National Green Tribunal
Paul Lobo vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority on 26 August, 2025
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
**********
APPEAL NO.20 OF 2022 (WZ)
I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Paul Lobo
H. No.14, Tamborim,
Cavelossim, Salcete, Goa.
2. Glen Almeida
H. No. 695, Zalor,
Carmona, Salcete, Goa.
3. Jose Fernandes
H. No. 23, Tamborim
Cavelossim, Salcete, Goa.
4. Antonio Vital Luis
H. No. 687/3, Zalor, Carmona,
Salcete, Goa- 403 714.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority
Through its Member Secretary,
4th Floor, Dempo Towers,
Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa- 403 001.
2. M/s Nova Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director,
C/o Soares and Associates
Plot No. Sy. No.246/1 Anjuna-Bardez
Street No Vagator Village Landmark Anjun,
A North Goa, Mapusa, Goa- 403 509.
3. Goa Water Resources Department
Through its Chief Engineer,
Sinchai Bhavan, Near Police Station,
Porvorim, Goa- 403 521.
4. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
Through the Joint Committee Secretary,
2nd Floor, Agni Block, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jorbagh Road, New Delhi- 110 003.
.....Respondents
Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 1 of 51
Counsel for the Appellants:
Ms. Ronita Bhattacharya, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Abhay Anturkar, Advocate for R-1/GCZMA
Mr. J.E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate along-with
Mr. Somnath Karpe, Ms. Samiksha Vaigankar and
Mr. Jeet Volvoikar, Advocates for R-2/PP
Mr. D.M. Gupte, Advocate for R-4
PRESENT:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member)
Hon'ble Dr. Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member)
Reserved on : 12.06.2025
Pronounced on : 26.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants seeking setting aside the impugned directions dated 03.03.2022 issued by Respondent No.1- GCZMA; a direction is prayed to be issued to Respondent No.2- M/s. Nova Resorts Pvt. Ltd. to remove all compound walls, structures, roads and other constructions already constructed on the areas demarcated as sand dunes within Survey Nos.134/3 and 135/4 of Cavelossim Village in the draft CZMP maps prepared by the Government of Goa and within the low-lying areas in the said Survey Numbers; a direction is prayed to be issued to Respondent No.2 to stop all construction/development work at the site in question; a direction is prayed to be issued to Respondent No.1- GCZMA to ensure the protection, restoration and restitution of the sand dunes demarcated on the CZMP maps, prepared by the Government of Goa; and a direction is prayed to be issued to Respondent No.1 to assess the final, revised plans of Respondent No.2- Project Proponent and submit a report as to whether it is possible to construct the hotel project in compliance with the Specific Condition Nos.12 and 16 of the CRZ Clearance dated 20.10.2015 and without affecting the natural drainage Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 2 of 51 and retention of flood waters in the low-lying areas in view of impending threats due to climate change etc.
2. In brief, the facts of this appeal are that the appellants are local villagers of Cavelossim village and are neighbours of the Carmona village, who are concerned about destruction of the pristine sandy beaches, sand dunes and low-lying lands in Cavelossim village, which play a crucial role in preventing flooding in the region and protecting and sustaining the local population. The appellants had previously filed Original Application No.28/2021 before this Tribunal regarding the destruction of sand dunes at Cavelossim village.
3. It is further mentioned in this appeal that Respondent No.1- GCZMA is the body that granted the CRZ clearance dated 20.10.2015 to the proposed hotel project of Respondent No.2 and is also the Authority that passed the impugned directions dated 03.03.2022. The appellants are aggrieved by the directions dated 03.03.2022, whereby the Respondent No.1 has admitted and acknowledged that Respondent No.2 has been illegally cutting, excavating and filling sand dunes protected under the CRZ Notification of 2011 contrary to the conditions of the CRZ clearance dated 20.10.2015 granted to the Project Proponent, but has failed to revoke the CRZ Clearance granted to the Project Proponent. The appellants are also aggrieved by the failure of the Inspection Report to refer to the CZMP map and record the actual extent of the sand dune cutting that has taken place, which is more than double of the area recorded in the said report. Respondent No.1 also failed to consider the fact recorded in the inspection report that the sand dune cutting that has taken place in Sy. No.135/4, Cavelossim village, outside Sy. No.134/3, Cavelossim village. Further, the impugned directions did not mention the need to protect the low-lying areas in the region which prevent flooding in the region. Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 3 of 51
4. It is further mentioned in this appeal that the decision, not to revoke the CRZ clearance despite admittedly recording the violation of its condition not to flatten sand dunes, extract sand or level or dig sandy stretches, is also contrary to Goa State Action Plan on Climate Change for the Period between 2020-2030, commissioned by the Goa State Biodiversity Board which recommends that the projects, reflected in the coastal development plan or zone for new construction, based on the climate predictions on sea-level rise flooding and erosion, should be re- considered. Respondent No.2- Project Proponent failed to take any action to restore the sand dunes previously cut by them, which is contrary to the impugned directions of Respondent No.1 dated 03.03.2022. For this reason, the Appellants have also prayed for restitution of the damaged sand dunes under Section 15(c) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
5. It is further mentioned in this appeal that on 20.10.2015, Respondent No.2- Project Proponent obtained CRZ Clearance from Respondent No.1 for the proposed construction of hotel/resort on the land bearing Survey no.134/3 in Cavelossim Village, Salcete Taluka, Goa, which consists of 11 buildings having around 80 units. Prior to the clearance being issued, the site of the construction of the hotel beyond the 200 mtrs. of the High Tide Line (HTL) was recorded as being "a coastal strip" and "a sand dune complex" with dune vegetation and creepers during a site inspection done by Respondent No.1 on 30.04.2015. A copy of the site inspection report dated 16.05.2015, which was prepared by the Respondent No.1 based on the inspection dated 30.04.2015, has been annexed as Annexure A-1 and accordingly, the CRZ Clearance dated 20.10.2015 imposed the following conditions:-
Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 4 of 51
a) Specific Conditions No. 3 and 20 of the Clearance provides that the project proponent must "strictly comply with the provisions of the CRZ Notification of 2011"
b) Specific condition no 12 prohibits the flattening of sand dunes.
c) Specific Condition no 16 prohibits the extraction of sand, or leveling or digging of sandy stretches, within 500m of the HTL."
