1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPELLATE SIDE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.6 OF 2008 ... Petitioner versus 1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa. 2. The Secretary, Finance Dept., Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa. 3. The Secretary, Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa. 4. The Secretary, Law Dept., Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa. 5. The Secretary/Registrar, Cooperative Dept., Panaji, Goa. 6. Inspector General of Police, Panaji Head Quarters, Panaji, Goa. 7. The Collector, Collectorate Office, North Goa, Panaji. 8. The Principal Engineer, Public Work Department, Panaji. .. Respondents CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 16TH DECEMBER, 2009. 2 JUDGMENT (Swatanter Kumar, C.J.) Keeping in mind the inaction and inappreciable attitude of the State administration towards justice delivery system in the State of Goa, this court was compelled to treat the representation of the Bar and other attendant circumstances brought on record by the Registry of the Court as a Public Interest Litigation, Suo Motu. This related to various aspects including providing space and construction of building for District Court Complex for North Goa at Merces Panaji, implementation of scheme of arrears free courts at Goa, allotment of land and construction of High Court building, providing of requisite facilities and infrastructure for running of the courts, filling up of the vacancies of Industrial Courts and Administrative Tribunal for both South and North Districts, providing of some additional space to the High Court for its proper functioning, keeping in view the number of Judges who come to hold the court at the Bench at Goa. 2. When the matter came up for hearing, the court vide its order dated 19th March, 2008 had passed the detailed order. Part of the order relevant for determining the remaining controversy before this court can be referred to at this stage itself. "2. As back as in 1987 the land bearing Survey Nos.89/5, 77/1, 77/1(part), 75/1 and 75/3 situated at Porvorim was approved for construction of the complex for the High Court of Bombay at Goa. This was an appreciable decision to which the High Court had concurred and the Full Court had given its approval for construction of the High Court complex on that site. It 3 may be stated here itself that this site at Porvorim is prestigious one since new Assembly building as well as Secretariat buildings have been constructed in this area. Thus, this hillock is exclusively devoted to most prestigious buildings of the State. 3. After approval of the said land and the project by the High Court, the land admeasuring 53,748 sq.mts. from out of the above lands was acquired by the Government of Goa vide letter dated 14th April, 1987. However, subsequently an area of 23,878 sq.mts was dropped from the said acquisition vide Government Notification dated 2.10.1991 issued under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thus, the possession of the remaining less land of only 22,898 sq.mts was given to the Law and Judiciary Department, Government of Goa, Panaji, as is evident from the possession certificate dated 12.1.1996. 4. The proposal for construction of District Court complex for North Goa at Panaji was under consideration of the Government since 1997. However, as stated above although the land was taken in possession of the user department no steps were taken for construction of the High Court complex on the above land for the reasons best known to the concerned officials. In the year 2003, the Government requested Hon'ble The Chief Justice for changing the use of the above acquired land at Povorim from the High Court building to the building of District Court and subordinate courts. Despite inordinate delay on the part of the State, the above proposal was accepted by the High Court obviously on the understanding that adequate space to the High Court would be provided at the present site i.e. Lycem Complex where the High Court is located. Thereafter, number of meetings were held for completing the formalities of construction of the District Court complex and even detailed requirement of proposed District and Civil Court complex were furnished. The Government was requested to start the construction work immediately as already decided. Certain restrictions were indicated in relation to the height of the building. Therefore, in the meetings held between the High Court and the Government it was decided that additional land of 15,000 sq.mt should be acquired at the same place. Again the Government was requested to take expeditious steps. However, no action was taken by the concerned officials of the State inspite of the fact that various meetings were held. 4 5. Surprisingly, the Government, without consent, much less, approval and without even bringing it to the notice of the High Court, changed the proposal of constructing District Court complex on Povorim acquired land and on its own decided to construct the District Court Complex on another site at Merces as is evident from the following facts. It is believed that the said land at Merces is currently in possession of the District Rural Development Agency for the purpose of establishing Special Project under SGSY "Goa Bazar" funded by the Central Government. It appears that this unilateral change was made by the Government on a representation made by the practising Advocates of North Goa District Court about the inconvenience, hardship and plight of the litigants in the existing court complex at Panjim city. Vide representation dated 12th October, 2007, another section of the lawyers reiterated the need for new complex but stated that the change of site from Porvorim to Merces was motivated and was at the behest of influential persons. The relevant part of the letter reads as under: "....politicians are purposely opposing the proposal on account of their personal interests in properties located in the vicinity of the acquired land and it is they have instigated a group of persons from the legal fraternity." 