Re: Oil teerminal at sancoale

****************************************
For more information/links, see http://goanet.netfirms.com
****************************************


Dear Mr Carvalho

The letter we referred on Gomantak Times dated
16.4.2003 captioned Helmet controversy II we actually 
meant was  written not by your kindself but on your
subject matter "oil tanking at Sancoale" by one Menino
Almeida of Cansaulim, wherein the allegation of fees
of Rs.50,000/- demanded by Adv Aires Rodrigues to
pursue the issue is made. However we are still
awaiting the rejoinder to ascertain the veracity of
the same.

Since you did not accept our proposal to meet Adv
Vinod Harlankar who in our opinion is conversant with
the issue around Sancoale, we are afraid we may not be
able to do much.

We are speaking of the legal stand that Panchayat
members who are alleged to be in the employment of the
ZIL and have subsequently backed out of the earlier
consent against the project.

The mention of your absence is as per your
clarification. 

If the Communidade is silent then the legal case will
never suceed.  The members need to be exposed at the
next elections schedule for December 2003, but it is
advisable that you get on record the reasons why they
are silent on filing a  case.

Yours faithfully,
for South Goa Public Interest Action Group (NGO)

Terence Mazarelo
PRESIDENT.






 --- simon carvalho <simonc-0VrrOzQoB60xpvK4C0GaPQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >
REPLY TO YOUR MESSAGE QUOTED HERE BELOW:
> 
> I didn't meet advocate Vinod Harlankar till today.
> 
> The Panchayat has not passed any resolution
> favouring grant of license for the construction of
> oil terminal.  In fact there are two resolutions
> rejecting the grant of license to the ZIOTL.  One
> resolution by the Panchayat and one by the Gram
> Sabah.  However, the denial issued by the ZIL
> employees is another matter and the Panchayat
> advocate will take care of it.
> 
> I was not a member of the Panchayat nor I was in Goa
> when the ZIOTL applied for license.  There is one
> more resolution passed by the Gram Sabah rejecting
> the project.
> 
> I have not written any letter on the Gomantak Times.
>  Please e-mail a copy if you have it.
> 
> Adv. Mahesh Sonak is not fighting Panchayat case. 
> He is ZIOTL advocate.
> 
> I agree that land leased for one purpose cannot be
> used for another or sub leased.  The Communidade
> Committee wanted to file a suit.  The case is ready.
>  But now they are silent.  You guess!
> 
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:07:24 +0100 (BST)
> From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?President\(sgpiag\)?="
> <sgpiag-/E1597aS9LQxFYw1CcD5bw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Simon Carvalho <simonc-0VrrOzQoB60xpvK4C0GaPQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: onegoa-oneqCxcDAinQT0dZR+AlfA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, goanet@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Goanet] Re: Fw: OIL TERMINAL AT SANCOALE
> Reply-To: goanet-fPO8gb98cCIdnm+yROfE0A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Dear Simon,
> 
> You have been provided an opportunity to contact
> Advocate Vinod Harlankar to esxamine the feasibility
> of pursuing your case. However it is realiably
> understood you have yet not met him. Please clarify.
> 
> The non inclusion of the Communidade of Sncoale
> appears to be a lapse in our considered opinion
> 
> The clarification that most of the Panchayat members
> are in the employment of the ZOTCL ( Zuaris ) has
> not
> found mention either in your plea before the
> Director
> of Pnachayats or at any of the Gram Sabhas.
> 
> Your absence at many of the crucial meetings also
> appears to have given scope for manipulations by the
> Panchayat members. If there was even one voice of
> dissent these notings could have helped.
> 
> Your recent letter on Gomantak Times that Adv. Aires
> Rodrigues has demanded Rs.50,000 for pursuing the
> case
> in the appropriate forum has also been taken note
> and
> we hope for a suitable reply from Adv Rodrigues.
> 
> Meanwhile we would like to know what were the fees
> charged for by Adv. Mahesh Sonak and the reasons why
> Communidade of Sancoale were not made a party.
> 
> It is a known fact that land leased for one pupose
> cannot be used for another or sub leased. Hence this
> in our considered opinion could be a vital point.
> 
> Please advise us the latest developments on the
> hearing this week.
> 
> 
> for SOUTH GOA PUBLIC INTEREST ACTION GROUP
> sd/-
> PRESIDENT(SGPIAG)
>  

________________________________________________________________________
Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV.
       visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com