6. A copy of the above-mentioned CRZ clearance dated 20.10.2015 has been annexed as Annexure A- 2.
7. It is further mentioned in this appeal that the construction site of the Hotel project (Survey No.134/3, Cavelossim Village) is fragile eco- sensitive land, admittedly including large sand dunes falling within the CRZ- I category under the CRZ Notification of 2011, which constitute ecologically sensitive areas and which play a critical role in maintaining the integrity of the coast and safety of the local population. The draft CZMP maps of the area clearly demarcate the sand dunes within the construction site of the Hotel project which completely overlap with the hotel construction site. A copy of the said draft CZMP maps for the region has been annexed as Annexure A -3.
8. With respect to the provisions of CRZ Notification of 2011, it is further submitted in this appeal that dressing or altering of sand dunes is prohibited under Clause 3(xiii) of the CRZ Notification and Clause 7 (i) (A)
(c) protects sand dunes as CRZ IA areas. In fact, Clause 3(ix) of the CRZ Notification prohibits reclamation of CRZ areas for commercial purposes, such as inter alia, hotels and entertainment activities. Clause 8(III) (V) (3)
(xiii) of the CRZ Notification of 2011 prohibits "Dressing or altering the sand dunes, hills, natural features including landscape change for beautification, recreation and other such purpose". Clause (V) (3) (vi) of the CRZ Notification provides special protection for sand dunes in Goa by Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 5 of 51 stating, "sand dunes, beach stretches along the bays and creeks shall be surveyed and mapped. No activity shall be permitted on such sand dune areas". Despite above provisions, Respondent No.2- Project Proponent was granted a CRZ Clearance for the construction of the proposed hotel project, albeit with the condition that no sand dunes or sandy stretches could be flattened due to the Hotel project.
9. It is further mentioned in this appeal that concerned by the construction activity that arose in 2021 by the Project Proponent which involved cutting, excavation, flattening and filling of tall sand dunes between 7m and 9m in height, the Appellants herein, along-with other locals of Cavelossim Village, filed Original Application No.28 of 2021 before this Tribunal on account of being aggrieved by the illegal destruction of sand dunes being carried out by Respondent No.2. Vide the said Application, the Appellants brought on record how the sand dunes having a height of 7 to 9 metres were being cut and levelled for the construction purposes of Respondent No.2, in particular, for the construction of an access road between the beach and the hotel property and for construction of structures proposed on the eastern side of the plot. Hence, prayers were made in the said Original Application for a direction to be issued to Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority to revoke the Permission dated 20th October, 2015 granted in favour of M/s. Nova Resorts Pvt. Ltd. on plot bearing Survey No.134/3 in Cavelossim Village, Salcete Taluka, Goa; a direction is prayed to be issued to Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority and Goa State Pollution Control Board to carry out a site inspection of the property bearing Survey No.134/3, on which Respondent No.2 has carried out construction; a direction is prayed to be issued to Respondent No.2- M/s. Nova Resorts Pvt. Ltd. to remove all construction on sand dune and within NDZ and CRZ-III areas carried out on Survey Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 6 of 51 No.134/3 and adjacent lands in Cavelossim Village, Salcete; a direction is prayed to be issued to Respondent No.2 to restore the sand dune at the site in question and to remove all the concretization on the storm water drain and restore to its original condition; and to compensate the State of Goa for cost of restoration of the natural landscape at the site in question to its original state etc.
10. It is further mentioned in this appeal that thereafter, this Tribunal, vide order dated 16.06.2021, disposed of Original Application No 28 of 2021 with the following directions to Respondent No.1:-
"We consider it appropriate to direct respondent no. 1 authority - Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) to look into the matter in the first instance and determine, after considering the rival viewpoints, whether there are violations warranting revocation of the permission granted on 20.10.2015. The GCZMA may take a view in the matter, as far as possible, within four months.
The application is disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the GCZMA by e-mail for compliance."
11. It is further mentioned in this appeal that a site inspection was carried out on 08.11.2021 by the two Expert Members of Respondent No.1- GCZMA, who prepared an Inspection Report on 17.11.2021 with numerous flaws and contradictions. A copy of the said Report is annexed as Annexure A-6. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing relevant part of the said report as below:-
Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 7 of 51
"Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 8 of 51 Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 9 of 51
"Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 10 of 51
12. It is further mentioned in this appeal that several serious flaws and irregularities have been observed by the appellants in the manner in which the inspection was conducted by the officers of the GCZMA and in the contents of the inspection report, which were duly submitted by the Appellants herein vide their Affidavit in Rejoinder submitted on 21.10.2021 and the two Written Submissions submitted on 21.10.2021 and 15.02.2022 to the GCZMA, copies of which are annexed Annexures A- 7 and A-8 respectively. The Appellants were aggrieved by that Joint Committee Report because despite noting that 1,100 sq. mtrs. of sand dunes had been destroyed by Respondent No.2, neither the two Expert Members, who wrote the report, nor Respondent No.1 found that the violations warranted revocation of CRZ clearance. Further, the draft CZMP prepared by Respondent No.1, shows that the actual area of sand dune cut is clearly much more than the area stated in the inspection report. Further, the report included a photograph showing the cutting of sand dunes in adjoining land bearing Sy. No.135/4 of Cavelossim village, but no action was taken by Respondent No.1, rather Respondent No.1 categorically stated that the actions of Respondent No.2 destroying such sand dunes would not warrant revocation of their CRZ clearance.
13. It is further mentioned in this appeal that Respondent No.1 noted that there were low lying areas admeasuring 1 ha. which was surrounded by sand dunes on three sides, and that such areas play a role in managing excess flood water on the plot of land but failed to issue any directions for its protection and preservation. However, notwithstanding the incorrect observations and findings, the report recorded that the revised plans submitted by the Project Proponent should be evaluated to assess how the hotel project could be permitted to come up without any work coming up or causing any disturbance at all to the sand dunes, in terms of the Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 11 of 51 directions granted to the project under the CRZ Clearance. It is submitted that such an observation was essentially an acknowledgment of the GCZMA that the construction of the proposed hotel project in a manner that would not disturb the sand dunes on the land in question, is impossible. The impugned directions dated 03.03.2022 was then issued by the GCZMA on the basis of the inspection conducted by the Expert Members on 08.11.2021, in exercise of their powers under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. In its directions dated 05.03.2022, following was noted by Respondent No.1- GCZMA:-
"The Authority in view of the observations and findings decided to discharge proceedings pertaining to revocation of permission granted in favour of respondent M/s Nova Resort Pvt.Ltd dated 20/10/2015 as violations are not warranted revocation of permission granted by the Authority to Respondent. The access road to the property and public beach access as shown on approved plan of Respondent shall be always kept open for public, even during Respondent proposed construction period.
