public establishments though it was pointed out that such holiday was declared to facilitate the workers to exercise their voting rights. The learned Advocate General pointed out that the State Government is in the process of introducing an amendment to the Panchayat Raj Act as well as the Municipality Act to facilitate declaring such holiday on account of such election. In such circumstances, as the impugned Notification itself has worked out, the question of examining the validity of such Notification would be purely academic. But however, Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel for the respondent no.5 has raised an apprehension that the petitioner may take action against the concerned workers who had not reported to their duties on such date.