6. The High Court of Bombay at Goa learnt of this unilateral decision from the public and vide its letter dated 16th October, 2007, the Registrar of Goa Bench informed the concern of the High Court to the Government. The relevant part of the said letter reads as under: "I may mention here that in the recent past, various complaints/representations have been received from different sections of lawyers of four talukas for whose benefit the District Court Complex is to be constructed. They have serious objection to the change of the approved site and may be for valid grounds. It is quite possible that the advocates of one taluka or section may be supporting the view of the Government or any section in the Government in regard to change of the site. No plausible reasons, much less, any reason have been furnished to the High Court so far for such proposal, if any. The complaints have also been received by the High Court that 5 very influential and highly placed persons in the Government are interested in withdrawing and cancellation of the allotted site. It, therefore, appears that this has been done with ulterior motives. I need not emphasize that public interest must take precedence over the interests of individual or group of individuals. The site approved by the High Court is the best site from many points of view and no change is called for. It cannot be assumed in law or by any stretch of imagination that a group of lawyers from one taluka would pursue the matters directly with the Government or on behalf of the High Court. They have no authority, jurisdiction and powers to do so. Even administrative norms would not permit such interaction as High Court alone is the competent authority to deal with such matters. At this stage, it would not be proper for me to deliberate on this issue at length. There is serious objection raised by the lawyers as well as by the Officers in some concerned quarters. I have just to put the same on the record. Moreover, I would bring all these facts to the notice of the Court and the concerned Committee in the High Court. However, if any communication is received from the Government it would be placed before the competent authority of the High Court. I request you to issue appropriate directions to the concerned department and the officials in the Government to forthwith commence the construction work on the approved allotted site." 7. On receipt of this letter, the Law Secretary had made a note and forwarded the same with her letter to the Chief Secretary stating that in fact the High Court was neither consulted nor informed about the allocation of new site for the District Court complex. 8. During site inspection by the High Court, it has also come to the notice that certain influential persons are interested in Porvorim site for commercial or other purposes. We cannot at this stage venture to say as to whether such an allegation is true or otherwise. But it needs to be reiterated that in the above letter the Registrar of Goa Bench had written to the Government about this 6 apprehension and the Government has not even cared to inform the High Court that this is not correct." 3. In the above said order, it was also noticed that various persuasive attempts made by the Senior Judges of the Court at Goa Bench including Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.N. Patel, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Shah, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.B. Bhosale and others, however, had failed to have any result and the Government had been avoiding the implementation of decisions in relation to placement of land at the disposal of concerned department and construction of a new building for the High Court at Goa. 4. During the pendency of this petition, there was some change in the attitude of the Government. Various interim orders and directions were passed and the Government started taking some steps for providing land for judicial complex for North Goa at Merces Panaji. From the statement made by the Advocate General appearing for the State of Goa, some progress was made in relation to some of the issues involved in the present case. On 26th August, 2009, the court passed the following order: "Various orders, namely, dated 19th March 2008, 21st October 2008, 3rd March 2009, 4th March 2009, 10th June 2009 and 15th July, 2009 came to be passed in this Public Interest Litigation from time to time by different Benches. In furtherance to the directions issued by the Court, certain steps had been taken by the State administration. The order of status quo was varied to a limited extent of handing over Building No.5 to the High Court and Building No.4 to the Goa High Court Bar Association as per decision of the Government. Now, 7 primarily, three issues remain to be examined by the Court and dealt with in accordance with law in the larger public interest and in the interest of the administration of justice. They are:- (a) Construction of the High Court building at Porvorim or any other appropriate place as claimed by the State; (b) Arrears Free Courts in Goa; and (c) Handing over of the land for construction of District Court Complex for North Goa at Merces, Panaji. As far as first two items are concerned, the State had taken up the stand that presently the decision of the State is not to construct High Court building at Porvorim because of certain limitations and it is not quite amenable to the idea of Arrears Free Courts in Goa because there are economic constraints and some posts in the judiciary are lying vacant. Due to certain subsequent events as well as certain directions which the Court may have to issue before the order/judgment on these two issues could be pronounced, we defer the final decision on these two aspects and direct the matter to be listed for further directions in