Without prejudice Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Central Act 29 of 1986) read with sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 4 of the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986, and read with power vested with the GCZMA vide Order S.O. 3975 (E) dated 31/10/2019 issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, hereby direct Respondent to comply the following direction within 30 days from date of communication this order
a) The erection of temporary MS sheet fencing on eastern side of the property surveyed under survey no.134/3 and restored land to its original condition
b) MS channels (without MS sheet) erected on western side of property under survey No. 134 /3 of village Cavelossim embedded in the sand dunes along North and South boundaries shall be removed and dunes restored to its original condition.Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 12 of 51
The proceedings are disposed off accordingly."
14. It is further mentioned in this appeal that despite noting in the impugned directions that the Project Proponent was illegally destroying sand dunes, the GCZMA chose not to follow the directions of the NGT and apply its mind to the specific conditions laid down in the permissions and the mandate of CRZ Notification to determine that the violations did warrant revocation of permission granted on 20.10.2015. Further, it is mentioned that a perusal of the impugned directions dated 03.03.2022 would indicate that no revised plans were considered by the GCZMA for the proposed hotel project and therefore, it appears that there is no formal plan on how to ensure that the hotel project can be undertaken without damaging the sand dunes. Instead, the GCZMA has erroneously asserted in the impugned directions that since no significant construction of the hotel has started on site, the Project Proponent cannot be held liable for violating the CRZ clearance granted to it, particularly, the condition that sand dunes cannot be destroyed for the construction and establishment of the Hotel project. Such an evaluation of the consequences of the construction of the proposed hotel project is grossly short sighted and flawed and shows complete non-application of mind on the part of the GCZMA. Especially, since the preliminary construction of the hotel project involved the levelling of sand dunes, it was incumbent upon the GCZMA to evaluate how the project, if proceeded with, would result in the destruction of sand dunes. Further, the cutting of the sand dunes, which has been admitted in the report, is a construction activity and therefore the report could not dismiss the matter on the erroneous basis that no construction activities have started on site.
15. It is further mentioned in this appeal that subsequent to the issuance of the said directions, the Appellants have noted that the Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 13 of 51 encroachments made by the Project Proponent on the sand dunes on the land bearing Sy. No.134/3 of Cavelossim village in terms of metal sheets and poles have been removed by the Project Proponent, however no action has been taken whatsoever to remove the compound walls erected on sand dunes to the east of Sy. No.134/3 of Cavelossim village on the boundary with Sy. No.135/4 of Cavelossim village and to the south of Sy. No. 134/3 of Cavelossim village on the edge of the No-Development Zone. Copies of a photograph showing the compound wall that still stands on the eastern boundary of Sy. No. 34/3, Cavelossim village, where a sand dune was cut and levelled, and a photograph showing deep excavation of sand dunes to construct a compound wall at the edge on the of 200 meter No Development Zone, have been annexed as Annexure A- 9 Colly. But no action has been taken to demolish these compound walls and to restore the damaged sand dunes till date. The Appellants have written to the GCZMA as well as to the Project Proponent on 27.04.2022 to bring to their attention that the damaged sand dunes cannot be restored to their original condition without proactive efforts being taken by the GCZMA. But no formal response to their letter dated 27.04.2022 has been received by the appellants nor has the GCZMA taken action to hold the Project Proponent liable for its failure to comply with the impugned directions issued by them.
16. It is further mentioned in this appeal that a perusal of the minutes of the 299th meeting of the GCZMA on 19.04.2022, which was held subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, would show that the GCZMA noted that they had received a revised proposal for the construction of the hotel project from the project proponent. The GCZMA records that the project has allegedly been enlarged. The said minutes further noted that, "A substantial portion of the property under Sy. no. Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 14 of 51 134/3 is covered by sand dunes as per Draft CZMP for Goa prepared by NCSCM Chennai. A geo referenced map with Draft CZMP map and site plan submitted by PP superimposed on Google Earth hybrid layer is. Attached. Hence, plan would need to be revised to exclude any construction on the sand dunes indicated on the Draft CZMP. The sand dune indicated on Draft CZMP has been cut by the PP for construction/widening of approach access road and public beach access This issue is part of the matter referred to the Authority by Hon'ble NGT vide its order dated 16.06.2021 in OA no. 28/2021. The total area of sand dune damaged by the PP is about 1100 m2. We have given our observations thereon in our report dated 17.11.2021 that may be perused. These sand dune areas are shown as access approach road and public beach access road on the approved plan and have been damaged in course of their development. 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation v. Diksha Holdings (2001) 2 SCC 97, we recommend that the said area of 1100 m2 be compensated within the PP's property under Sy no.134/3 on the north eastern side at the location indicated on annexed plan. This area of 1100 m2 meets the criteria of sand dune agreed by NCSCM experts and must be preserved as sand dune alongwith those shown on Draft CZMP However, the structures constructed in pursuance of approved plan (ie.. security cabin and laterite masonry compound wall on eastern side) may be exempted. Decision: The Authority discussed and deliberated on the Revised Plan and the Expert Members report. The Authority decided to ask the Project Proponent to submit the revised plan after taking into consideration the report of Expert Members and deferred the matter."
