Panaji, 27th January, 2022 (Magha 7, 1943)

SERIES II No. 44

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. /RNP/GOA/32/2021-23

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Goa Human Rights Commission

Office of the Goa Human Rights Commission

Before the Goa Human Rights Commission

Panaji-Goa

Proceeding No. 43/2021

Smt. Vaishali Revodkar,

R/o H. No. 234,

Zillabhat Waddo,

Revora, Bardez-Goa

……

Complainant.

V/s

1) The Collector,

North Goa District,

Panaji-Goa.

2) The Block Development Officer,

Mapusa, Bardez-Goa.

3) The Secretary,

Village Panchayat Revora,

Revora, Bardez-Goa.

4) The Assistant Engineer,

Sub-Division III. W.D. VIII,

Karaswada, Mapusa-Goa ……

Respondents.

Inquiry Report/Order

(13th October, 2021)

The Complaint dated 05-02-2021 was received in

this Commission, with a request to extend time at

the rehabilitation shelter.

Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]

1067

Note:- There are five Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 43 dated 20-01-2022 as follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 20-01-2022 from pages 1047 to 1048 regarding Notification from Goa Legislature

Secretariat.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 21-01-2022 from pages 1049 to 1052 regarding Notification from Department

of Elections.

(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 21-01-2022 from pages 1053 to 1058 regarding Notifications from Department

of Elections.

(4) Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 21-01-2022 from pages 1059 to 1062 regarding Notifications from Department

of Elections and Goa Legislature Secretariat.

(5) Extraordinary (No. 5) dated 25-01-2022 from pages 1063 to 1066 regarding Orders from Department of

Elections.

2. The Complainant has stated that her house at

Revora was damaged due to natural calamity

when a huge tree fell on the house during the

rainy season. Under the/Disaster Management

Act, 2005, she was provided shelter in

Government Quarters at Mapusa, till her house

was repaired. She stated that she is from the

Dalit family and living in the Devasthan

property and the Management has given her

permission to repair the same.

3.She also stated that she applied to the Revora

Panchayat for NOC for the repair of the house

which was forwarded to the BDO, but her

application was rejected as her husband did

not sign the application. She has stated that

she is legally married and co-owner of the

house and her husband wants to evict her from

the shared household and did not sign her

application. She also stated that she had earlier

got relief from the JMFC under the Domestic

Violence Act and her husband was refrained

from evicting her.

4. The Complainant stated that she had made a

fresh application to the Panchayat in respect

of her equal right as co-owner of the house. In

the meantime she has received letter from the

authorities to vacate the Government Quarters

and that no more extension would be given.

She stated that she is unemployed and has

two children and lives on the monthly

1068

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 44

27TH JANUARY, 2022

maintenance of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence, she

approached this Commission to stop

discrimination of women by the Panchayat

authorities and BDO and to remove the said

obstacle by getting NOC to repair the house.

5. On perusing the complaint, the Commission,

by Order dated 24-02-2021 called for the report/

reply from the four Respondents.

6. The Respondent No.1 filed their reply on

25-03-2021. They stated that on 02-07-2017, a

tree had collapsed killing a 10 year old boy

and injuring 5 others including the present

Complainant. Under the Disaster Management

Act, 2005 temporary accommodation in

Government Quarters were provided to the

Complainant and others which was extended

from time to time upto 03-02-2021. The

Complainant was also given compensation of

Rs. 80,000/-. The Respondent No.1 stated that

the Complainant continued to stay in the

temporary accommodation from 14-11-2017 to

03-02-2021 and without permission of the

relevant authorities beyond 03-02-2021.

7. The Respondent No. 4 filed his report dated

19-03-2021 stating that the Complainant had

been allotted “C” type Government Quarters

from 14-11-2017 to 13-05-2018 and the same

was extended as per the request of Additional

Collector upto 03-02-2021 and the Additional

Collector had informed that no further

extension shall be granted.

The Respondent No. 4 also stated that as per

the procedure for allotment of Government

Quarters, the Respondent No. 4 has issued

notice dated 08-02-2021 to the Complainant to

vacate the Quarters.

8. The Respondent No. 2 filed their reply dated

31-03-2021, relying on several documents of

the Office of the BDO, Village Panchayat Revora

and of the Collector, North Goa as well as letters

of the Complainant. The Respondent No. 3 has

not filed any reply/report in the present case.

9. On the replies of the Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4

being served on the Complainant, she filed her

Rejoinder on 13-08-2021. She sought an order

from this Commission directing the

Respondents No. 2 & 3 to grant her NOC to

repair the house, being a co-owner, She also

filed further rejoinder on 18-08-2021, as she

had received a fresh notice dated 16-08-2021

from the office of the Respondent No. 4 to vacate

the Quarters within 3 days.

10. At the stage of hearing, the Complainant was

heard in person. Shri Vinod Gawde, Head

Clerk of the Respondent No. 1 and Shri Umesh

Shetgaonkar, V.P. Secretary on behalf of

Respondent No. 2 were also heard. Adv. Shri

Neil Fernandes for Respondent No. 3 and Shri

Anil Parulekar, Assistant Engineer on behalf

of Respondent No. 4 were heard.

11.The Commission has gone through the records

and proceedings. The Commission finds that

the grievance of the Complainant is that her

application for repair of the damaged house

at Revora was not granted by the Village

Panchayat as her husband had not signed the

application.

12. The Commission has noted that the

Respondent No.1, vide their letter dated 21-

12-2020 to the Respondents No. 2 & 4, had

directed the BDO, Mapusa to monitor the issue

of repair license to the Complainant within

15 days and that the Complainant had been

instructed to undertake repairs within one

month. The Office of Respondent No.1 had

noted that since the proposal of repair license

is under consideration, the Respondent No. 4

was requested to extend the accommodation

granted to the Complainant for a period of 45

days only and that no further extension shall

be granted.

