Anti - Socorro Village Panchayat A case for People's Empowerment If the much talked about 73rd Constitutional Amendment is said to be about 'power to the people' and local self-governance, then perhaps for the people of Socorro it is a far off dream.
This is one of the many instances in Socorro village which demonstrates how lucrative the issuing of construction permissions can be to Village Panchayat representatives in Goa. The gains from this activity are so great that the people's welfare and people's decisions are secondary. Builder and real-estate lobby interests come first. Porvorim and adjoining wards of Socorro Village Panchayat have witnessed one of the most severe water scarcities this summer 2005. Thanks to the indiscriminate land conversions and permissions by the District Collector and Town and Country Planning Department coupled with the super-fast processing of construction permissions in select cases by the Village Panchayat. On 23rd March 2005 the MLA of Aldona constitutency, Shri Dayanand Narvekar visited Socorro village to listen to the grievances of the public. Among various issues pointed out was the severe water shortage experienced by the people this summer. The PWD Water works officials as usual blamed the short supply from the Assonora Treatment Plant for the problem. It was in this meeting a resident pointed out how the reservoirs at Porvorim are grossly insufficient to cope with the fast pace of construction of buildings with anywhere up to 450 flats in one housing complex. It was pointed out how in a radius of half a kilometer, in a single ward of the Village, around 1000 flats have surfaced in just about a year. This would mean that in the next year around 3000 persons will have to be supplied with potable water. The requirements of the huge storage capacity underground sumps in these building complexes can no where be met by the existing reservoirs of the Water works department. These building complexes are encouraged to sink bore wells which in turn have been drying up the wells in the low lying areas. Accordingly it was proposed that a total ban be imposed on multi-dwelling constructions until the government is able to give every household at least minimum of 6 hours water supply per day. The MLA of Aldona, Mr. Narvekar after consulting with the Block Development Officer of Bardez, Mr. Nipanikar, who incidentally was also appointed administrator of Socorro Village Panchayat and was present at this meeting, advised the residents to pass a resolution to this effect in the Gram Sabha. Accordingly at the Gram Sabha convened on May 7, 2005 it was resolved vide resolution no. 4(1) as, 'not to issue construction permission for multi-dwelling unit (flats and housing complexes), hotels, restaurants, boarding/lodging house, in Socorro village due to the grave water shortage being faced by the residents of Socorro village. The ban on construction will continue till the PWD is in a position to release water for 6 hours daily to the residents of Socorrro and adequate arrangements are made for garbage disposal as per the Goa non-bio-degradable Act. The decision may be conveyed to the collector and Town and Country Planning Department, PWD. After a broad discussion the said proposal was put for voting, 33 Gram Sabha members voted in favour against 3 Gram Sabha members. Here it was passed by majority to send the proposal to the concerned departments.' What was interesting is that from amongst the 8 V.P. members present at the Gram Sabha, the Sarpanch Shri Anand A. Mandrekar and one member Shri Sarvesh D. Naik supported the resolution. The Gram Sabha also resolved not to allow sinking of tube wells and sale of water through tankers due to the depleting water table and absence of water in the existing wells. The Village Panchayat Body meanwhile turned jittery that they would be deprived of their lucrative financial avenue by the implementation of this prosposal. The V.P. Body and in particular the very same Sarpanch, Mr. Anand A. Mandrekar in total disregard of section 54 (3) of the Goa Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and rule 4 of the Goa Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1996, clandestinely took up a proposal to suspend a Gram Sabha proposal without the same being mentioned in the notice of the business to be transacted in the fortnightly meeting of 16th May 2005. The V.P. Body's resolution no. 12(1) reads as, '...further it is resolved by the Panchayat Body to suspend the unlawful proposal No. 1 proposed by Mr. Sotter D'Souza vide letter dtd. 3rd May 2005 for stopping of multi-dwelling units and other big buildings in V.P. Socorro, although the said proposal is passed by the Gram Sabha members. The said proposal is not within the rules and as well as the Village Panchayat Raj Act 1994. It is contradictory proposal and there is no provision in Panchayat Act rules to stop legal