17. It is further mentioned in this appeal that the Appellants submit that the said minutes of the meeting confirm the apprehensions of the Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 15 of 51 Appellants. The GCZMA itself has noted that the hotel project will necessarily destroy at least 1100 m2 of sand dunes. The GCZMA seems to be inclined to permit the destruction of the sand dunes on Survey No.134/3, Cavelossim village in contravention to the aforementioned conditions of the CRZ clearance granted to this project by citing some compensatory development of sand dunes elsewhere. The Appellants submit that while the destruction of sand dunes on Survey No. 134/3, Cavelossim village due to the proposed hotel project is far more substantial than a 1100 m2, the manner in which the GCZMA is purposely and deliberately turning a blind eye towards the inevitable destruction of sand dunes, shows the malafide intention and neglect demonstrated by the GCZMA towards the issues raised by the Appellants with regard to the destruction of sand dunes in the site. The GCZMA has now seemed to have settled into "exempting" the structures constructed in pursuance of approved plan (i.e. security cabin and laterite masonry compound wall on eastern side), indicating that it has acquiesced into permitting the project proponent to retain these structures, in contravention to its own directions in the impugned directions. The GCZMA has once again asked for revised plans for the hotel project, thereby enabling the Project Proponent to construct the hotel project on the sand dunes, instead of correctly exercising its powers to revoke CRZ clearance previously granted to the project.
18. It is further mentioned in this appeal that lack of action being undertaken by the GCZMA to protect the sand dunes in the region is made more egregious by the fact that this Tribunal had passed two previous judgments in the matter of Alexio Periera v State of Goa (O.A. No. 03 of 2014) and Eduardo Periera v GCZMA and Anr. (Appeal No.54 of 2019), wherein the Tribunal had passed several directions for the protection of Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 16 of 51 sand dunes and natural beaches in villages at Majorda and Utorda. In its judgment dated 17.12.2014, in the matter of Alexio Periera v State of Goa the NGT issued detailed directions for the demarcation and identification of sand dunes in Goa. In its order dated 28.10.2020 in the matter of Eduardo Perieia v GCZMA and Anr. (Appeal No. 53/2019), the NGT upheld the decision of the GCZMA to remove a retaining wall, restaurant and toilet block constructed by a Project proponent by levelling the sand dunes in the area. With these pleadings, above prayers have been made by the appellants.
19. The present appeal was first considered by this Tribunal on 15.07.2022 when the same was admitted and direction was issued to send notices to all the Respondents.
20. In response the said notices, Respondent No.2- M/s. Nova Resorts Pvt. Ltd. has filed reply affidavit dated 23.08.2022, wherein it is submitted that a perusal of the present appeal would reveal that the Appellants have pleaded an essay on importance of sand dunes and preservations of low- lying area. However, they have failed to specify, how despite the Answering Respondent having obtained relevant approvals including Environmental Clearance from the MoEF, permission from GCZMA, Technical Clearance Order from TCP, Conversion Sanad from the Collector of South Goa and Construction License from the Village Panchayat of Cavelossim, Answering Respondent can to be prohibited from undertaking project activity in- terms of all permissions/ approval. The Appellants have miserably failed to establish existence of any sand dunes in the area where the Answering Respondent is permitted to construct as per the approved plans.
21. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2 that a perusal of the present appeal clearly reveals that the Appellants purported Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 17 of 51 to be resident of the same village and as such ought to have been aware of the project of the Answering Respondent being undertaken. In fact a perusal of the memo in Original Application No.28/2021 would reveal that the Appellants were fully aware as regards the activity undertaken by the Answering Respondent in the said property since the year 2015. The Appellants have not given any explanation of whatsoever nature as to why the Appellants remained a mere bystander since the year 2015 till 09.03.2021 (1967 days i.e. 5 years, 4 months, 17 days) i.e. the period during which Answering Respondent allegedly caused environmental damage in the said property. The Appellants for the first time sought to raise the present issue only on 09.03.2021 i.e. the day when the Appellants filed the said O.A. before the National Green Tribunal, Western Zone. Lack of explanation as regards raising any grievance regarding the construction at prior point in times makes the present appeal barred by law of limitation and as such, the present appeal ought to be dismissed at the threshold on this count alone.
22. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2 that the appellants seek to by-pass the issue of the limitation by relying on the impugned directions of the GCZMA and has contended that a fresh cause of action has arisen. In fact, the entire issue pertains to erection of temporary MS sheet fencing on eastern side of property bearing Survey No.134/3 of Village Cavelosim and MS channels (without MS sheet) erected on western side of property bearing Survey No.134/3 of Village Cavelosim by Answering Respondent in the year 2015. The Appellants stood on the side lines for more than 5 years and thereafter filed O.A. No. 28/2021, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 16.06.2021, with a direction to the GCZMA to consider if any violation warrant revocation of permission dated 20.10.2015. The order passed by Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 18 of 51 GCZMA would not absolve the issue of limitation upon the Appellants. However, the appellants have approached this Tribunal beyond the period of limitation prescribed under National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. A perusal of the appeal memo would reveal that the Appellants have approached this Tribunal with false and fabricated facts. It is pertinent to note that no construction activity has been undertaken by the Answering Respondent in the property bearing Survey No.134/3 of Village Cavelossirn. Answering Respondent has only undertaken work in respect of construction of boundary wall on the eastern side of the said property i.e. almost 490 mts. away from the HTL and also undertaken construction of wall on the southern side said property in-accordance with the approval/permissions granted by the Competent Authority. As such, any damage to any purported sand-dunes in the area is falsely attributable to the Answering Respondent, without placing on record any material evidence before this Tribunal to that effect.
23. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2 that the impugned directions, based on the site inspection report, clearly show that so-called 1100 m2 area, on the basis of which the present appeal is filed, is in fact an existing road passing through the edge of the area marked as sand dunes by the NCSCM in the draft CZMP. In fact, as recorded in the draft CZMP and the said site inspection report, there is proposed road passing through the edge of said sand-dune area and inspection report also mentions that the area has been a katcha road prior to the year 2002 based on the Google Earth images. The above-mentioned fact finding observations in the said site inspection report have been intentionally suppressed from this Tribunal by the appellants.
24. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2 that the Answering Respondent purchased property bearing Survey No.134/3 of Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 19 of 51 the Village Cavelossim, Salcete Taluka, Goa with an intention to develop the same in accordance with the provisions of law. Upon acquiring title with respect to the said property, Answering Respondent got its name entered in the revenue records of the said property and thereafter, Form I & XIV of the said property was updated and the name of the Answering Respondent is accordingly shown on the Form I & XIV of the said property. Further, it is mentioned that the Answering Respondent, in the year 1997, had in fact obtained clearance and permission from the erstwhile GSSCE and subsequently, the MoEF in June 2000 granted environmental clearance to the Answering Respondent for construction of Hotel/Resort in the said property. However, at that point in time, due to financial constraints, Answering Respondent could not undertake the said project. Further, it is mentioned that in the year 2015, Answering Respondent sought to complete the said project and as such, initially applied for Permission for construction of Hotel/Resort in the plot bearing Sy. No.134/3 of Village Cavelossini, Salcete Taluka, Goa from the GCZMA. Thereafter, the GCZMA, in its meeting held on 13.10.2015 (121st Meeting) after due deliberation decided to grant permission to the Answering Respondent for construction of Hotel/ Resort in said property.
25. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2 that upon obtaining aforementioned recommendation/permission from the GCZMA, Answering Respondent applied for Sanad from the Office of Collector of South Goa. The Ld. Collector upon considering the material on record and in-terms of provision of the Goa Land Revenue Code 1968 granted conversion Sanad to the part of the property bearing Survey No. 134/3 of the Village Cavelossim, Salcete Taluka, Goa. A copy of the Sanad dated 12.04.2016 is annexed as Annexure- C. It is further mentioned that thereafter, Answering Respondent applied for a Technical Clearance from Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 20 of 51 the Town and Country Planning Department (TCP). The TCP, upon considering the proposed plan submitted for approval and upon considering the same from the technical stand-point and ensuring that the proposed construction was to be in terms of the Building Bye-taws, granted the same vide order dated 22.07.2016 for construction of hotel/resort in the said property. It is submitted that Ld. Town Planner, whilst issuing the said Technical Clearance, has in fact assessed the proposed construction in terms of the Goa Tax on Infrastructure Act, 2009 and accordingly, Rs.59,88,288/-was assessed to be payable vide order dated 17.05.2016. Therefore, Answering Respondent has incurred the expenses of such massive Infrastructure Tax, totaling to Rs.59,88,288/-. Thereafter, Answering Respondent applied for Construction License from the Village Panchayat of Cavelossim. The Village Panchayat of Cavelossim, upon considering the Technical Clearance Order dated 22.07.2016, granted by the TCP, put the matter of grant of Construction License to the Answering Respondent before the Panchayat body. The Panchayat upon deliberation and discussion passed a Resolution No.2/2 to grant the construction license to it for construction of Hotel/Resort in the said property and in terms of said resolution, granted Construction license dated 22.10.2019 to the Answering Respondent.
26. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2 that perusal of the above permissions, licenses and approval granted by all the Competent Authority, including GCZMA and the Environmental Clearance granted by MoEF would clearly reveal that though part of the said property i.e. approximately 9,000 sq. mts. of area falls within the NDZ i.e. within 200 mts. from the HTL, out of total of 23,400 sq. mts. of the said property, all these Competent Authorities being conscious of this fact, have granted approvals for constructions beyond the 200 mts. from the HTL i.e. the area Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 21 of 51 wherein such construction/activity are permitted in terms of provision of law. As such the contention raised by the Appellants that the recommendations granted by the GCZMA are contrary to the CRZ norms is untenable. The Answering Respondent categorically reiterates and states that it does not intend to undertake any activity within 0-200 mtrs. of HTL. In fact, the plans, which are approved by the Competent Authority and the NOC, which has been granted by the Authority, is for undertaking construction beyond 200 mtrs. from the HTL. The Answering Respondent undertakes to abide by all the conditions and stipulations contained in the licenses granted by the Competent Authorities.
27. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2 that whilst acting upon these permissions of the competent authority, Answering Respondent encountered a problem vis-a-vis the demarcation of the northern boundary of the said property. As such, Answering Respondent filed demarcation proceedings before the Ld. Dy. Collector & SDO. Because of this, the Answering Respondent undertook work in respect of construction of boundary wall on the eastern side of the said property i.e. almost 490 mts. away from the HTL and also undertook construction of wall on the southern side of the said property in accordance with the approval/permissions granted by the Competent Authority. In fact, construction of this wall on the southern side of the property running towards the seashore has stopped at approximately 250 mtrs. away from the HTL. It is further submitted that Answering Respondent undertook the said construction only after obtaining relevant permissions from the Competent Authority, in terms of the provision of law in the year 2019. It is further imperative to note that aforementioned construction work as regards the construction of compound wall on the southern side of the property could not be completed and had to be Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 22 of 51 stopped in March 2020, due to the National Lockdown declared by the Union Government, on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. In fact, since thereafter due to lack of labour and due to various restrictions imposed by the Union and the State Government, Answering Respondent could not complete the construction work of the southern boundary wall upto the 250 mts. point from the HTL and the said construction work has been halted since March 2020.
28. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2 that Answering Respondent has also obtained Consent to Establish dated 08.07.2019 from the Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) which establishes that proposed project is in compliance with the provisions of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Thereafter the Directorate of Health Services has also issued NOC dated 10.10.2020 signifying that the Primary Health Centre has no objection for construction from the sanitation point of view. It is further mentioned that the GCZMA had got the site inspection conducted of the property in question on 08.11.2021, which clearly records that development and construction activity undertaken by the Answering Respondent is as per the approved plans. The inspection report also records that there is no filling of low-lying area as alleged by the Complainants/Appellants. The site inspection report also records that portion of the said dune identified by NCSCM in the draft CZMP has been cut along the edge. Incidentally an approx. 5-mts wide road is shown on Draft CZMP from the Village Road through the property up to 260 mts from HTL. Oldest available historical Google Earth imagery also suggests that kutcha road existed at the spot prior to December 2002. These factors clearly establish that sand-dune has not been cut/damaged as alleged by the Appellants. In fact, the access/road is in consonance with the Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 23 of 51 approved plan and the said road is shown on CZMP which passes on the edge of the sand dune.
29. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2 that the GCZMA, upon considering the site inspection report dated 17.10.2021 and the Rejoinder dated 21.10.2021 and Written Submissions in response to Site Inspection Report dated 15.02.2022 filed by the Appellants and upon hearing the Answering Respondent, in consonance with the provisions of CRZ norms and in compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal in O.A. 28 of 2021 vide order dated 16.06.2021 thought it fit not to revoke Recommendation/Permission dated 20.10.2015 granted by the GCZMA and directed the Answering Respondent to remove the temporary MS sheet fencing on the eastern side of the Sy. No.134/3 and MS channels erected on the western side of the property surveyed under Sy. No.134/4 and to restore the dunes to its original conditions. It is against these directions, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal.
30. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2 that all the construction activity undertaken by the Appellant was pursuant to the Development permission/Recommendation of the GCZMA and perusal of the records, more particularly, site inspection report would clearly reveal that the erection of metal sheet fencing, which was built temporary during the construction phase, has not caused any environment damage. Such kind of temporary fencing does not require any permissions and the findings of the GCZMA in this regard are perverse and not maintainable. It is further submitted that though the Appellants in the present appeal have contended that impugned directions have not been complied with by the Answering Respondent, however averments in para 20 of the appeal memo, in fact, clearly stated that metal sheets and poles have been removed by the project proponent. Therefore, it is apparent that though Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 24 of 51 the Appellants seek to mislead this Tribunal that sand dunes are not restored and GCZMA has taken no action to verify the compliance of the impugned directions, the averment in para 20 of the appeal is clearly an Freudian slip by the Appellant. It is clarified that the Answering Respondent has complied with the impugned directions issued by the GCZMA and if required/called upon, the Answering Respondent shall also furnish photographs of the site at loco. That apart, the MS Steel sheets erected, which were ordered to be removed by the GCZMA, Answering Respondent in compliance with said directions have removed the same. The contention of the Appellants that despite the site inspection report purportedly recording that approximate area of sand dunes cut by the Appellant is 1100 M2, the GCZMA failed to revoke the Recommendation/Permission dated 20.10.2015, thereby the Appellants contenting that impugned direction warrants interference/quashing by this Tribunal, is erroneous and therefore specifically denied. The site inspection report records that "total area of sand dune affected is 1100 sq. mtrs", which is referable to the preceding paragraphs in the site inspection report, which clearly records that "It appears that a portion of the sand dune identified by NCSCM in Draft CZMP has been cut along the edge for widening the existing road". This clearly establishes that contention sought to be canvassed by the Appellant is not only highly misconceived but also misleading.
31. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2 that a perusal of the site inspection report would clearly reveal that there is "No filling of low lying area with sand extracted from, dunes was noted". That apart, it is further revealed that "We could not locate any natural storm water drain at the spot indicated by the Complainants at the time of inspection. The Claim that the alleged natural storm water drain drains all Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 25 of 51 the rainwater from the village into the sea does not appear to be correct". Therefore, the contention as regards the low-lying area sought to be canvassed by the Appellants is factually incorrect.
32. In view of above-mentioned facts, it is submitted by Respondent No.2 that the present appeal deserves to be rejected.
33. Respondent No.1- GCZMA has filed reply affidavit dated 12.01.2023, wherein it is submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable as per the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 because the decision of the Answering Respondent to discharge the proceedings pertaining to revocation of permission dated 20.10.2015 granted in favour of Respondent No.2- Project Proponent does not amount to a direction issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as contemplated by Section 16(g) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and in support of it, reliance is placed on the Judgment and final order dated 21.11.2017 passed by this Tribunal in the matter of Austin Francis D'Souza v. Secretary & Others [Appeal No. 3/2017 (WZ)], in which it was held "Law makers have studiously omitted the use of words "order" or "decision" as is found used in clause (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i) and (j) of Section 16. Thus, law envisages an appeal only against the direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and not against any order or decision taken by the authority while exercising such authority vested in it under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986".
34. With respect to merit, it is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that Respondent No.2- Project Proponent vide application dated 27.04.2015 sought grant of recommendation for proposed construction of hotel/resort as per the plan enclosed therewith in the property bearing Survey No.134/3 (area between 200 mtrs. to 500 mtrs. Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 26 of 51 from the High Tide Line in CRZ - III area) of Cavelossim Village, Salcete Taluka. Respondent No.2- Project Proponent had also submitted certain plans in this regard. Pursuant to the said application, a site inspection was carried out by the Answering Respondent on 30.04.2015. The Answering Respondent considered the aforesaid application in its 121st Meeting dated 13.10.2015. Thereafter, the Answering Respondent granted permission for the proposed construction of hotel/resort in the said plot vide its order dated 20.10.2015. Thereafter, the Appellants filed Original Application No.28 of 2021 before this Tribunal inter alia seeking a direction to the Answering Respondent to revoke the permission dated 20.10.2015 granted to Respondent No.2- Project Proponent, which was considered by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal vide its final Judgment and order dated 16.06.2021 and while disposing of the said Original Application, following was observed by the Tribunal:-
"4. While the application is beyond five years from the date of original permission granted on 20.10.2015, we are confining our consideration to the player for revocation of permission on account of violations in the last five years. However, if the said permission is illegal but beyond limitation before this Tribunal, the matter can be raised before an appropriate forum where constraint of limitation is not applicable.
5. We consider it appropriate to direct respondent no.1 authority - Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) to look into the matter in the first instance and determine, after considering the rival viewpoints, where there are violations warranting revocation of the permission granted on 20.10.2015. The GCZMA may take a view in the matter, as far as possible, within four months."
35. In terms of the above directions the Answering Respondent conducted hearings in respect of the Appellants' complaint in its 276th meeting dated 21.10.2021, in which the Answering Respondent heard the Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 27 of 51 parties at length and thereafter, it was decided to inspect the site through its Expert Members to verify the site at loco. Thereafter, a site inspection was conducted by the Expert Members of the answering Respondent on 08.11.2021 in presence of the Appellants and two representative of the Respondent No.2- Project Proponent. The Expert Members submitted their report dated 17.11.2021 to the answering Respondent in respect of the alleged destruction of sand dunes with the following observations:- Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 28 of 51
"
36. From the above, it is apparent that the Expert Committee concluded that the purported violations did not warrant revocation of permission granted to Respondent No.2- Project Proponent. It was observed that the portion of sand dunes cut by Respondent No.2 for construction of approach road and public access road were marked for the said purposes on the approved plan. Therefore, there did not appear to be any contravention of the permission granted by the Answering Respondent to Respondent No.2. After having considered the said report as well as the contentions of the parties, the Answering Respondent decided to discharge Respondent No.2.
