AGNELO FERNANDES Vs. GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 25/11/2008 passed by the respondent directing the petitioner to demolish certain constructions carried out by the petitioner in violation of Coastal Zone Regulations (CRZ) notification. The petition has been filed on 23/8/2010 and in view of the office objections which were cleared the petition was ordered to be admitted by the Registry on 24/8/2010. This petition has been filed pursuant to the liberty given by the Division Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 5/7/2010 passed in Writ Petition no. 313 of 2009 filed by the intervenor alleging inaction on the part of the authorities to take action against illegal constructions in violation of the notification issued under CRZ Regulations. The petitioner was the sixth respondent in the said petition in which Rule was issued on 5/7/2010. The Division Bench observed that the sixth respondent (the petitioner herein) had not challenged the order dated 25/11/2008 passed by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), the respondent herein. By way of interim relief the Division Bench had directed the sixth respondent to comply with the order dated 25/11/2008 within a period of six weeks from the date of the order and stated that the said relief is without prejudice to the right of the sixth respondent to challenge the order dated 25/11/2008 in accordance with law. It was further directed that the respondent herein will verify whether compliance has been made with the order dated 25/11/2008 within a period of six weeks from the date of the order and will place the report on record.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent and the intervenor at the outset submitted that having regard to the delay and laches and the conduct of the petitioner, the petition does not deserve to be entertained in as much as the impugned order was passed on 25/11/2008 and the Division Bench had directed the petitioner herein to comply with the impugned order within a period of six weeks without prejudice to his right to challenge the said order. According to the learned counsel in view of the said order it is evident that the petitioner was bound to demolish the illegal constructions within a period of six weeks of the order dated 5/7/2010, in the event the petitioner chose not to comply with the said direction and obtain interim order from this Court. According to the learned counsel the present petition was not filed within a period of six weeks which period expired on 16/8/2010. As such, the petitioner has committed breach of the order passed by the Division Bench directing the petitioner to comply with the impugned order within a period of six weeks. According to the learned counsel not only does the petition suffer from laches in challenging the order passed in November 2008 by filing the petition in August 2010, but the petitioner has also committed breach of the order dated 5/7/2010 by not demolishing the illegal construction ordered to be demolished by the respondent herein. Learned counsel therefore submitted that delay and laches on the part of the petitioner and also the conduct of the petitioner clearly dis -entitles him from seeking extraordinary remedy from this Court.

(3.) MR . Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while conceding that the petition has not been filed within a period of six weeks from the date of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition no.313 of 2009, submitted that this fact by itself would not come in the way of the petitioner from challenging the impugned order in as much as there are no gross laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. According to Mr. Lotlikar, the question of delay at no point of time was raised by the respondent. According to learned counsel, the respondent has acted in breach of the principles of natural justice and therefore the petitioner ought not to be non -suited on the ground that he has not filed the petition within a period of six weeks in terms of the order dated 5/7/2010 passed by the Division Bench. Mr. Lotlikar further submitted that serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in the event the petition is dismissed on the ground that the petition has not been filed within a period of six weeks from the date of the order passed by the Division Bench.