licences of construction. The Panchayat does not have any power to stop legal licences of construction whether it is residential bungalow or multi-dwelling units as these constructions have followed all the formalities framed for the purpose of construction and as such the Panchayat cannot stop giving any licences when the party/applicant has complied all the required formalities. Stopping construction in the jurisdiction of Socorro village is a revenue loss to the village Panchayat, therefore the panchayat cannot stop granting licences and therefore it is resolved by the Panchayat to suspend the said proposal and to read the said resolution in the next general body meeting'. It is amply evident from the above resolution that the V.P Body of Socorro has a vested interest in issuing construction permissions even if it is detrimental to the health and welfare of the residents. It has violated section 6 (4) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 which reads as 'the decision taken by the Gram Sabha shall be binding on the Panchayat provided it is not contrary to the rules and regulations framed under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and it shall be the duty of the Sarpanch to execute the same as early as possible.' The Village Panchayat Body in its desperation and purported lust for kick-backs has forgotten that the issue about the resolution being contrary to the law should have been raised by the Chairperson or members at the time it was proposed by the Gram Sabha, but that did not happen. The reasons cited in the resolution are an after thought to circumvent the Gram Sabha resolution. The resolution having been passed by the Gram Sabha does not warrant the approval or suspension by the V.P. Body as per the section 6 (4) of the Act which is clear. There are no powers vested in the Panchayat to suspend or approve a resolution of the Gram Sabha and that is why the V.P. Body is silent on the provisions of law. By this resolution the V.P. Body has usurped the powers of the Director to suspend a resolution. Again the Gram Sabha resolution is not contrary to Section 66 of the Goa Panchayati Raj Act which makes obtaining a construction permission mandatory. The Act no where says that the Village Panchayat is bound to issue the construction permission. It is only bound to reply to the applicant within 15 days about its decision, which obviously is to reject or accept an application by citing reasons. The whole concocted justification and rationalization about not being able to deny permission to the applicant having followed all formalities, which again the V.P. Body has not been specific, is all cattle fodder. The Gram Sabha is the supreme body in the village. All other N.O.Cs obtained from various departments are mere recommendatory in nature. The V.P. Body in this resolution is also silent on the provisions in the PR Act on the Village Panchayat's powers for making of bye-laws for conservancy of water sources, health hygiene, etc. Another argument that one can refute is the issue of revenue loss cited by the V.P. Body. If this is the contention of the V.P. Body then banning tobacco, matka, alcohol, prostitution, pornography is also a huge revenue loss to the State. Can public welfare be undermined by revenue considerations? When the people of the village have taken a decision, why is the V.P. Body so concerned about revenue loss? Is it that more the revenue collected would mean more the tendering of so dubbed development works which in turn would mean more commission from contractors? However, two other Gram Sabha resolutions, one for banning of bore wells and another for banning the sale of water from local wells were executed by the V.P. Body. Under which provisions of the law were these resolutions executed is now a matter for the village panchayat to answer . In all this is the Government officer called the 'Village panchayat Secretary' who under Section 113A(vii) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 has to report within seven days to the Block Development Officer any illegal act, or misconduct, or misuse or abuse of powers and infringements of the provisions of the Act. In this case the V.P. Secretary has been silent and appears to be conniving with the V.P. Body against the villagers of Socorro. Finally, the above incident is a clear example of how Village Panchayat of Socorro is anti-people and anti-village. The Village Panchayat is supposed to take the defence of its local people. It is for those aggrieved to resort to legal redressal. But here is a glaring case of how the Village Panchayat takes up the side of the contractors, builders and real-estate lobby against the village people. If this does not amount to corrupt practice then what could it be? It is the Anti-Village Panchayat of Socorro. -soter d'souza For Socorro People's Panchayat (A Socorro Citizen's Forum) phone 9890056616