SC adjourns ‘urgent’ TCP case as Goa says counsel unavailable

Panaji: Supreme Court on Friday adjourned to July 21, state govt’s special leave petition challenging the high court’s verdict in the Section 17(2) matter after state informed SC that its counsel was not available.

State govt filed the SLP challenging the HC’s reading down of the Town and Country Planning Act’s Section 17(2). When the appeal was called out on Friday before the SC’s vacation bench, state informed the court that their counsel was not available, and the SC adjourned the case to July 21.

State govt had specifically sought an urgent hearing before SC. The letter from the office of senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi on May 28 to the registrar seeking an urgent hearing said that the state would suffer irreparable harm and irreversible consequences if Section 17(2) is not implemented in accordance with the legislative framework, especially as the impugned decision directly affects the exercise of statutory powers and ongoing planning processes.

“Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that several cases pertaining to Section 17(2) are currently pending before the HC, and the impugned judgment will impact the outcome of those cases,” the letter said.

State, in its petition before SC, said that the HC transgressed the power of the legislature by reading down Section 17(2) of the TCP Act, which restricts govt mechanisms to undo past errors in the regional plan efficiently. The petition filed in SC two months after the high court’s order states that the constitutional validity of a provision cannot be decided on the basis of factual considerations.

It said that the high court failed to appreciate that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the act and rules needed to be decided separately from the factual challenges contained in the PILs. The high court struck down the rules and guidelines of Section 17(2) on March 13 in “public interest”, but stayed the order for six weeks. The bench rejected the plea to declare Section 17(2) as unconstitutional, but made it clear that no applications for approvals under the section shall be considered.