Bombay High CourtPILWP/9/2015disposed of

Mr. Floriano Conceicao Lobo. v. The State Of Goa, Through Its Chief Secretary And 7 ORS.,

2016-01-25Hon'Ble Shri Justice K. L. Wadane,F. M. Reis2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WP NO. 9 OF 2015 MR. FLORIANO CONCEICAO LOBO.

... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF GOA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 7 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr.Salvador Santosh Rebello, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondent nos.1,3,6 & 7. Mr. S. G. Bhobe, Advocate for the respondent no.8. Coram:- F. M. REIS & K. L. WADANE, JJ.

Date:- 25th January, 2016 P.c.

Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent nos.1,3,6 & 7 and Mr. S. G. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.8.

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and it is pointed out by learned Counsel Mr. Nigel Costa Frias, that the grievance of the petitioner is that no action is being taken by the respondent no. 4-Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, for violation of the CRZ Regulations. It is pointed out by Mr. Nigel Costa Frias, that during the pendency of the above petition, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a site inspection was carried out by the respondent no.4 and a report has been placed on record.

PILWP/9/2015

3. The learned Advocate General has also placed on record a show cause notice dated 15/1/2016 issued to the respondent no. 8 in connection with the alleged violations of the CRZ Regulations.

4. As action has been initiated by the petitioner, we find that the grievances of the petitioner are presently redressed. As such, the above Writ Petition stands disposed of by directing the respondent no.4 to decide the said show cause notice dated 15.1.2016 after hearing all the concerned parties, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months. All the contentions of the respondent no. 8 are left open to be examined on own merits in accordance with law as we have not examined the validity or the correctness of the allegations made in the petition. K. L. WADANE, J.

F. M. REIS, J.