13.The Commission finds from the documents

filed by the Respondent No. 2 that the Office

of the BDO had addressed a letter dated 08-

03-2021 to the Complainant that the Office

had issued Memorandum to the Village

Panchayat Secretary, Revora to look into the

matter in accordance with law and submit

compliance report to the office and the reply

dated 19-02-2021 had been submitted by the

Village Panchayat Secretary.

14. The Commission finds from the said reply of

the Village Panchayat, Revora, dated 19-02-

2021 that the application of the Complainant

for house repair was rejected due to lack of

documents. As per the annexed Resolution,

the Panchayat passed Resolution on 10-02-

2021 that the Panchayat cannot forward the

file to the BDO without NOC from the house

owner.

15.The Complainant had submitted before this

Commission that she has strained relations

with her husband against whom she has

obtained relief from the JMFC, under the

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and he was

refrained from evicting her from the house.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 44

27TH JANUARY, 2022

1069

16. The documents on record indicate that the

Complainant has filed the application to the

Panchayat for repairs of the damaged house

and has submitted the required documents

including the Architect plan and NOC from

the Devasthan Committee who own the

property.

17. The records indicate that the Panchayat has

not been inclined to grant the application for

repairs only because her husband has not given

his No Objection Certificate.

18.Under Section 12(a) of the Protection of Human

Rights Act, 1993, the Commission shall (a)

inquire, suo-motu or on a petition presented to

it by a victim or any person on his behalf [or

on a direction or order of any court] into

complaint of (i) violation of human rights or

abetment thereof or (ii) negligence in the

prevention of such violation, by a public

servant.

19. The Complainant is the co-owner of the house

which was damaged by falling of a tree in

2017. She seeks permission to repair the said

house. The House Tax receipt of the house

stands in the name of her husband. The Village

Panchayat, by not granting her permission has

been negligent in performance of their duties

as she is the legally married wife of Shri Vilas

Revodkar.

20. The Commission finds that, in the present case,

the Village Panchayat of Revora has violated

the human rights of the Complainant by not

forwarding her application to the BDO, for the

house repairs of House No. 234 at Revora, only

as her husband has also not given N.O.C.

21. After the collapse of the house, the

Complainant

was

given

Government

accommodation

under

the

Disaster

Management Act, 2005, by the Respondent

No. 4, on the Order of Respondent No. 1.

Admittedly, as the house repairs could not be

carried out, the Complainant has continued to

occupy the Government accommodation on

temporary basis.

22.The Commission finds that it would be

appropriate to ecommend to the Panchayat to

consider the grant of her application for repairs

as she is the co-owner of the house and to

forward the same to the BDO. So also the

Commission is of the opinion that the

Complainant could be permitted by the

Respondents No. 1 & 4 to continue occupying

the Government Quarters for a period of 60

days from the grant of permission of house

repairs.

23. Accordingly, the Commission passes the

following Order:

a) The Commission recommends that the

Respondent No. 3 place the application for

permission of house repairs of House No. 234

before the Village Panchayat of Revora for

re-consideration.

b) On the re-consideration by the Village Panchayat,

the same be forwarded to the BDO, Bardez for

grant of permission of house repairs.

c) The Commission recommends that the

Respondents No. 1 and 4 consider the extension

of the permission to the Complainant to stay in

the Government quarters at Colvale, T.I.P.

Complex, C-3, for a further period of 60 days

from the date of grant of permission by the

Respondents No. 2 and 3 to the Complainant,

for carrying out repairs of the house.

23. Under Section 18(e) of the Protection of Human

Rights Act, 1993, a copy of the Inquiry Report

together with the recommendations shall be

send to the Respondents and the Respondents

shall within a period of 60 days from today or

such further time as the Commission may allow,

forward their comments on the report, including

the action taken or proposed to be taken there

on to the Commission.

Date:

13-10-2021.

Place: Panaji-Goa.

Sd/-

Justice U. V. Bakre,

Desmond D’Costa

Chairperson,

Member,

Goa Human

Rights

Commission.

_______

Before the Goa Human Rights Commission

Panaji-Goa

Proceeding No. 70/2020

Shri Sanjay Kumar Puthal,

Appartmant No. 2,

Upper Ground Floor,

Mudras Mansion,

Calapor, Tiswadi-Goa

….. Complainant.

V/s

1) The Police Inspector,

Old Goa Police Station,

Old Goa, Tiswadi-Goa

1070

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 44

27TH JANUARY, 2022

2) The Executive Engineer,

Works Div III (PHEN),

Public Works Department,

St. Inez, Panaji-Goa

.…. Respondents.

Proceeding No. 134/2020

1) Dr. Ketan Govekar,

2) Supriyanka Govekar,

Both r/o Appartment 1,

Mudras Mansion, Odlem

Bhat, Santacruz

Tiswadi-Goa

……

Complainant.

V/s

1) The Chief Secretary,

Government of Goa,

Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa.

2) The Collector,

North Goa District,

Panaji-Goa.

3) The Chief Engineer,

Public Works Department,

Altinho, Panaji-Goa.

4) The Chief Electrical Engineer,

Electricity Department,

Panaji-Goa.

…….

Respondents.

Proceeding No. 225/2020

Shri Parash Vasant Salgonkar,

R/o Mudras Mansion,

H. No. 296, Upper Ground Floor,

Appartment No. 3, Odlem Bhat

Calapur, Santa-Cruz, Tiswadi-Goa ….. Complainant.

V/s

1) The Police Inspector,

Old Goa Police Station,

Old Goa, Tiswadi-Goa.

2) The Health Officer,

Primary Health Centre,

Chimbel-Goa.

3) The Asistant Engineer,

Sub-Div-I, Div-III,

Public Works Department,

St. Inez, Panaji-Goa

.…. Respondents.

