Kashinath Jairam Shetye And 3 ORS., v. Ms. Madhusmita Kondepudi And 6 ORS.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 22 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 422 OF 1998 KASHINATH JAIRAM SHETYE AND 3 ORS., ... Petitioners

Versus

MS. MADHUSMITA KONDEPUDI AND 6 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. R. Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. A. Prabhudesai, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.4.

Ms. P. Karmalkar holding for Mr. S. Mahambrey, Advocate for Respondent No.7.

Coram:- F. M. REIS & C. V. BHADANG, JJ.

Date:- 30th November, 2015 P.C.:

Heard Mr. R. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. A. Prabhudesai, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.4 and Ms. P. Karmalkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.7.

2. The above petition, inter alia, seeks for a direction to take action in accordance with law against the respondents for violation of CRZ notification.

3. During the course of the hearing of the above petition, the learned

CP/22/2012 Additional Government Advocate has placed on record an order dated 21/05/2014 showing that action with that regard was initiated and disposed of by GCZMA.

4. Mr. R. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that at this stage though the relief sought by the petitioners would not survive, nevertheless, the petitioners may be given liberty to challenge such order in accordance with law.

5. In view of the said order produced on record, we find that nothing survives in the above petition which stands accordingly dismissed as infructuous. The petitioners, if so advised, may proceed to challenge the order in accordance with law. We hereby clarify that we have not examined the veracity or the contentions of the parties nor the order dated 21/05/2014. All contentions of the both the parties on merits are left open.

C. V. BHADANG, J.

F. M. REIS, J.

NH