Bombay HC dismisses petition against shifting of beach shack locations

Panaji: The Bombay high court dismissed a petition by a beach shack allottee challenging the tourism department’s decision to permit the shifting of shack locations. The court observed that a distance of around 20 metres, as required by the Goa Shack Policy, was maintained between the old shack and the newly shifted shack. It added that there was no infringement of the rights of the petitioner.The high court stated that there was no violation of any provision of the shack policy by the tourism department in granting the shifting of the shack, as only a change was allowed. The court also found no justification in interfering with the decision of the director of tourism, observing that there was no loss caused to the petitioner, Angelo Fernandes.Fernandes, who was allotted a shack at Khobra Waddo according to the Goa State Shack Policy 2023-26, told the high court that shifting another shack next to his was contrary to the layout plan for the beach shacks as per the beach shack policy. He stated that there cannot be swapping of shacks after they were allotted under the policy.“...we feel that the policies are just for the sake of convenience, and for certain consideration, if an application is made within the rules, definitely the respondent authorities are bound to respond, of course with a reasoned order justifying slight deviation from its policy. Here we find that the shifting of shack no. 14 at a closer distance between shack nos. 1 and 2, as long as it does not infringe any of the distance norms, without any injury being caused to the petitioner, we are not inclined to show any indulgence,” stated Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashish S Chavan.The tourism department told the court that it received an application from successful allottees of three shacks requesting mutual swapping of location in Nov 2023. It added that such swapping is permissible under Clause 11A(5) of the Goa State Shack Policy. The application made to the director of tourism mentioned difficulties in conducting business operations as the shack was too far and requested the shifting of a shack on the ground that there was a lot of space between the location of shack no. 1 (of the petitioner) and the location of shack no. 2. Since making a fresh application would consume much time, a request was made to shift the shack and place it between shack nos. 1 and 2.The court added that if the petitioner wants to apply for the shifting of his shack in the future, he is at liberty to do so. It is up to govt to pass an appropriate order after considering prevailing norms of the shack policy.