Proceeding No. 252/2020

Shri Sanjay Kumar Puthal,

Appartment No. 2,

Upper Ground Floor,

Resident of Mudras Mansion,

House No. 296, Vodlem Bhat,

Calapur, Santa-Cruz, Tiswadi-Goa ….. Complainant.

V/s

1) The Assistant Engineer,

S.D.-I, W.D.-III (PHEN),

Public Works Department,

St. Inez, Panaji-Goa.

1) The Police Inspector,

Old Goa Police Station,

Old Goa, Tiswadi-Goa

.….

Respondents.

Inquiry Report

(28th September, 2021)

These 4 complaints are being disposed off by a

Common Report, as each Complainant/s is residing

in a seperate flat in the same building and the

grievances are similar i.e. in respect of the

disconnection of the water supply to the building

and the disconnection of the Electricity Meter of

the Common Facilities.

Proceeding No. 70/2020

2. The Complaint dated 21-04-2020 was received

from the Complainant, Shri Sanjay Kumar Puthal,

arising from the disconnection of common

electricity meter in the Mudras Mansion Building

at St. Cruz, in which the Complainant is the owner

of Apartment No. 2.

3. On perusing the complaint, the Commission

by Order dated 06-05-2020 called for the report from

the two Respondents therein, i.e. (1) The P. I. Old

Goa Police Station and (2) the Executive Engineer,

W.D.-III, PWD.

4. The Respondent No.1 therein filed their reply

dated 23-10-2020.

5. At the stage of arguments, the Complainant

was heard. P. I., Shri Krishna Sinari on behalf of the

Respondent No.1 and Shri Uttam Shetye, Assistant

Engineer for the Respondent No. 2 were also heard.

Proceeding No. 134/2020

6. The Complaint dated 22-06-2020 was received

from the Complainants therein, Dr. Ketan Govekar

and Supriyankar Govekar, who are owners of the

Apartment 1, on the second floor, by virtue of the

Deed of Sale dated 12-06-2018. The complaint is in

respect of the disconnection of the water supply to

the Mudras Mansion, St. Cruz by the PWD and also

for the disconnection by the Electricity Department

of the common electricity connection.

7. On perusing the complaint, the Commission

by Order dated 26-06-2020 called for the report from

the four Respondents therein i.e. (1) The Chief

Secretary, Government of Goa, (2) The Collector,

North Goa District, (3) The Chief Engineer, PWD

and (4) ‘The Chief Electrical Engineer, Electricity

Department.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 44

27TH JANUARY, 2022

1071

8. The Respondent No. 4 therein filed their reply

dated 27-07-2020. So also the Respondent No. 3 filed

their reply on 27-07-2020 and the Respondent

No. 2 filed their reply on 16-12-2020.

9. Thereafter, the Complainant filed two

Rejoinders on 02-09-2020. Written arguments were

filed by the Complainants therein.

10. The Commission heard the Complainants,

Advocate Ms. Harsha Naik for the Respondents No.1

& 3 and Shri Atul Ghate, Assistant Engineer was

heard on behalf of the Respondent No. 4.

Proceeding No. 225/2020

11. The Complaint dated 30-09-2020 was received

from the Complainant, Shri Paresh Vasant

Salgaonkar, about disconnection of the water supply

to the building Mudras Mansion at St. Cruz, where

the Complainant is in possession of the Flat No. 3.

12. On perusing the complaint, the Commission

by Order dated 28-10-2020 called for the report from

the three Respondents, therein, i.e. (1) The P. I. Old

Goa Police Station, (2) The Health Officer, PHC,

Chimbel and (3) The Asstt. Engineer, Sub-Div.-III

PWD, St. Inez, Panaji.

13. The Respondent No. 3 filed their reply dated

26-11-2020. So also the Respondent No. 2 filed their

reply on 02-12-2020 and the Respondent No.1 filed

their reply on 11-01-2021.

14. Thereafter, the Complainant filed his Rejoinder

on 15-02-2021. The Respondent No. 4 also filed his

reply dated 19-08-2021.

15. The Commission heard the Complainant and

Respondent No.1 in person and also heard Shri Atul

Ghate, Assistant Engineer on behalf of Respondent

No. 4.

Proceeding No. 252/2020

16. The Complaint dated 02-11-2020 was received

from the Complainant, Shri Sanjay Kumar Puthal,

for disconnection of the PWD water supply in their

building Mudras Mansion.

17. On perusing the complaint, the Commission

by Order dated 19-11-2020 called for the report from

the two Respondents therein i.e. (1) The Assistant

Engineer, W.D.-III (PHEN) and (2) The P. I., Old Goa

Police Station.

18. The Respondent No. 1 filed their reply dated

04-12-2020.

19. At the stage of arguments, the Complainant

herein was heard in person. Shri Uttam Shetye,

Assistant Engineer for Respondent No. 1 and P. I.,

Shri Krishna Sinari were heard on behalf of

Respondent No. 2.

20. The Commission has gone through the

complaints, the replies of the Respondents,

documents of the parties and submissions on behalf

of the parties in each of the 4 complaints.

21. There was a common water connection to

the building which had been obtained in the name

of the owner of the plot, Shri Mukundraj Mudras in

the year 2018.

22. The Mudras building consists of 8 flats and

the PWD had released the water connection on

23-01-2018 based on the application dated

30-10-2017 and the documents produced by Shri

Mukundraj Mudras.

23. The said water connection was disconnected

based on his written request and after following

the due process as Mukundraj Mudras had not

paid the arrears of the bill of Rs. 11,625/-. The PWD

has already initiated action before the Mamlatdar

of Tiswadi for recovery of the arrears against

Shri Mukundraj Mudras.

