REMEDIOS Vs. GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Linhares, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent. The above Petition challenges an Order passed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 31.12.2008, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to demolish the disputed structure as, according to the authorities, the same is in breach of the CRZ Notification.

(2.) Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has pointed out that the original show cause notice was issued in the name of the deceased father who was never served with such notice as he had already expired and that the statement in the impugned Order that the Petitioner had received the said notice, is not correct. Learned Counsel has taken me through the averments in the Petition to the effect that the address shown in the said show cause notice was at a different place where the Petitioner otherwise resides and that there is a specific averment that the Petitioner had never appeared before the authorities. Learned Counsel further pointed out that only a subsequent notice calling upon the said Santano Goes to produce the document was received by the Petitioner and, accordingly, documents were produced to disclose that the disputed structure was in existence much before the year 1991. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there is an application filed by the father of the Petitioner to the concerned Panchayat in the year 1985 for reconstructing the existing structure and there is other material produced from the Panchayat to the effect that the structure was much prior to the year 1991. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the documents have not at all been scrutinised and as such the Respondent be directed to hear the Petitioners and dispose of the show cause notice in accordance with law.

(3.) On the other hand, Ms. Linhares, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent, has supported the impugned Order. Learned Addl. Government Advocate pointed out that there is a specific recital in the impugned Order that the show cause notice was in fact received by the Petitioner. Learned Addl. Government Advocate as such submits that there was an effective hearing given to the Petitioner and, as such, the question of interference in the impugned Order does not arise. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further submits without prejudice that a hearing can be given to the Petitioner and the show cause notice be decided afresh by the Authorities expeditiously.