Ruling group and opposition hope DMA will pronounce his order before December 13
the goan I network
MARGAO
The fate of Margao Municipal Council’s plan to name the Fatorda road after former Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar on his birthday on December 13 hangs in balance with the Director of Municipal Administration, Dr Tariq Thomas reserving his order on the petition filed by the Opposition MMC councillors to suspend the council resolution on road naming.
Along with the plan to name the Fatorda road after Manohar Parrikar, the MMC had drawn up plans to name the Bolshe circle as St Joaquim circle and the Gogol circle as Floriano Vaz circle on December 13.
DMA Dr Thomas resumed hearing on Tuesday evening on the petition filed by the Opposition Margao Municipal councillors challenging the Council resolution on the naming of roads and the installation of the statue of Dr Jack de Sequeira at the Ravindra Bhavan traffic circle.
Sources said though the hearing was scheduled to resume in the DMA office at around 4.30 pm, the DMA had to urgently leave to the Secretariat for some official work. The hearing is believed to have resumed only at around 5.40 pm and wound up only at around 8 pm after the legal counsels representing the two sides advanced the arguments.
While the DMA is believed to have reserved his order at the end of the hearing, the decision has virtually left the parties to the dispute, the Opposition and ruling Margao Municipal councillors to keep their fingers crossed.
Both sides in private agreed that the DMA will pronounce his order before December 13 as any delay in pronouncing the order will only pave way for the Margao Municipal Council to go ahead and name the Fatorda road after Manohar Parrikar on his birthday.
The opposition councillors had knocked the doors of the DMA by filing a petition under section 293 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, saying the Resolutions, if permitted to stand, is likely to cause breach of peace.
The petition stated that the items in the agenda had never been included in the previous meeting held on July 30, 2019 nor discussed at that meeting, but sought to be surreptitiously inserted as if having been resolved at the meeting on July 30, 2019 under “any other business” and “confirmed” at the meeting held on November 7.
The petitioners further submitted that the resolution for naming roads/streets, affects the public at large and would need to take the public affected by this road-naming to be taken into confidence or at least their views taken, for the members of the public cannot be foisted upon the name of a road of a person whom they may not wish to have thrust upon them.