24. So also, CA No. 60006722825 (common utility)

connection was availed by Shri Mukundraj Mudras

on 23-03-2018. He applied for temporary

disconnection on 12-03-2020 along the reason that

an the co-occupants of the building are not

contributing towards the units consumed for the

common utility, such as staircase, lighting and

pumping of water. The Electricity Department

placed the meter under temporary disconnection

vide Notification dated 18-03-2020. The outstanding

bill of Rs. 233/- was paid on 26-03-2020.

25. In Dr. Winston Dias v/s State of Goa through

Chief Secretary and 4 Ors., in Writ Petition No.

192/2008 decided by the Division Bench of the High

Court of Bombay at Goa, the Hon’ble High Court

had considered the provisions contained in Chapter

X-A as inserted by the Goa Public Health

(Amendment) Act, 2004 incorporating Sections 94A,

94B, 94C and 94D and the guidelines in the Office

Memorandum dated 22-11-2004. In para 14 therein,

it was held as under:

“On close scrutiny of above referred decisions and

the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for

observance while determining question of

constitutionality of any provision we are of the

opinion that the provisions of Chapter X-A of the

Act or the Guidelines laid down in the

memorandum issued by the State cannot be said

to be arbitrary or violative of provisions of Article

14 of the Constitution of India, Infact, the

provisions contained in Section 94A(1) and 94A(2)

support the objection of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. The object of the provision

is to ensure maintenance of essential services

to the public at large and promote health and

1072

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 44

27TH JANUARY, 2022

well being of the citizen of the State of Goa. It

must be observed that providing for adequate

and safe drinking water is one of the essential

services for a citizen. Ensuring maintenance

of essential services is necessary for promoting

and Protecting public health. In the year

1981, 34th World Health Assembly in a resolution

emphasized that safe drinking water is the basic

element of “primary health-care” which is the key

to attainment of “Health for’ all by the year 2000

AD”, Millennium Development Goals included safe

water and sanitation as the attainable goal. Lack

of essential service such as electricity and water

supply leads to unhygienic condition which in

turn leads to serious health hazards. Lack of

hygienic condition may lead to disease, infections,

epidemics etc. It is the responsibility of

the State to keep the environment safe for its

citizens. Considering, the object of the provisions,

providing for water connection for such

households which are not provided with water

supply cannot he construed as illegal even if the

structure raised is illegal. Essential Services like

water and electricity supply is a must to

maintain basic living condition of a human

being. The provisions of Chapter X-A are as stated

above in furtherance of protecting the guarantee

provided under Article 21 r/w directive

principles of State Policy particularly Clauses (e)

and (f) of Article 39 and are also framed with due

regard to covenants contained in Civil and

Political Rights, 1966 as also the International

Covenant of Economic & Social Rights of 1966

which proclaims the inherent dignity and the

equal and inequitable rights of all Members of the

Human Family as foundation of Justice and Peace

of the world. Hence the provision made for

maintaining essential supplies like water and

electricity which is the basic requirement of life

does not in any way violate the rights of petitioner.

Rights of petitioner, if any, cannot be equated as

preferred as against the basic human rights of

respondent or any other person. The basic human

rights of an individual will have an precedence

in contrast with right of an individual in

respect of property or any other such right. It

is also to be noted that in the State of Goa, the

pre-liberation Law Portaria No. 6802 relates to the

Regulation of water supply within the State of

Goa. Supply of water including installation of other

items, are governed by the said Portaria”

26. In the above Judgment, reference is made to

the case of Commander Sureshwar D. Sinha and

others v/s Union of India and others, 2001(3) Scale

533, wherein the Apex Court has observed that there

can be no denying the fact that right to life

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution

would surely include a right to clean water.

27. Section 94 A (1) empowers the Government

to issue directions to any authorities, local bodies,

statutory functionaries or any other functionaries

discharging public functions, for the purposes of

Clauses (a) and (b) of said sub-section 25 (1) of

Section 94 A.

28. The provisions of Chapter X-A of the Act are

quoted as below:

CHAPTER XA

“Supply of potable water, electricity and other

essential services 94A. Power of Government to

issue directions (1) Notwithstanding anything

contained in any provisions of this Act, or in any

rules, regulations, notifications, orders or in any

decree or judgement of any Court, or in any law

for the time being in force, the Government may,

in appropriate cases, by order, direct any

authorities, local bodies, statutory functionaries.

or any other functionaries discharging public

functions, - (a) to grant, supply, provide and

ensure supply of potable water, etectricity, or

such other essential services, so declared by the

Government under the Goa Essential Services

Maintenance Act, 1988 (Act 20 of 1989) or under

any other law for the time being in force, to any

person, house, structure, hut, factory, area,

locality; (2) The Government may empower any

of the following authorities, by a special or

general order, to perform its functions under sub-

section (1), namely:- (a) Health Officer of the

concerned area; (b) Chief Officer of a Municipal

Council or the Commissioner of a Corporation, as

the case may be; (c) Director of Health Services;

(d) Collector of the District; (e) Secretary to the

Government, dealing with Public Health

Department. (3) Upon the issuance of an order

under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) by the

Government, every authority, local body, statutory

functionary or other functionaries and every

person thereof referred to in sub-section (1) or

sub-section (2), shall be bound to comply with

the same and provide and facilitate the provision

of potable water electricity or any other essential

services, as the case may be, and for this purpose,

every authority, local body, statutory function-

aries or other functionaries and every person

thereof, referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-

section (2), shall have all powers to lay necessary

lines, cables, pipes, poles, pipelines and to

provide necessary infrastructure, subject to the

provisions of sub-section (4) hereof: .....”

