The Supreme Court in the case The Goa Foundation And Ors. versus Union Of India And Ors observed wherein the public interest litigation is initiated for protection of a monument of national importance in Goa, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioner or Goa Foundation to move the concerned High Court.
The bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan in the case observed and has stated that this court is satisfied that the appropriate […] would be firstly to approach the High Court, thus, this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this stage and dismiss the same with liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court.
The court observed that considering the besides the monument, the petitioner and most of the respondents were also located in Goa, the Bench remarked that the High Court was well equipped to look into the issues sought to be raised by the petitioner.
Further, the court stated that the petition pertained to preservation of Survey No.4/1 of Village Ela, the Old Goa, part of a UNESCO World Heritage site, in which two protected monuments ie Church of St. Cajetan and Viceroy’s Arch fall.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioner-Foundation, informed the court that some respondents had filed petitions raising related issues before the High Court, which have been challenged.
The said issues are pending before the top court. Thus, the issue of protection and preservation of Ela Village was not directly or substantially a subject matter of consideration in those matters.
The bench in the case observed and has asked Parikh as to what stopped the Foundation from approaching the concerned High Court, while referring to the pending SLPs, the Senior Counsel replied, ‘the difficulty is, issues are pending here…in SLPs’.
Adding to it, Kant J responded that the PIL cannot be filed for an issue…already before the court.
Further, it has been contended by Parikh that the Foundation can independently raise the issue before the High Court, but it may be permitted to do so by the court. Thus, I would have gone there…I filed 32 only because I thought there will be cumulative application of mind by this court on all the issues.
The bench of Kant, J remarked that, in the interest of justice, it is better that you go to High Court. Issue, as framed by you, is a slightly larger issue.