SUHAS NAIK Vs. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PANAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a holder of Diploma in Engineering recognized by the State Board of Technical Education of the Maharashtra State, challenges by this Writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the refusal of the respondent to entertain the plans for the construction of a building with a plinth area of 255 square metres, signed by him, and further prays for the withdrawal of the restriction imposed on the engineers in Regulation 5(1) of the Draft Regulation, 1984, framed by the respondent.

(2.) Petitioner is a Licenciate in Civil Engineering from the Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute, which is a Central Technical Institute of the Maharashtra State, being also a holder of a Diploma in Civil Engineering recognized by the State Board of Technical Education of the Maharashtra State. It seems he had been working as a Section Officer (Junior Engineer) in the Mapusa Municipality from 1972 to 1974, including one year as full-fledged engineer, and thereafter, for the Omanian and the European Construction Companies upto the year 1981, in which he returned to Goa and began his professional activities as a Consulting Engineer at Mapusa. He got himself registered as an engineer with the Public Works Department and various Municipalities in Goa, as well as with the respondent on August 6, 1988, after having satisfied the requirements under the Rules for the registration as a qualified engineer. This registration was renewed upto December, 1987.

(3.) One Andrew Francisce do Sousa submitted to the respondent an application dated August 26, 1986, alongwith plans for a building with a plinth area of 255 square metres signed by the petitioner. The said building was proposed to be erected in Chalta No. 2 of P.T. Sheet No. 64 at Mapusa. Respondent, however, by its letter No. PDA/PT/20/1479/86 dated September 10, 1986 called the said Andrew for a site inspection, and further informed him that an engineer can sign a plan only when the area is of 80 square metres or less. The application was not therefore, entertained on that ground despite the petitioners protest.