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 44

27TH JANUARY, 2022

1073

29. The Government of Goa issued Guidelines/

/procedure for the purpose of Chapter X-A of Goa

Daman and Diu Public Health Act, 1985 on

22-11-2004 as quoted below:

“(1) An application requesting to discharge

functions as specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-

section (1) of Section 94 A of the said Act shall be

made by the applicant to the authorities/

/functionaries specified in sub-section (1) of Section

94A of the said Act or to the authorities empowered

by the Government in terms of sub-section (2) of

Section 94A of the said Act vide Order No. l3/144/

/87-I/PHD (Part- II) dated 25th June, 2004, published

in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 13, dated

25-6-2004 (Extraordinary). (2) The requirement of

production of No Objection Certificate from

Municipal Corporation of Municipal Council or

Village Panchayat, for obtaining water connection

or electricity connection or sewage connection shall

be waived, as the purpose of granting such

connections is only the maintenance and

improvement of public health i.e. purely from the

angle of public health. (3) The concerned authority

shall examine the applications and shall satisfy itself

if necessary, by site inspection, that the water/

/power/sewage connection, as the case may be, is

required purely from the angle of public health and

pass such orders as deemed necessary in terms of

Section 94 A of the said Act. (4) The Chief Officers of

the Municipal Councils and the Commissioner,

Corporation of the City of Panaji, shall exercise their

powers under the said Act, within their respective

jurisdictions. The Health Officers shall exercise their

powers under the said Act within their respective

areas, outside the jurisdiction of Municipal Councils

or Municipal Corporation. (5) If the Chief Officer of

the Municipal Council or the Commissioner,

Corporation of the City of Panaji or the Health Officer

does not act as may be required under the said Act

or there is a delay in granting water/power/sewage

connection, a request for such connection shall be

made to the respective Collector of the District who

shall exercise his powers under the said Act. (6) The

authorities empowered under the said Act vide said

Order No. 13/144/87-I/PHD (Part-II) dated 25th June,

2004 can also initiate action suo-motu with regards

to matters affecting public health and issue

directions to any person or body to comply with such

directions within time specified in the order. (7) An

application made shall be accompanied by an

Affidavit/Undertaking stating that, (a) the applicant

is the occupant of the premises, and (b) the applicant

shall bear all the cost of the connections, etc. and (c)

the grant of water/electricity/sewage connection

being purely from the angle of health, the applicant

will not claim any right including the right of

possession, ownership etc., and that the applicant

shall not use the fact of having water/electricity/

sewage connection under the provisions of this Act

against the Government or the Owner of the House/

land in any procceeding whatsoever”.

30. Guided by the above provisions and the

referred judgements and in facts of the present case,

where the occupunts of the building are presently

deprived of the potable water supply and also of the

electricity supply for the meter of common facilities

affecting their health, the Commission finds that in

the interest of public health and to protect their,

human rights, it is necessary to issue the

recommendation under Section 18(3) of the

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 as under:-

“In the facts of the present case, the Commission

recommends that, under Section 94A of the Goa

Public Health Amendment Act, 2004, on the

application of the Complainant, Shri Paresh

Vasant Salgaonkar, in the Proceeding No. 225/

/2020, who shall file the application within seven

days from today, in accordance with the guidelines

dated 22-11-2004, the Respondent No. 2 therein,

i.e., the Health Officer, Primary Health Centre,

Chimbel in exercise of the powers vested in him/

/her under Section 94A(i) of the said Act, may

consider the grant of the supply of potable water

and electricity to the residents of the flats in the

Mudras Mansion, at St Cruz, on payment of the

appropriate fees and on the said Applicant

undertaking to continue to pay the bills from time

to time, failing which the PWD and the Electricity

Department will be free to disconnect the supply”.

31. Under Section 18(e) of the Protection of

Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission shall send

a copy of the Inquiry Report together with its

recommendations to the Respondent

and

the

Respondent shall within a period of one month or

such further time as the Commission may allow,

forward its comments on the report, including the

action taken or proposed to be taken thereon to the

Commission.

32. Copy of the Inquiry Report be sent to the

Respondent No. 2 in Proceeding No. 225/2020, i.e.

The Health Officer, Primary Health Centre, Chimbel,

calling for his comments, including the action taken

or proposed to be taken within a period of two months

or on or before 29-11-2021, in terms of Section 18(e) of

the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Date: 28-09-2021.

Place: Panaji-Goa.

Sd/-

(Justice U.V. Bakre)

(Desmon D’Costa)

Chairperson,

Member,

Goa Human Rights

Commission.

1076

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 44

27TH JANUARY, 2022

Copy to:

Ketan Govekar, Apartment No. 1,

Second floor, Mudras Mansion, House No. 296,

Vodlem Bhat, Calapur, Santa-Cruz,

Tiswadi-Goa.

The Dy. Town Planner.

_______

Before the Goa Human Rights Commission

Panaji-Goa

Proceeding No. 104/2020

Suo Motu

V/s

1) The Director,

Directorate of Skill Development and

Entrepreneurship,

Government of Goa,

Patto, Panaji-Goa.

2) Shri Naresh Talatkar,

ITI Instructor,

Mapusa, Bardez-Goa.

Inquiry Report/Order

(06th October, 2021)

On going through the Newspaper Report which

appeared in the local daily “Gomantak Times” dated

25-05-2020 under the caption “ITI Instructor cry for

revised pay scales”, the Commission, by Order dated

26-05-2020 took Suo Motu cognizance of the

Newspaper Report and called for the detailed report

from the Respondent No. 1.

2. The Respondent No. 1 filed their detailed reply

on 28-07-2020. They stated that in the year

2016, the Vocational Instructors, who were

drawing Rs. 4,200/-, Grade Pay and working in

various Government ITIs, represented to the

office to grant them Rs. 4,600/- Grade Pay as

per the MSD&E guidelines. The proposal was

moved to the Finance Department on

26-10-2016 but was turned down by the Finance

Minister/C.M.

3. The Respondent No. 1 also stated that they

received the representation from one

Vocational Instructor on 26-04-2017 and the

file remained pending in the cupboard of Office

Superintendent but the file has now been

traced out.