37. It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the said discharge order was assailed by the appellants in Original Application No.28 of 2021. It is apparent that by filing the said Original Application, the appellants wanted to seek revocation of the permission granted to Respondent No.2 to overcome the gross delay of more than 5 years in questioning the correctness of the aforesaid permission. It is reiterated in this that there was no violation on the part of Respondent No.2 warranting revocation of the permission.
38. Appellants have filed additional affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 10.03.2023 against the reply affidavit of Respondent No.1 dated 12.01.2023, wherein with respect to maintainability, it is submitted that the impugned order was not a simpliciter discharge of proceedings against Respondent No.2, but instead was an instance where Respondent No.1 Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 29 of 51 issued actual directions to Respondent No.2, which are mentioned in the impugned order at point nos.(a) & (b) as follows:-
"a) The erection of temporary MS sheet fencing on eastern side of the property surveyed under survey no.134/3 and restored land to its original condition.
b) MS channels (without MS sheet) erected on western side of property under survey No. 134 /3 of village Cavelossim embedded in the sand dunes along North and South boundaries shall be removed and dunes restored to its original condition."
39. From the above, it is evident that Respondent No.1- GCZMA itself referred to the aforesaid directions to Respondent no. 2 as "directions" and not a "decision" or any other term as used in the matter of Austin Francis D 'Souza v Secretary and Ors. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground for Respondent No.1 to now attempt to claim that the impugned directions issued by it are somehow not directions issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
40. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied on the Judgment passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.75/2019, in which the order of discharge was held to have been passed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5 of the Environment protection Act read-with sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 4 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 read- with power vested with the GCZMA vide Order S.O 3324(E) dated 26.10.2017 through an Original Application filed under Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act, 2010. While dismissing the Original Application filed by the Applicant, the Tribunal categorically held, "The impugned proceedings of the Respondent No.2 dated 27.05.2019 came to be passed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Sub-Rule (3) (a) of Rule 4 of the Environment (Protection) Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 30 of 51 Rules 1986 and therefore, it is deemed to be a direction issued under Section 16 (g) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010".
41. With regards to the contents of para 11, it is further mentioned in this additional affidavit-in-rejoinder by the appellants that the observation at item 1 of the Table indicates that there was in fact filling of low lying area admitted to by Respondent No.1-GCZMA, but the said area, as per the GCZMA itself, "was filled with construction debris" instead of extracted sand from a sand dune. With regards to the observation in item 2 of the said Table, the GCZMA has once again wrongfully noted that there was environmental destruction of 1,100 sq. mtrs. area of sand dunes, however, the GCZMA incorrectly and with malafide and perverse intent has attempted to downplay and reduce the extent of destroyed sand dunes by conflating the destroyed sand dunes with an alleged kutcha road and access road. Further, it is mentioned that the submissions of the Appellants were not considered at all, and for unjustified reasons the GCZMA did not revoke the CRZ clearance of Respondent No. 2 despite acknowledging the fact that Respondent No.2 was in breach of the conditions in the clearance as well as the CRZ Notification itself. Respondent No.1 has directed Respondent No.2 to remove the MS sheets only, without considering that the compound walls, structure and access road are admittedly on the sand dunes and that the sand dunes cannot be restored unless they are demolished. The GCZMA has grossly erred in its conclusion that constructions as per the approved plans are valid even if they violate the CRZ laws, because the GCZMA has failed to consider special conditions 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 16 and 20 laid down in the permissions granted. If the sand dunes were restored to their original condition, the present access road, the compound walls and the structure constructed would have to be removed and, by extension of the reasoning, all other Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 31 of 51 constructions proposed on the sand dunes would not be possible. It is further submitted that the GCZMA has not indicated in its affidavit whether the CRZ Clearance granted to Respondent No.2 has even been renewed or not.
42. It is further mentioned in this additional affidavit-in-rejoinder by the appellants that the Principal Bench of this Tribunal had prima facie found merit in the case of the Appellants and therefore directed the GCZMA to review their complaints and determine whether there are violations of the conditions of the CRZ Clearance warranting the revocation of the clearance. Further, it is submitted that the table submitted by Respondent No.1 under paragraph 11 of their counter affidavit listing some of the observations of the expert members clearly states under Sr. No.02, "It appears that a portion of the sand dune identified by NCSCM in the Draft CZMP has been cut along the edge for widening of existing road". While the Expert Members have put forth a blatant falsehood that there was an existing road as there is no road existing even today, the Expert Members have admitted to the cutting of sand dunes, which is evident from their observations, "Likewise, another portion of the sand dunes has been cut to enable construction of public access to the beach. The total area of sand dune affected is 1100 mtr. Sq.". From this, it is apparent that Respondent No.1 is contradicting their own admission that grave violations of the conditions laid down in the permissions granted and of the CRZ Notification 2011, have taken place.
43. Respondent No.4- MoEF&CC has filed reply affidavit dated 10.10.2023, in which in para no.10, it is submitted that as per Annexure- III of CRZ Notification, 2011, the project required approval from the Answering Respondent based on the recommendations of Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA). However, as per the records Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 32 of 51 available, no proposal for CRZ clearance has been received by the Ministry in the name of M/s Nova Resorts Pvt. Ltd.- Respondent No.2 located at Survey No.134/3 of Cavelossim village, Salcete Taluka, Goa.
44. Respondent No.2- M/s Nova Resorts Pvt. Ltd./Project Proponent has filed affidavit-in-Sur-rejoinder dated 27.05.2024, wherein it is submitted that the constriction, which is being undertaken by Respondent No.2, has no sand dunes nor does it have any low-lying areas. In compliance with the directions passed in the impugned order, the Answering Respondent has removed the iron metal sheets and the sand dune has been restored to its original conditions. It is further mentioned that Respondent No.2 has obtained conversion sanad and other permissions. It is stated that none of the conditions mentioned in the conversion sanad has been violated by the Answering Respondent and all the approvals granted by the various authorities are in consonance with the provisions of law including the CRZ Regulations. The Respondent No. 2 is undertaking construction activity in consonance with the permissions granted by the Competent Authority and in accordance with the law.
