Daijiworld Media Network- Panaji

Panaji, May 28: In a move that may significantly impact Goa’s urban development dynamics, the state government has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Bombay High Court at Goa’s decision to read down Section 17(2) of the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act, 1974. In its Special Leave Petition (SLP), the state accused the high court of transgressing legislative boundaries and curtailing crucial government mechanisms for regional planning.

The petition, filed nearly two months after the high court’s March 14 judgment, contends that the HC’s order “limits the state’s ability to rectify past errors in the regional plan” and undermines constitutionally defined roles of the legislative and executive branches. The state also sought an interim stay on the implementation of the HC ruling.

Section 17(2) of the TCP Act allows for changes in regional plans without prior public notification in certain specific circumstances. However, the high court, while not declaring the section unconstitutional, had struck down the rules and guidelines governing its implementation, citing public interest. It also ordered that no new applications under the provision be processed.

“The high court blurred the lines between executive and legislative functions,” the SLP states. “Legislative enactment and administrative implementation are separate powers. The judgment overlooks this constitutional division.” The state added that defining public participation timelines in urban planning is a legislative prerogative, and post-notification of changes is permitted under specific conditions.

Criticising the HC for “misinterpreting” the spirit and scope of Section 17(2), the petition argues that the court narrowed the provision’s functionality and failed to consider its environmental safeguards. The state maintained that the provision balances development needs with Goa’s ecological sensitivities.

The government also alleged violation of natural justice principles, stating that the high court relied on generic data about land conversions — mostly from paddy fields and natural zones to settlements — without examining individual cases or hearing affected parties.

The original PIL, which triggered the judicial scrutiny, alleged that Section 17(2) was being misused to facilitate indiscriminate land use changes favouring powerful real estate interests at the cost of ecological balance and public welfare. The HC observed that the existing rules and circulars served private interests more than sustainable development.

In its defense, the state government said it remains committed to environmentally sensitive growth, citing efforts to integrate green initiatives such as eco-cottages and the green lung concept into Goa’s urban planning strategy. The SLP insists that the high court failed to recognise that Section 17(2) was designed with narrow operational limits and proper checks.

The Supreme Court’s decision on this high-profile appeal could have far-reaching implications on Goa’s planning framework and the role of judicial oversight in land-use governance.