4.The Respondent No.1 stated that the

Department made all the efforts to give justice

to the Vocational Instructors in granting them

Rs. 4,600/- Grade Pay as per MSD&E guidelines

but the proposal was not approved by the

Higher Authorities as there was no financial

assistance from the Central Government and

the implementation cannot be carried out.

5. On considering the reply, this Commission

passed the Order on 06-08-2020, which is

recorded in the Proceeding Sheet and which

is as under:

“In this case, newspaper report reveals that

Naresh Talkatkar, a vocational instructor had

made a representation to the Principal of

Government ITI regarding revision of pay band

i.e. 9300-34800+4600 to all instructors as per

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 44

27TH JANUARY, 2022

1077

the notification of Ministry of Labour and

Employment (DGET)) New Delhi and that

Government has not implemented the pay scales

and pay grade of all the vocational instructors

since the issue of notification dated November

27, 2014.

In this regard, the Finance Department opined

as under:-

That similar case of vocational instructors of

Directorate of Skill Development and

Entrepreneurship were drawing grade pay of

Rs. 4,200/- and submitted their representation

for grant of grade pay of Rs. 4,600/- as per

MSD&E guidelines. The same was referred to

the Government for consideration. However,

Finance Department returned the proposal

stating that “at Present, it is not admissible to

upgrade any pay scales, specially when there is

no financial assistance from Govt. of India”

(Pg. 5/N) and therefore, representation of

Shri Zambaulikar for grade pay of Rs. 4,600/- to

vocational instructors was rejected on the

ground that specially there is no financial

assistance from the Central Government and

that circumstances based on the observation

have not been changed.

That being the policy of the Government, no

human rights issue is involved.

However, it is seen that the order of the Finance

Department is of the year 2016/2017 (pg. 4/N

and 7/N) and however, records do not show

what has happened to the representation of

Shri Naresh Talkatkar stated to have made to

the Principal of Government ITI, Panaji, seeking

implementation of notification dated 27-11-2014

(see newspaper report).

Records show that no steps have been taken by

Directorate of Skill Development and

Entrepreneurship to the representation of Shri

Naresh Talkatkar.

The file re-submitted to the Hon’ble Chief

Minister on 06-09-2017, which in turn forwarded

by the Secretary (SD&E) on 07-09-2017, to

Personnel Department for their views, was

returned back to the Department (Skill

Development and Entrepreneurship) with the

remark to refer the proposal to Finance

Department (R&C) to seek their views for up-

gradation of grade pay.

According to Department, the report prepared

on 23-11-2017 was placed on 27-11-2017 before

the Director with a remark, ‘please speak’ and

that Office Superintendent did not pursue and

that subsequently, Office Superintendent

expired and file has been traced now.

The net result is that representation of Naresh

Talkatkar is not acted upon. Apart from that,

Department did not pursue the proposal

prepared on 23-11-2017.

Hence, issue notice to the Respondent and to

Shri Naresh Talkatkar, for hearing.

A copy of the reply filed by the Respondent be

forwarded to Shri Naresh Talkatkar”.

6. Thereafter, the present Respondent No. 2 was

added and he filed his reply along with the

documents on 10-09-2020. Subsequently, on

25-03-2021, the Respondent No.1 filed his

additional Affidavit-in-Reply, along with the

annexures. In the said Affidavit-in-Reply, the

Respondent No. 1 stated that the file regarding

pay scale of the Instructors was placed before

him on 23-06-2020 and the Finance Department

returned the said file with the remarks of the

Under Secretary (Finance) as under:

“Decision at 5/N & 8/N refers. There are no

fresh grounds for considering the proposal. We

may maintain the same.”

It is seen from page 27/N that the said remark

was dated 15-10-2020.

7. The Commission heard Adv. Ms. Harsha Naik

for the Respondent No. 1 and also heard Shri

Naresh Talatkar, ITI Instructor, i.e. the

Respondent No. 2.

8. As per the Order dated 06-08-2020 of this

Commission, the Commission had noted that

the representation of Respondent No. 2 was

not acted upon.

9. It is seen that Order of the Finance Department

is of the year 2016-2017 dated 17-11-2016 and

23-05-2017 respectively, turning down the

proposal by the Finance Minister (Chief

Minister). It is admitted position that thereafter

on 26-04-2017, one more representation was

made to the Chief Minister, Government Goa,

Shri

Naresh

Talkatkar

seeking

implementation of the notification dated

27-11-2014. Records show that file re-submitted

to the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 06-09-2017,

which in turn forwarded by the Secretary

(SD&E) on 07-09-2017 to Personnel Department

for their views, was returned back to the

Department of Skill Development and

Entrepreneurship with the remark to refer the

proposal to Finance Department (R & C) to

seek their views for up-gradation of grade pay.

1078

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 44

27TH JANUARY, 2022

10. The point for determination is as to whether

representation dated 06-09-2017 of which the

report was prepared on 23- 11-2017, was placed

on 27-11-2017, before the Director with a

remark, ‘Please speak’ was acted on diligently.

The averments made by Shri Dipak S. Desai,

Director of Directorate of Skill Development and

Entrepreneurship, Panaji-Goa are not

satisfactory and are untenable. Office

Superintendent Late Smt. Mahima Binghekar

expired on 15-03-2019. There is considerable

delay of more than one and a half year in just

forwarding the file to the Finance Department,

of which report was already prepared.

11. The Department cannot take shelter of death

of Office Superintendent on 15-03-2019, in

respect of forwarding representation dated

06-09-2017, very belatedly.

12.Even thereafter representation dated

06-09-2017, was not forwarded to the Finance

Department within, reasonable time and the

same was filed on 16-07-2020, after this

Commission has taken cognizance of the issue.

