Oral Judgment:

1. By way of the present petition, the Petitioners seek to quash and set aside the order dated 20.06.2025, passed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner cum Secretary, Urban Development, Appellate Authority, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa.

2. By way of the impugned order, the Secretary (Urban Development) upheld the order dated 21st May, 2025, passed by the Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Panaji, i.e. the Respondent No.3 herein. The Corporation, by the said order, had directed the occupants of the premises, adjacent to the Falcon building in Old Municipal Market, Panaji, Goa, to vacate the premises, more particularly described as property bearing Chalta Nos. 76 to 84 of P. T. Sheet No.38 in the Old Municipal Market in the Panaji city of Goa, within a period of 24 hours from the service of the said order on the occupants.

3. The Corporation had passed the said order pursuant to a report given by the Goa Engineering College relating to the structural analysis of the said premises. As per the said report, the concerned authorities of the Goa College of Engineering have opined that the building is unsafe and required to be immediately evacuated for the purpose of ensuring the safety of occupants and the general public. It is this order which was assailed by the Petitioners before the Secretary (Urban Development), and later before this Court.

4. Heard Mr. Raunaq Rao, learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Karpe, learned Counsel, appearing for the Corporation.

5. Mr. Rao submitted that the said order was passed by the Commissioner without adhering to the provisions of Section 59 of the Corporation of the City of Panaji Act (CCP Act), which provided for such decisions to be taken by the elected body of the Corporation and not by the Commissioner alone. He also submitted that the Commissioner, while passing the impugned order dated 21st May, 2025, failed to take into consideration that there was already a resolution dated 18th January, 2025, adopted and passed by the elected body of the Corporation directing rehabilitation of the occupants of the concerned building. The further minutes of meeting also indicated that the predecessor Commissioner had directed that the concerned building could be repaired and all that was required, was to devise an appropriate policy, a systematic plan or a scheme to be put into place to give effect to the resolutions.

6. Mr. Rao submitted finally that the Petitioners have inhabited the said premises since 1969 and directing them to vacate the premises without making any arrangements of alternate accommodation shall cause irreparable hardship to the occupants, i.e. the Petitioners. He, thus, prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.

7. Per contra, Mr. Karpe brought to my attention the report of visual examination and inspection and testing of the premises conducted by the competent authorities of the Goa College of Engineering. The report clearly recommended that the condition of the building is not in a good state on account of too much of corrosion in RCC components and ageing. It is also observed that at many places, columns in the building were damaged, and the reinforcement is fully exposed. The right side portion of the building is standing only because of supporting props and is already on the verge of falling with fully exposed column, beam and slab reinforcements.

8. Finally, the report concluded that the concrete throughout the structure is significantly deteriorated and does not meet the minimum codal requirements for structural safety. There is a high risk of sudden structural failure under normal service loads or minor environmental disturbances. The report also observed that the repair and strengthening of the building is not viable due to the extent of deterioration in both concrete and steel components. The report thus recommended the urgent evacuation of the building to ensure the safety of occupants and the public, in accordance with prevailing law and order, and strongly advised its demolition without delay.

9. By order dated 30th June, 2025, rule was issued.

10. By order dated 28th May, 2025, a statement of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner was recorded that the Petitioners would remove all the material from the premises occupied them in the building within a period of one week from the date of the order and notify the Commissioner of the CCP, the time and date on which they would remove the material from the premises occupied by them to enable the CCP to remove the barricades around the structures in the building at least 24 hours in advance. However, while this Court directed the Respondent No.3 not to demolish the building in question, liberty was granted to the Corporation to approach the Court, in the event any imminent or dangerous situation arose due to the onset of the monsoons, for modification of the order.

11. Mr Karpe adds that the premises are owned by the Corporation. The Petitioners were put in possession pursuant to lease agreements entered into between the Corporation and each individual Petitioner. The lease period is already over. According to him, most of the Petitioners are in arrears of payment of rent. He submits that this is a contractual transaction between the parties, and the Respondent Corporation is not bound to offer or provide alternate accommodation to the Petitioners.

12. Be that as it may, admittedly, the Petitioners have evacuated the building. The building is in dire need of being brought down as seen from the report of structural analysis given by the Goa Engineering College.

13. Mr. Karpe, thus, on instructions, states that the Corporation is ready and willing to offer the existing eligible tenants, i.e. the Petitioners herein, a right of pre-emption to take on rent, premises in the newly constructed building, if at all after the building is demolished and a new building is constructed on the said premises, the Corporation assigns or allots the units in the newly constructed building on rent to the public at large at the market rate, existing at the relevant time. In the alternative, Mr. Karpe says that in the event that the Corporation frames a policy for allotment of the units in the newly constructed building, by way of auction or by inviting tenders, the present Petitioners shall be at liberty to participate in the said auction. The statement is accepted by this Court.

14. Mr. Rao states, on instructions, that presently, there is no such policy framed by the Corporation to allot any of its premises/units/shops to the public at large by inviting tenders.

15. In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives in the petition.

16. The petition is disposed accordingly.

17. The Corporation is at liberty to demolish the premises on the basis of the structural analysis report given by the Goa College of Engineering.

18. At this juncture, Mr. Rao states that the Petitioners have made representations to the Corporation seeking rehabilitation and alternate premises in the interim period. The Corporation has not yet decided the said representations and the same are pending. The Respondent No.3 Corporation is directed to decide the representations based on its present policies within a period of three months from the date on which the order is uploaded.

19. The Petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is discharged.

20. All pending and interim applications are disposed of in view of the disposal of the present petition.