Case Note & Summary
Background: This writ petition was filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa seeking a writ of quo warranto or a declaration that Respondent No. 4, an architect, was disqualified from continuing as a member of the Conservation Committee constituted under the Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Act, 2008 and the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010. The petitioners, Mr Raul Aires Fernandes and Mr John Aires Fernandes, alleged that Respondent No. 4 had a conflict of interest in a proposal concerning property at Panaji and had failed to disclose it as required by the Regulations. Facts: The Act was enacted to regulate land development and building construction in Goa. Section 4 empowered the Government to frame regulations, following which the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010 were made. Annexure-IX to those Regulations dealt with conservation and provided for the constitution and composition of the Conservation Committee, as well as its conduct of proceedings. Clause (5) of Annexure-IX vested special powers in the Committee and specified the term of office and tenure of members. Sub-clause (n) of Clause (5) dealt with disqualification of a member or barring a member from proceedings. The petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 4, a qualified architect and member of the Conservation Committee, had prepared plans for a proposal by Mr Barnabe Sapeco for addition/alteration to property bearing Chalta No. 178 and 179 of P.T. Sheet No. 45 at Panaji. The proposal was taken up at the Conservation Committee meeting held on 26.08.2013, and Respondent No. 4 allegedly participated in that meeting and the proposal was recommended for approval. The petitioners contended that Respondent No. 4 failed to disclose his involvement and interest despite a duty to make full disclosure. Legal Issues: The primary legal issues were whether Respondent No. 4 stood disqualified as a member of the Conservation Committee under sub-clause (n) of Clause (5) of the Regulations due to his conflict of interest, and whether a writ of quo warranto or a declaration was the appropriate remedy. Arguments: The petitioners argued that Respondent No. 4 had prepared the plans for the proposal and participated in the meeting without disclosing his interest, thereby violating sub-clause (n) and disqualifying himself. Respondent No. 4, in his affidavit dated 26.10.2016, admitted that he had been engaged as architect for the project sometime in 2009-2010, before his appointment to the Committee, and that he had prepared the plans. He claimed that his interest was evident on the plans themselves, that other technical members had recommended the proposal after site visits and changes, that the agenda mentioned required changes had been effected, and that no voting was required. He also stated that he had disclosed at the meeting on 13/8/2013 that he had prepared the plans. He relied on the minutes of the 5th Conservation Committee meeting to argue there was no undue favouritism. Court's Analysis: The court noted the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and Annexure-IX of the Regulations, particularly sub-clause (n) of Clause (5). It recorded the factual assertions of both sides, including the admission by Respondent No. 4 that he had prepared the plans. The court observed that none of the respondents except Respondent No. 4 had filed an affidavit. It examined whether the conduct fell within the disqualifying provision, but the provided text does not contain the court's final reasoning or conclusion. Decision: The final decision of the court is not available in the provided text. The judgment excerpt ends after the reproduction of paragraphs 5 to 7 of Respondent No. 4's affidavit.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Writ of Quo Warranto - Eligibility to Hold Public Office - Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Act, 2008, Section 4; Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, Annexure-IX, Clause (5)(n) - The petition sought a writ of quo warranto or a declaration that Respondent No. 4 was disqualified from continuing as a member of the Conservation Committee constituted under the said Act and Regulations. The court examined the statutory provisions governing the constitution, conduct, and disqualification of members of the Conservation Committee. Held that the issue revolved around conflict of interest and compliance with disclosure obligations under sub-clause (n) of Clause (5). (Paras 2-8) B) Conservation Committee - Conflict of Interest and Disclosure - Duty to Disclose Interest and Bar on Participation - Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, Annexure-IX, Clause (5)(n) - Sub-clause (n) provides that a member who is directly or indirectly concerned or interested in any proposal before the Committee shall at the earliest possible opportunity disclose the nature of his interest, and shall not be present at any meeting when such proposal is discussed, unless his presence is required by other members, and shall not vote on such proposal. The petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 4, an architect, prepared the plans for the proposal of Mr Barnabe Sapeco and participated in the meeting on 26.08.2013 without disclosing his interest. Respondent No. 4 admitted preparing the plans but contended that his interest was evident from the plans, that he had disclosed at the meeting on 13/8/2013, and that no voting was required. Held that the court was required to determine whether the conduct fell within the disqualifying provision. (Paras 7-10) C) Statutory Interpretation - Disqualification of Committee Member - Grounds for Cessation of Membership - Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, Annexure-IX, Clause (5)(n) - The provision lists specific grounds for automatic cessation of membership, including unsound mind, insolvency, conviction, and absence from meetings. Additionally, sub-clause (n)(v) imposes an obligation of disclosure and non-participation for interested members. The petition alleged that Respondent No. 4 violated these obligations by not disclosing his interest and participating in the meeting. The court noted the provisions and the factual admissions made by Respondent No. 4 in his affidavit, but the final determination of disqualification was not stated in the provided text. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Respondent No. 4, an architect member of the Conservation Committee, was disqualified to continue as a member under sub-clause (n) of Clause (5) of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010 for having prepared plans for a proposal and participating in the meeting without disclosing his interest, and whether a writ of quo warranto or declaration should issue.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in provided text.
Law Points
- Government may frame regulations under Section 4 of the Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Act
- 2008
- the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations
- 2010 contain Annexure-IX providing for Regulation for Conservation and constitution of the Conservation Committee
- Clause (5) of Annexure-IX vests special powers in the Conservation Committee and provides for term of office and tenure of members
- sub-clause (n) of Clause (5) requires a member directly or indirectly interested in a proposal to disclose the nature of interest to the Committee and not be present during discussion
- unless presence required
- and such member shall not vote on the proposal
- failure to comply may lead to disqualification as a member.