There is considerable delay in forwarding the

representation to the. Finance Department. The

reasons

cited

for

delay

cannot

countenanced. The Department did not provide

for delivery of public services within the

stipulated time limit and this resulted in

administrative inefficiency. Maximum time

limit provided by The Goa (Right of Citizens to

Time-Bound Delivery of Public Services) Act,

2013, is ranging from 03 days to 15 days

relating to such services. There is gross delay

of almost three years. The death of Office

Superintendent on 15-03-2019 cannot be the

reason for not forwarding the representation

earlier and thereafter after her death.

13. The gross and considerable delay has affected

the human rights of the applicant in raising

his grievances. Hence, this Commission

recommends that the Respondent No. 1 hold

an inquiry for fixing the accountability of long

and considerable delay and to initiate action

against the erring officer as deemed fit.

14. Under Section 18(e) of the Protection of Human

Rights Act, 1993, the Commission shall send a

copy of the Inquiry Report together with its

recommendations to the Respondents and the

Respondents shall within a period of one month

or such further time as the Commission may

allow, forward its comments on the report,

including the action taken or proposed to be

taken thereon to the Commission.

15. Copy of the Inquiry Report be sent to the

Respondent No. 1 i.e. The Director, Directorate

of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship,

Government of Goa, Patto, Panaji-Goa, calling

for their comments, including the action taken

or proposed to be taken within a period of two

months or on or before 07-12-2021, in terms of

Section 18(e) of the Protection of Human Rights

Act, 1993.

Date:

6-10-2021.

Place: Panaji-Goa.

Sd/-

Justice U. V. Bakre,

Desmond D’Costa

Chairperson,

Member,

Goa Human

Rights

Commission.

_______

Before the Goa Human Rights Commission

Panaji-Goa

Proceeding No. 104/2020

Suo Motu

V/s

1) The Director,

Directorate of Skill Development and

Entrepreneurship,

Government of Goa,

Patto, Panaji-Goa.

2) Shri Naresh Talatkar,

ITI Instructor,

Mapusa, Bardez-Goa.

This is regarding Inquiry Report/Order dated

06-10-2021 in Proceeding No. 104/2020 before the

Goa Human Rights Commission, Panaji-Goa.

2. The Goa Human Rights Commission in the

Inquiry Report/Order has directed The Director,

Directorate

Skill

Development

Entrepreneurship to comment in the matter

including the action taken or proposed to be

taken within a period of two months or before

07-12-2021.

3. The above mentioned Order was received by

this office on 11-11-2021.

Accordingly, the present comments/report is

hereby submitted.

Brief facts of the matter:

4. In the year 2016, The Principals of Govt. I.T.Is.

Bicholim, Farmagudi, Mapusa, Sattari, Panaji &

Pernem forwarded representations of Vocational

Instructors working in their respective I.T.I.s to

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 44

27TH JANUARY, 2022

1079

the Head Office, Directorate of Skill

Development & Entrepreneurship for upliftment

of Grade Pay from Rs. 4200/- to Rs. 4600/- as per

MSDE Guidelines. So also, similar type of

applications were received from Shri Rosario

Baptista, V.I.(P) and 5 others drawing

Rs. 4200/- grade pay for granting of Rs. 4600/-

G. Pay.

5. A proposal based on the representations of the

Vocational Instructors received from the various

ITIs was submitted to the Finance Department

through the Hon’ble Chief Minister. However,

the Addl. Secretary (Fin) turned down the

proposal stating “At present it is not advisable

to upgrade any pay scales especially when

there is no financial assistance from GOI.”

6. A representation dated 26-04-2017 addressed

to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Govt. Of Goa, by

Shri Vinod Zambaulikar, Vocational Instructor(P)

for up-lifting Grade Pay from Rs. 4200/- to

Rs. 4600/-.

7. Subsequently, the file was once again placed

before the Govt. for appropriate decision on

24-05-2017. However, the file was returned by

the Secretary(SD&E) stating that “If similar case

was not considered by Finance, then why it

has been put up again. Plz clarify.”

8. Since the representation of Shri Vinod

Zambaulikar, Vocational Instructor of this

Department was addressed to the Hon’ble Chief

Minister, Govt. of Goa, the same was placed

before the Hon’ble C.M./Minister(SD&E)

through Secretary(SD&E) on 15-06-2017 for his

comments in the matter. However, the file was

returned by the then Hon’ble CM/Minister(SDE)

with remark “As of now has the circumstances

changed? If so give details.”

9. The proposal was resubmitted on 30-08-2017 to

the Personnel Department for their views. The

file was returned back to this Department with

remark “Since the financial upgradation of pay

scales and grade pay is the subject matter of

Finance (Revenue & Control) Department, the

referring Department may refer the proposal to

Finance (R&C) Department and take their views

for upgradation of grade pay.”

10. Again the proposal based on the representation

of Shri Vinod Zambaulikar was put up before

the Director (DSDE) on 23-11-2017. The then

Director(SD&E), put his remark on noting “PI.

Sp.” to the Dy. Dir (Admn) who in turn marked

it to the Office Superintendent on 27-11-2017.

11. From 27-11-2017, till another note was moved

on 23-06-2020, the file was lying with the then

Office Superintendent. This noting was moved

based on the newspaper report dated

25-05-2020. It is stated in the noting that the

file was lying in the cupboard of the then Office

Superintendent who suddenly died on

15-03-2019.

12. In the meantime, sou motu proceeding was

initiated by the Goa Human Rights Commission

and the fact of the matter is already mentioned.

13. The Hon’ble Goa Human Rights Commission

after hearing the Concerned parties issued the

present Inquiry Report/Order dated 06-10-2021

with instruction to forward comments of the

Director on the report, including action taken

or proposed to be taken thereon to the

Commission.

14. I have carefully gone throughthe concerned

File No. DSDE/EST/BOHGP/2016 and I submit

the comments accordingly.