regard to the said two issues. As far as the third issue is concerned, learned Advocate General on 19th June 2009 had made it clear that there was additional area of 40,000 square meters at Merces near Kadamba Bus Stand, Panaji out of which an area of 20,000 square meters was proposed to be handed over to the Competent Authority for construction of the North Goa District Court complex and the Government was willing to co-operate fully in this behalf. Another important aspect was that initially the Government had taken a decision to utilise the balance 20,000 square meters of area for market or commercial activity, however, subsequently, the order dated 19th June 2009 it was decided that the commercial building should not be constructed to carry out commercial activity adjacent to the Court complex because it will lead to disturbance in the Court functioning as well as would cause other apparent inconvenience and difficulties to 8 the lawyers, litigants and the Court staff. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is also stated that the Government had approved the proposal for allotting the plot of 20,000 square meters to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, North Goa. During the course of arguments on 15th July 2009, the learned Advocate General had also clarified that no regular market or commercial activity will be carried on adjacent to Court. In fact, District Rural Development Authority would use it for a very limited purpose of establishing State Emporium, etc. and allied activity. It is expected that the State would not carry on activity of such a commercial nature which would disturb the working of the Court or hamper the administration of justice at the District Court. The plot in question is certainly a convenient one. It is close to the Bus Stand and it is located near to the road, its accessibility to the public is easier and the litigants coming from far flung and near by areas can save time and effectively pursue their litigation before the Court. We are told that the High Court also has no objection to the acceptance of the said area subject to the condition afore-noticed. In these circumstances and keeping in view the stand taken by the State Government, we direct as under:- (a) The area of 20,000 square meters at Merces near Kadamba Bus Stand, Panaji shall be handed over to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, North Goa within two weeks from today. (b) The above site has already been approved by all concerned i.e. the Chief Town Planner, the Chief Architect, Engineering Department as well as the State administration. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, North Goa and other concerned authorities in the State shall take effective steps to ensure commencement of the construction at the site in question at the earliest. (c) It will be ensured that there is reasonable distance between the construction to be raised on the remaining plot of 20000 square meters and its entry and exit should no way conflict 9 with or cause directly or indirectly any obstruction to the ingress and egress to the Court complex. It will also be ensured that on that plot no such activity, commercial or otherwise, is carried on which will hamper or interfere with the administration of justice and cause inconvenience to the lawyers, litigants and the Court staff. It will be in the interest of all concerned that separate exit and entry for the Court Complex is provided other than the entry and exit to the other complex which will be raised by the Government. These directions should be complied with without any further delay. The order of status quo dated 19th March 2008 shall continue in regard to the land at Porvorim and all other interim directions shall also remain in force till further orders and unless they have been specifically vacated by the Court. List the matter for further directions in regard to the remaining two issues." 5. After, the above order, the State Government has handed over possession of the land admeasuring 20,000 sq.mts. at Merces near Kadamba Bus Stand, on 18-8-2009 for the District Court Complex and foundation stone has also been laid. The construction of the building needs to be expedited considering the difficulties which are being faced by the litigants, lawyers and Judges, for want of adequate space. Provision for residential quarters for judicial officers is yet to be made. 6. However, we must notice that the stand taken by the State Government in regard to the land at Porvorim is not only unfair but is even unreasonable. Proper administration of justice requires and in fact, 10 presupposes existence of proper infrastructure, manpower and access to justice. The unreasonable attitude of the State can easily be demonstrated by various factors which we shall shortly proceed to discuss. There can be no justification whatsoever for the State to change the site to another place keeping in mind the fact that the site at Porvorim was initially acquired for the High Court and has already been allotted to Law and Judiciary Department. It may be noted that two sites were acquired on either side of the N.H., meant for two prestigious institutions namely for the High Court on one side and Assembly complex on the other side. 7. First and foremost requirement for a building of institution like High Court is from the point of view on security. The present building of the High Court is very unsafe. There are public roads passing through the High Court. In fact, between the two buildings, the regular road passes which goes to the houses located on the hill immediately after the High Court building. There are two gates for the High Court premises which are important from security perspective but one of them is a public thoroughfare. Thus, there can be hardly any check on the people coming and going from that road. In fact, that is the regular passage to the market passing by the parking space where even Judges' cars and lawyers' cars