Gregorio Judy Fernandes @ Bruno Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Managment Authority, Through Its Member Secretary

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J

The petitioner owns a coconut garden with open spaces. Usually, he lets out that property for people to hold functions and celebrations. To facilitate those functions, the petitioner is said to have developed some structures in the coconut garden.

In September 2019, somebody complained to the respondent-authority that the petitioner had raised illegal structures and letting them out in violation of the CRZ Notification. Acting on that complaint, on 29.01.2021, the respondent-authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. That notice also contained a direction that the petitioner should stop all commercial activities on the property. Having received that notice on 04.02.2021 the petitioner filed his preliminary reply on 08.02.2021.

Later, for reasons not germane here, the matter has been adjourned

According to the petitioner's counsel, the petitioner has sought adjournments on a couple from time to time. According to the petitioner's counsel, the petitioner of occasions; on other occasions the respondent-Authority sought adjournments in the matter.

has never sought an adjournment. It is perhaps because of the administrative exigencies. Now, the matter stands posted to 15.04.2021.

Aggrieved by what is said to be inordinate delay in the respondent’s disposing of the proceedings, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

Shri Parag Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has straight away drawn my attention to paragraph 16 of the pleadings. According to him, on all those dates mentioned in that paragraph, people have their programmes fixed to celebrate marriages and other public functions. Now, with this interminable interim order, all those persons will suffer hardship. At the eleventh hour, they may not find even alternative venues. This will not only cause prejudice to those persons but also affect the petitioner's reputation. Shri Rao also adds that the petitioner had reserved those dates for the respective persons much before the respondent-authority served the stop-operation order, except the wedding fixed for 08.05.2021.

Characteristic of his candidness, Shri Faldessai, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has suggested that the dispute shall not affect third parties. To obviate that hardship to others, he has suggested that the respondent-authority is willing to allow the petitioner to operate the property on the dates mentioned in paragraph 16. It is only to avoid hardship to third parties, who may have not been aware of the developments in the matter. Nevertheless, Shri Faldessai insists that under the guise of this concession, the petitioner should not operate the property on other dates. To this proposition, the learned counsel for the petitioner agrees.

Besides that, Shri Faldessai also agrees that the respondent-authority will dispose of the proceedings in three months from today.

I, therefore, partially modify the impugned notice/order, dated 29.01.2021, and allow the petitioner to let his property to the persons for public functions on the following dates:

10.04.2021, 12.04.2021, 15.04.2021, 17.04.2021, 18.04.2021, 22.04.2021, 24.04.2021, 25.04.2021, 28.04.2021, 01.05.2021, 08.05.2021, 13.05.2021 & 23.05.2021.

As agreed, the petitioner shall not carry out any activities on the property on other days than those mentioned above. I am also sure that the respondent-authority, as agreed now, will dispose of the proceedings in three months from today.

With these observations, I dispose of the Writ Petition.