15. With regard to para 12 of Inquiry Order/Report

of the Goa Human Rights Commission it is

submitted that the said representation dated

06-09-2017 does not come under the purview of

The Goa (Right of Citizens to Time-Bound

Delivery of Public Services) Act, 2013.

16. From the face of the record it can be seen that

the proposal was moved to Government three

times till date by the Department for considering

upliftment of pay scale of Vocational Instructors

from Grade Pay 4200 to Grade Pay 4600. It can

be also seen that the proposal was put up before

the then Director (SD&E) by Ms. Jyotsna Naik,

Upper Division Clerk (UDC) by noting dated

23-11-2017 and note was put as “Pl. sp” by the

then Director and file was marked to Deputy

Director (Admn) who in turn marked it to Office

Superintendent of this Directorate.

17. The then Office Superintendent, late Smt.

Mahima Binguekar 15-03-2019 and the file was

pending in her locked cupboard from

27-11-2017 till she died on 15-03-2019. The file

was traced and possession of the file was taken

in May/June 2020 by Ms. Jyotsna Naik, UDC. It

is evident that the file was in possession of the

late Office Superintendent from 27-11-2017 till

her death in March 2019.

18. On going through the facts of the matter, it is

seen that late Office Superintendent,

Smt. Mahima Binguekar is responsible for delay

of the matter.

1080

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 44

27TH JANUARY, 2022

19. However, it is seen that the dealing hand, the

concerned UDC Ms. Jyotsna Naik has not made

any effort to follow up the file for necessary

action with the Office Superintendent or the

Director nor she has taken possession of the file

immediately after the death of the Office

Superintendent.

20. The file was not traced and possession was not

taken and no action was taken by the UDC

even after 15 months after the death of the

Office Superintendent.

21. Although it is not required that every

representation should be submitted to the

Finance Department once their decision has

already been given on a similar representation

as there was no change of circumstances, yet

this could have been discussed with higher

authorities. However, no such steps were taken

by the dealing hand in this case.

22. The Director was not aware of this matter till

the Notice dated 26-05-2020 was received from

Human Rights Commission directing to submit

detailed report in the matter.

23. As the action cannot be taken without

following proper procedure laid down, it is

proposed to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings

against the dealing hand, the concerned UDC,

Ms. Jyotsna Naik and accordingly action to be

taken by following due procedure.

24. This report is submitted to the Human Rights

Commission based on Inquiry Report/Order

dated 06-10-2021 of the Hon’ble Commission in

the matter.

Place:

Panaji-Goa

Sd/- Director (SD&E)

Date:

23-11-2021

Respondent No. 1

Department of Home

Office of the Director General of Police

Order

No. ES-I(A)/Transfer of Dy. SP/2022/229

The below mentioned Dy. Superintendents of Police are hereby transferred and posted at the places

indicated against their names with immediate effect in public interest:-

Sr. No.

Name of the Officer

From

1. Shri Rajendra V. Raut Dessai

SDPO, Vasco

Crime Branch, Ribandar.

2. Shri Shaikh M. Salim

Dy. SP (Traffic North)

SDPO, Vasco.

3. Shri Sandesh T. Chodankar

Dy. SP GRP ‘A’ & ‘B’ Coy

SDPO, Margao.

4.. Shri Uday Narayan Parab

Dy. SP SB

SDPO, Mapusa.

5. Shri Sagar P. Ekoskar

On appointment

SDPO, Bicholim.

6. Shri Vishwesh P. Karpe

On appointment

SDPO, Porvorim.

7. Shri Suraj Suresh Halankar

On appointment

Dy. SP Coastal Security.

8. Shri Dharmesh G. P. Angle

Dy. SP Konkan Railway, Margao

Dy. SP Traffic, South.

9. Shri Santosh S. Dessai

SDPO, Panaji

SDPO, Quepem.

10.

Shri Chetan Laxman Patil

On appointment

SDPO, Ponda.

11.

Shri Harishchandra V. Madkaikar

Dy. SP Coastal Security

SDPO, Panaji.

12.

Shri Sudesh R. Naik

On appointment

Dy. SP Pernem.

13.

Shri Nelson B. R. Albuquerque

SDPO, Ponda

Dy. SP ATS.

14.

Shri Edwin M. S. Colaco

SDPO, Porvorim

Dy. SP GRP ‘A’ & GRP ‘B’.

15.

Shri Kiran J. Poduval

SDPO, Quepem

Dy. SP Security.

16.

Shri Tushar Vernekar

On appointment

Dy. SP ANC.

17.

Shri Prabhodh B. Shirwaiker

Dy. SP (Traffic South)

Dy. SP (Traffic North).

18.

Shri Jivba G. Dalvi

On appointment

Dy. SP GRP ‘D’.

2. This issues with the approval of Police Establishment Board.

Sd/- Superintendent of Police, HQ.

Panaji, 07th January, 2022.

———uuu———

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 44

27TH JANUARY, 2022

1081

Department of Industries

Order

No. 3/66/2019-IND(Part-II)/13

Government of Goa is pleased to nominate Swetika Sachan, IAS as the “Nodal Officer” to closely work

with Nodal Officers of Government of India and provide requisite information on Oxygen Management

Plans regularly.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Industries).

Porvorim, 19th January, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Tribal Welfare

Directorate of Tribal Welfare

Order

No. 1-114-2021-22/ADMN/DTW/5365

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Goa Commission for Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes Act, 2010 (Goa Act 9 of 2010), the Government of Goa is pleased to accept the resignation

tendered by Shri Ramesh B. Tawadkar, Chairperson of Goa Commission for SC/ST w.e.f. 25-01-2022.

Shri Ramesh B. Tawadkar, is hereby relieved from the post of Chairperson of Goa Commission for

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with immediate effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Triveni Velip, Director (Tribal Welfare).

Panaji, 25th January, 2022.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 15.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—346/150—01/2022.