are parked. The space besides being very limited, even general public park their cars at the same place. It has to be kept in mind that 11 there is security threat to the institutions like High Court and other courts in the State all over. Vide letters dated 7th August 2008 and 13th August 2008, the Superintendent of Police, Traffic and Superintendent of Police, Security, Panaji have also conveyed that the present building is exposed to security threats because of its location, entrances, limited parking space etc. Vide his letter dated 19th November 2008, the Superintendent of Police, CID (Security) had also informed the Registrar of the High Court that it was not desirable and expected to permit outsiders to come inside the court complex and park their vehicles for security reasons not only of the High Court building but also of the Hon'ble Judges, Advocates, Court Staff and litigants. The parking in the present building of the High Court requires major changes. Furthermore, since the regular road passes between the buildings of the High Court, there is every possibility for the advocates, litigants or the staff being hurt because of heavy vehicular traffic on that small road. The Members of the Bar had also raised this issue on the administrative side. The Chief Engineer, Chief Town Planner and Landscape Architect have also recorded security aspect in the note dated 16th July, 2009 which reads as under: “SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE On consideration of various aspects including 12 security, construction, maintenance of building heritage”, and convenience of the Court buildings for the litigants, and the Advocates, it will be appropriate that the Courts are restricted to building Nos.1,2, and 3 only. In the alternative, Court halls in Building No.5 can be made. However, lot of construction including providing facilities of bridge or sub-way or such other mode of passage to connect the said building to other Court buildings will be required to be made, as building under reference is isolated due to a public road which is very narrow and cannot be blocked. The above is to be kept in mind as this is conservation area." 8. The Registrar General of the Bombay High Court vide his letter dated 2nd April, 2009 has noted various facets in this regard communicated to the Chief Secretary which are as under: “Recently there has been increase in the strength of High Court Judges from 64 to 75. With full strength it would be necessary that 6 Hon'ble Judges should be permanently posted at Goa. It would be further necessary that when visiting Judges go to Goa there should be space for visiting Judges to hold their Court as well as to have Chambers for them. The proportionate increase in staff is essential and necessary. However, there is no scope for such expansion at Altinho. No space 12. The present court hall Nos.3 & 4 have inadequate space and cannot be used as Court hall as hardly 10-15 persons can be accommodated in the Court hall and that too with great difficulty. 13. Chamber Meetings of Hon'ble Judges at Bombay, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Goa are held by Video Conferencing. For the conference, system has been installed in one of the rooms at Altinho which is 13 really chamber meant for Hon'ble Judges. If Chamber Meeting is to be held and Video Conferencing unit is to be used, there is no Chamber for the fourth Judge. 14. It is prevalent practice that Hon'ble Judges sitting at High Court have meetings between themselves and take lunch together during lunch break. However, at Altinho there is no space for having such meetings or having lunch together. 15. Members of the staff attached to the Court are required to be immediately available. However, there is no space near the Court hall for sitting for the Personal Assistant and Private Secretaries and to keep the record with them. At present there are two rooms for the Private Secretaries and two Personal Assistants. Further additional space will have to be provided for Personal Assistants for additional Courts. 16. Staff of the Judicial and Board Sections are housed in very cramped condition with hardly any space for keeping their files. Even to keep racks there is no space and the files are lying on the floor. No place to keep records 17. Due to increase of number of Judges, there is increase in disposed off cases. Records of the disposed off matters are required to be preserved for a specified number of years. The records of disposed off matters are going on increasing and there is no space or place to keep those records. Legal Services Authority is also suffering 18. After passing of Legal Services Authority Act, it became imperative to establish statutory authority like Goa State Legal Services Authority and High Court Legal Services Committee. These authorities function independent of the High Court with independent establishment. These authorities have 14 their own staff to carry out the objects. For want of space, no independent staff could be appointed at Goa for these authorities. High Court has recently, with great difficulty in order to discharge its responsibilities squeezed out space in the building No.3 to establish Mediation Center and Permanent Lok Adalat for Districts of North and South Goa. Parking problems 19. In the present complex although large number of Advocates and litigants come to the Court there is hardly any space for parking of cars. The Hon'ble Judges and High Court Staff also face difficulties regarding parking of vehicles. Recently when there was function on 21st and 22nd March, 2009, VIP and dignitaries invited were required to park their vehicles at a distance and were required to use steep steps to reach the venue of High Court, facing lot of inconvenience. Security 20. The present High Court complex suffers from security angle also. Looking to the recent development in the country, it is imperative and duty of the Government to ensure complete security