E-Paper
High court stays Goa govt plan to build road to ISKCON project on hilltop
The high court posted the petition against the Goa government decision to build a road for further hearing in the first week of January 2024
PANAJI: The Bombay high court at Goa on Friday stayed a Goa government’s decision to build a two-kilometre road to a property of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON that plans to set up a “vedic village” atop a south Goa hill, observing that “doling out of such a largesse to a private party may not pass the constitutional muster.”
A two-judge bench comprising justices MS Sonak and Bharat Deshpande barred the government from going ahead with constructing the road for now on a petition filed by two residents, Deelip Babal Naik and Abhijit Prabhudesai, who challenged the state’s decision to build the road at public expense.
Goa’s advocate general Devidas Pangam defended the decision, arguing that ISKCON intended to build a vedic village, temple and a goshala (cow shed), all of which constitute a “public purpose”. There was thus no bar on the state government to agree to provide an approach road to ISKCON’s property.
In a letter requesting the state government’s assistance, ISKCON had sought the state’s help to construct a road to their ‘land-locked’ property spread across 32,000 square metres that was gifted to them atop a hill at the Borim village in south Goa.
ISKCON reasoned that their project would be of “public welfare and tourist attraction” and requested support “in construction of the road through the PWD department on priority”.
The high court, which has posted the matter for further hearing in the first week of January 2024, as an interim measure granted an interim stay.
“It is imperative that if the government awards a contract or leases out or otherwise deals with its property or grants any other largesse, it would be liable to be tested for its validity on the touchstone of reasonableness and public interest and if it fails to satisfy either test, it would be unconstitutional and invalid… the State cannot act arbitrarily, capriciously or in an unprincipled manner. It is well settled that the government is not free, like an ordinary individual, in selecting the recipients for its largess, and it cannot choose to deal with any person it pleases in its absolute and unfettered discretion,” the high court observed.
“The governmental action must not be arbitrary or capricious but must be based on some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance,” the order said.
“All powers vested in the State are meant to be exercised for the public good and in the public interest. A public authority is ordained, therefore, to act reasonably and in good faith and upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest,” the bench added.
