MILTON MARQUIS Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Government Advocate waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. Shri Nadkarni, the learned Counsel waives service for respondent no.5. Shri Gawas, the learned Counsel waives service for respondent no.6. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is challenging the order dated 22/02/2016, passed by the second respondent, Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA, for short), under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the Act, for short), directing demolition of the construction, standing in Survey No.223/1A and 222/3A of village Anjuna, Bardez, Goa.

(3.) The brief facts are that the fifth respondent lodged a complaint with the GCZMA, alleging illegal and unauthorised construction of some structures by the petitioner in Survey Nos.222/3A and 223/1A of village Anjuna, Bardez, Goa, which were allegedly constructed in breach of the CRZ Regulations. The GCZMA issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 11/01/2016, claiming that the petitioner had made illegal construction of a ground + 1 structure, styled as "Alcove Resort', with 7 to 8 permanent cottages and restaurant and permanent structures along with staircase leading to the beach, which are falling within 10 to 50 metres of the High Tide Line (HTL) and without obtaining necessary permissions/ approval from the Statutory Authorities and in violation of CRZ Notification, 2011. The said notice was served on the petitioner on 13/01/2016 and the petitioner was asked to remain present for personal hearing on 18/01/2016. The petitioner, accordingly, remained present and filed an application, seeking 15 days' time to enable the petitioner to compile the relevant documents and to file a detailed reply. The GCZMA, accordingly, granted time to the petitioner to file a detailed reply till 28/01/2016, on which date, the petitioner filed a detailed reply raising various contentions. In short, it was contended that the structures are existing structures much prior to the year 1991 and there is no violation of CRZ Regulations. However, the GCZMA, by the impugned order, has directed demolition of the subject structures, which order is subject matter of challenge in this petition.