Panaji: The high court of Bombay at Goa has imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on three petitioners and residents of Marcaim who objected to construction of what they termed a ‘new crematorium’ at Adanwada, Marcaim.
The court found that only repairs of an existing crematorium were being carried out.
It has directed that the costs be deposited with the South Goa collector within four weeks and a compliance report be filed.
“The petition, at the worst, indicates that the petitioners have approached this court with a patently false case that some new crematorium was being constructed when in reality, this was a case of repairs and renovation of an existing crematorium,” stated Justices M S Sonak and R N Laddha.
The petitioners’ case was that the ‘new crematorium’ was being constructed at a distance of hardly two metres from one of the petitioner’s houses and just five metres away from an anganwadi. The high court directed the South Goa collector to take suitable steps to relocate the anganwadi if it felt that the existing crematorium was hazardous to the interest of the children.
Twenty-nine residents had filed an application stating that it was not a new construction and that the crematorium has been in existence for 60 years.
They further alleged that it was petitioner number 1, who had, without obtaining permissions from any statutory authorities, constructed his house next to the crematorium and that the other petitioners had purchased plots around the property with full knowledge about the existence of the crematorium there.
A Agni, senior advocate for the petitioners, submitted that a new crematorium was being set up in the said property in defiance of the provisions of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Act, 2008, and the Goa Public Health Act, 1985. She submitted that even otherwise, no crematorium can be permitted in residential areas or areas close to schools and anganwadis. She referred to the nuisance and health hazards that would arise if a crematorium is permitted on the said property.
Advocate Arjun Naik, representing the 29 villagers, submitted that there was another crematorium about 600m away, but added that the petitioners, and certain members belonging to the petitioners’ community, were restraining the 29 residents and members of the Kharvi community from making use of other crematoria.
He pointed out that this is the only crematorium the Kharvi community could cremate without obstruction from any persons or authorities.
The court found that only repairs of an existing crematorium were being carried out.
It has directed that the costs be deposited with the South Goa collector within four weeks and a compliance report be filed.
“The petition, at the worst, indicates that the petitioners have approached this court with a patently false case that some new crematorium was being constructed when in reality, this was a case of repairs and renovation of an existing crematorium,” stated Justices M S Sonak and R N Laddha.
The petitioners’ case was that the ‘new crematorium’ was being constructed at a distance of hardly two metres from one of the petitioner’s houses and just five metres away from an anganwadi. The high court directed the South Goa collector to take suitable steps to relocate the anganwadi if it felt that the existing crematorium was hazardous to the interest of the children.
Twenty-nine residents had filed an application stating that it was not a new construction and that the crematorium has been in existence for 60 years.
They further alleged that it was petitioner number 1, who had, without obtaining permissions from any statutory authorities, constructed his house next to the crematorium and that the other petitioners had purchased plots around the property with full knowledge about the existence of the crematorium there.
A Agni, senior advocate for the petitioners, submitted that a new crematorium was being set up in the said property in defiance of the provisions of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction) Act, 2008, and the Goa Public Health Act, 1985. She submitted that even otherwise, no crematorium can be permitted in residential areas or areas close to schools and anganwadis. She referred to the nuisance and health hazards that would arise if a crematorium is permitted on the said property.
Advocate Arjun Naik, representing the 29 villagers, submitted that there was another crematorium about 600m away, but added that the petitioners, and certain members belonging to the petitioners’ community, were restraining the 29 residents and members of the Kharvi community from making use of other crematoria.
He pointed out that this is the only crematorium the Kharvi community could cremate without obstruction from any persons or authorities.