The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) dismissed the petition challenging the municipal stop work order, holding that the Chief Officer acted within lawful jurisdiction under Section 184 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968.
The petitioners installed solar rooftop power generating systems on Mendes Apartments’ terrace in Vasco da Gama for domestic and commercial use. The Municipal Council issued a stop work order citing lack of construction license in violation of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968.
Petitioners claimed that under the Goa State Solar Policy, 2017, as “Prosumers,” they were exempt from obtaining licenses or permissions, making the stop work order illegal and without jurisdiction. Respondents contended that the policy differentiates “Prosumers” and “Producers,” granting exemptions only to “Producers” who generate solar power for commercial sale, not residential use. The Court emphasized that the Solar Policy is a non-legislative document and cannot override statutory powers under municipal law.
The Bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes observed that Section 184 of the Goa Municipalities Act mandates construction licenses for any building work within municipal areas and empowers the Chief Officer to regulate unauthorized construction.
The court found that the Solar Policy cannot be construed either as a legislation, original, delegated or otherwise. Moreover, the Policy distinctly categorizes “Prosumers” (consuming and generating solar power) and “Producers” (pure commercial generation). Only “Producers” are granted exemptions from licenses under the policy.
In result, the court held that the stop work order was within jurisdiction, supported by valid material, and consistent with municipal statutes and building regulations. It dismissed the petition, affirming the municipal authority’s power to issue stop work orders for unauthorized construction. Petitioners were directed to dismantle the solar panel installation by 12 December 2025, with compliance to be reported to the Court.
Appearances:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anirudh Salkar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Marie Rosette Pereira and Ms. Swati Kamat Wagh, Advocates.
