Mateus Pedro Romano Dias And 11 ORS., v. State Of Goa, Thr. The Chief Secretary Of Goa, Govt. Of Goa And 7 ORS.,

2025:BHC-GOA:1284-DB Shakuntala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

PIL WRIT PETITION NO.12 OF 2018 PAMELA RODRIGUES., ... PETITIONER

Versus

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WORKS DIVISION XIV (NH), PWD. GOVT. OF GOA AND 5 ORS.

... RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 391 OF 2019 MATEUS PEDRO ROMANO DIAS AND 11 ORS., ... PETITIONERS

Versus

STATE OF GOA, THR.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF GOA, GOVT. OF GOA AND 7 ORS., ... RESPONDENTS Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias and Mr. K. Panchal, Advocates for the Petitioner in PILWP/12/2018.

Ms. Sulekha Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 in PILWP/12/2018. Ms Maria Carmel Viegas, Advocate for the petitioner WP/391/2019.

Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 in WP/391/2019. 1 / 3

CORAM:- BHARATI DANGRE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.

DATED :- 21st July 2025 P. C.

1.

In continuation of the order dated 14.07.2025, learnd Additional Government Advocate, Ms. Kamat, representing the Executive Engineer seeks one week time.

At her request, renotify to 29.07.2025.

2.

As far as Writ Petition No. 391/2019 is concerned, which is listed along with present petition, the learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Shirodkar has invited our attention to order dated 06.06.2019 and in specific the following portion of the order:- "3. In the companion petition, a grievance is voiced on behalf of the petitioners by learned Counsel appearing for them that whilst carrying out the work, their structures should not be affected, since they are in close proximity with the site where the work is being carried out.

2 / 3

4. Learned Advocate General assures the Court, after taking instructions from the Chief Engineer, Public Works Division of the State, that the respondents shall leave a buffer of at least 10 metres between the petitioner's structures and the water line. The statement is accepted.

5. Since this takes care of the petitioner's grievance, no further directions may be necessary. Learned Counsel submits that in view of the statement made, he will consider whether he would like to press the petition any further. The petition is, in the premises, stood over along with the PIL Writ Petition to 19/07/2019."

3.

In the wake of the aforesaid statement, according to us, the grievance in the petition does not survive as the petitioner never approached this Court after the said date i.e. 06.06.2019, raising any grievance. Hence the petition stands disposed of. NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. 3 / 3 Signed by: SHAKUNTALA ZALMI Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 22/07/2025 15:35:13