Goa Legislative Assembly

*WILL the Minister for Tourism be pleased to state:

(a) the initiatives taken by the Tourism department apart from road shows and International events to increase tourism footfalls in Goa and the results thereof; the methodology used for issuing advertisements to promote Hinterland tourism, Spiritual tourism, beaches, shacks and the types of cuisine served in shacks,  etc. such advertisements released during the last five years in different mediums outside India and within India (outside Goa); furnish details of advertisement expenditure, State/Country-wise and the number of tourists arrived from these States/Countries; the details of agencies empaneled to release such advertisements and copies of agreements signed with each of them; and the steps the Government has taken to promote tourism;
(b) whether there is a tough competition to Goa’s tourism from other States of India or neighboring Countries; if so, give details; whether prior approvals or Ex Post facto approval was taken to release the advertisements; if so, furnish details of all approvals; 
(c) the details of each travel with the total amount spent on foreign tours and travel marts since last five years; furnish the details with names, designation of the Ministers/MLAs’ and Government Officials who participated in the above mentioned tours/Travel Marts; furnish details of the total amount of T.A./D.A. paid to each official, Minister/MLAs’ and Government officials for each trip; and whether permission was taken/obtained for each visit/travel;
(d) the total number of tourists visited from the places where Government officials and Ministers/MLAs, who participated in travel marts and the separate expenditure of this travel to respective places; and
(e) whether the pre-audit has been done by the Sub-Committee of the State Marketing and Promotions Committee or any other agency with respect to expenditure of the above-mentioned foreign tours/road shows?
 

*WILL the Minister for Tourism be pleased to state:

(a) the total revenue generated from the Dona Paula Jetty since it was handed over to a private entity, with details such as:

i) annual revenue figures earned through entry fees, commercial rents, and other applicable charges;
ii) a detailed account of funds disbursed to the State Government, local bodies, and the private company managing the jetty;
iii) the amount of taxes, royalties, or levies paid by the private company to the Government, along with the corresponding assessment reports from the tax department;
iv) any financial waivers, exemptions, or concessions granted to the private entity and the specific Government orders authorizing such benefits;
(b) the ownership structure and affiliations of the private entity managing the jetty, such as:
i)  the list of all Directors, shareholders, and beneficial owners of the private company;
ii) the nature of any political affiliations, directorships, or financial transactions linking company executives to Government officials;
iii) whether the company operates as a standalone entity or is a subsidiary of a larger corporate group, including details of its parent company, if applicable;
(c) the auditing process and financial accountability related to the privatization of the jetty, such as:
i) copies of detailed audit reports for the last three financial years, including observations made by auditors regarding revenue collection and expenditure;
ii) any findings of financial mismanagement, discrepancies, or irregularities in these audits and the corrective measures, if any, undertaken by the Government;
iii) the oversight mechanism in place to ensure financial transparency and prevent undue profiteering at the cost of public interest;
(d) the provisions in the privatization contract that regulate Government control over the jetty, such as:
i) the contractual conditions under which the privatization agreement can be revoked or modified by the Government;
ii) the financial and legal consequences of contract termination, including penalties or compensations payable by either party;
iii) whether the Government has undertaken any assessments or discussions on the feasibility of revoking or renegotiating the agreement in light of ongoing protests by vendors and public opposition;
(e) the pre-privatization due diligence and feasibility analysis conducted by the Government, such as:
i) furnish copies of all feasibility studies, economic impact assessments, and tourism projections prepared before handing over the jetty to a private entity;
ii) whether the Government considered alternative tourism development models such as Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) or community-based tourism initiatives, and if not, the reasons for their exclusion; and
iii) the specific rationale for excluding local vendors from decision-making processes and choosing full privatization instead of an inclusive tourism model that benefits both the Government and local businesses?
 

*WILL the Minister for Tourism be pleased to state:

(a) the impact of the jetty’s privatization on public access to river transport and waterfront areas, such as:
i) furnish a list of specific sections of the jetty or surrounding areas that are now restricted or inaccessible to the general public as a result of privatization;
ii) the nature of any complaints received from tourists, locals, or businesses regarding restricted access, along with copies of these complaints and any action taken in response;
(b) the Government’s current and future plans for reintroducing or improving river transport facilities at Dona Paula Jetty such as:
i) whether any budgetary allocations or policy initiatives have been made for reintroducing ferry services or water-based public transport from the jetty;
ii) the reasons for not prioritizing the revival of ferry services despite the jetty’s strategic location and high tourism potential;
(c) the consultation process involving the River Navigation Department before privatization, such as:
i) the extent of involvement of the River Navigation Department in the decision to privatize the jetty and whether any reports or recommendations were prepared by the department;
ii) whether any concerns or objections were raised by the River Navigation Department regarding the privatization and how the Government addressed them;
(d) the environmental and maritime impact assessments conducted before privatization, such as:
i) copies of impact assessment reports evaluating the effects of commercialization on marine life, water traffic, and the ecosystem;
ii) whether any environmental mitigation measures were proposed and enforced as part of the privatization agreement;
(e) the exact legal and regulatory framework under which the River Navigation Department issued approvals for privatization, such as:
i) a list of licenses, permits, and approvals granted to the private entity managing the jetty, including their respective issuance dates and conditions;
ii) whether any of these permits allowed the private company to exercise exclusive control over commercial activities, navigation rights, or docking privileges at the jetty; and
iii) whether the granting of these permits followed standard regulatory procedures or if any were fast-tracked or given special considerations?

WILL the Minister for Environment and Climate Change be pleased to  state:

(a) whether the State Yachting Association (GYA) boat shed has received any notice from the relevant authorities regarding CRZ violations; if so, furnish an index page specifying date of notice, issuing authority, specific violation(s) mentioned;
(b) the legal provisions and CRZ regulations allegedly violated by the GYA boat shed; specify the relevant sections of the CRZ notification under which action is being taken and furnish copies of the relevant notices or supporting documents;
(c) whether the GYA has applied for any permissions or approvals to regularize or compound its boat shed structure within the CRZ; if so, provide the current status of such applications along with copies of the applications and any correspondence;
(d) the actions being taken by the Ministry of Environment to ensure compliance with CRZ norms, including details of any demolition or penalty proceedings initiated against the GYA boat shed; and
(e) the tabulated list of CRZ violation cases in the State by watersports operators from 01/01/2021 till date, such as date of complaint, details of complaint, name of the accused, action taken thereof?

 WILL the Minister for Environment and Climate Change be pleased to state:

(a) the parameters used to ascertain river pollution by the State Environment Department and GSPCB; whether Coliform content (cfu/ml), other key pollutant parameters (such as dissolved oxygen, pH, BOD, heavy metals, etc.) name all the indicators;
(b) the most recent water quality study done for River Sal and Colva Creek, furnish the reports thereof;
(c) furnish a tabulated list of seasonal water quality readings from 01/01/2021 till date for all the major rivers in the State, namely Terekhol, Chapora, Mandovi, Mapusa, Zuari, Cumbarjua Canal, SAL, and Talpona, as well as Colva, Varca and St. Inez Creek; furnish name of the river, sampling date, sampling location, Coliform count (cfu/ml), pH value, BOD or other pollutant measurements as available;
(d) furnish a tabulated list of all complaints received regarding sewerage dumping/discharge from 01/01/2021 till date for the above-mentioned rivers and creeks; such as date of complaint, river/creek, location of complaint, nature of complaint, action taken/status; and
(e) whether the Government is serious in combatting the blatant pollution of our rivers, if so, furnish a copy of the Government’s action plan or strategy formulated to combat sewerage dumping and pollution?