45. It is further mentioned in this affidavit-in-Sur-rejoinder by Respondent No.2 that during the pendency of the said proceedings, certain subsequent development took place in respect of the project in question, regarding which mention is made in this affidavit saying that Respondent No.2 decided to file revised plans for approval, wherein certain areas, which formed part of the original Project and which were duly approved by the Competent Authorities, were decided to be left out of the project. Respondent No.2 applied for revised permissions vide application dated 18/10/2021, whereby Respondent No.2 called upon the GCZMA to consider the revised plans for construction of hotel/resorts in plot bearing no. 134/3 of Village Cavelossim. The said approvals came to be applied in Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 33 of 51 the portion of the property where there cannot be any allegation of existence of the sand dunes as the proposed development as per the revised plan would not fall in the area earmarked as sand dunes in CZMP plan.
46. It is further mentioned in this affidavit-in-Sur-rejoinder by Respondent No.2 that after obtaining necessary permissions from the GCZMA, vide order dated 29/04/2022, Respondent No. 2 applied to Town and Country Planning Department (TCP) for technical clearance in respect of the proposed construction of hotel project and compound wall. The TCP vide technical clearance order dated 27/2/2023, granted technical clearance thereby approving the plan from the technical point of view. Further, it is mentioned that as per the original plans approved by the authority, Answering Respondent sought approval for construction of 80 rooms which covered 40 rooms on the ground floor and 40 rooms on the first floor. By virtue of the revised plans, duly approved, the Answering Respondent, in order to avoid any unwanted objections, decided to reduce the coverage of its project and applied for permissions to construct a resort in an area, wherein the issue of sand dunes and other violations of CRZ would not at all arise. As per the revised plans, Respondent No. 2 has restricted its construction to only 56 rooms thereby reducing the overall coverage of the plot and that too in the area where the issue of sand dunes is not at all attracted. The said fact is well within the knowledge of the Appellants yet the Appellants choose to pursue this appeal with malafide intention.
47. It is further mentioned in this affidavit-in-Sur-rejoinder by Respondent No.2 that upon obtaining the said permissions, Answering Respondent has already commenced with the construction in the said property as per the approved plan and the same is at advanced stage. Till Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 34 of 51 date, since inception, Respondent No.2 has spent a sum of Rs.9,72,79,000/- on the said project which includes Rs.72,41,000/- cost of land, Rs.57,60,000/- cost incurred for conversion sanad fee, Rs.60,29,000/- infrastructure tax, Rs.29,90,000/- cost for obtaining permissions in the form of infrastructure tax, construction license and renewal fees, Rs.7,52,59,000/- cost of construction including architect, engineers fees and other miscellaneous expenses etc., totaling to a sum of Rs.9,72,79,000/-, which form the integral part of this affidavit. The Respondent No.2 has also annexed the photographs as Annexure- E which depicts the stage of construction activity at site. In view of these, it is submitted by the Answering Respondent that going by the revised approved plan and considering the fact that the area, in which the construction has been undertaken by Respondent No. 2, the question of existence of sand dunes or violation of any environmental law does not arise, as such all the apprehensions, allegation and insinuations made by the Appellants in the present appeal would not survive.
48. It is further mentioned in this affidavit-in-Sur-rejoinder by Respondent No.2 that the impugned directions are based on the site inspection report, which clearly shows that so-called 1100 m2 area. In fact, as recorded in the draft CZMP and the said site inspection report, there is a katcha road existing since prior to 2002 based on the Google Earth images. It is specially denied that there was destruction of sand dunes on Survey No.134/3 due to the proposed hotel project as alleged.
49. Appellants have filed additional affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 29.05.2024, wherein it is submitted that Respondent No.1-GCZMA has affirmed that it had directed Respondent No.2 to "restore sand dunes to their original condition". If the sand dunes were restored to their original condition by Respondent No.2, the present access road, the compound Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 35 of 51 walls and the structure constructed would have to be removed and, by extension of the reasoning, all other constructions proposed on the sand dunes would not be possible. Respondent No. 1 has seemingly asked the Respondent No. 2 to remove the MS sheets only, without considering that the compound walls, structure and access road are admittedly on the sand dunes and that the sand dunes cannot be restored unless they are demolished. The GCZMA has grossly erred in its conclusion that constructions as per the approved plans are valid, even if they violate the CRZ laws, because Respondent 1 has failed to consider special conditions 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 16 and 20 laid down in the permissions granted.
50. It is further mentioned in this additional affidavit-in-rejoinder by the appellants that a perusal of the revised map and the superimposed CZMP attached to this Affidavit as Annexure A-2 makes it evident that entire parking (at the western end of the approved plan) is proposed on a high sand dune at the western end of the project. The road to the parking (at the western end of the project site) is also proposed on the sand dune. The entire road on the eastern side, which is the only access to the hotel project, is constructed by destroying 1,100 sq. mtrs. of sand dune, as admitted by the GCZMA experts in their Inspection Report dated 17/11/2021. This sand dune must be restored, which would then make the project site totally inaccessible. At least, 3 structures on the western end of the project are proposed partially or fully on sand dunes. At least 4 structures on the eastern end of the project are proposed partially or fully on sand dunes. The low-lying area in the middle of the construction site has been filled up and is being constructed upon.
51. Respondent No.2-Project Proponent has filed additional affidavit dated 30.05.2024 to the 2nd additional affidavit dated 29.05.2024 filed by Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 36 of 51 the appellants, in which it has denied all the contents made in the 2nd additional affidavit of the appellants.
52. Respondent No.1- GCZMA has filed counter affidavit dated 16.10.2024, wherein it is mentioned that the Tribunal vide its order dated 22.08.2024 had issued following directions to the Answering Respondent:-
"8. It appears that the minutes of the meeting dated 19.04.2022, referred to above, are based on the site inspection report dated 17.11.2021. Therefore, we direct respondent No.1-GCZMA to clarify as to whether 1100 sq. mtrs area, which is found to be sand dune by the experts is beyond 500 mtrs of the HTL or within it and whether the said area is forming part of the project of respondent No.2-Project Proponent in question.
9. ... Apart from that, we deem it appropriate to order measurement of the said area again in order to ascertain whether the construction of 10 metre wide road, which is being said to be outside the construction of the Project Proponent- respondent No.2 and whether the same falls within the project site of the Project Proponent and is within 500 mtrs of HTL or beyond it has to be ascertained and for this, apart from the report to be submitted by the GCZMA, we deem it appropriate to constitute a Joint Committee comprising one member each of respondent No.1-GCZMA, respondent No.4-MoEF&CC, National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) and District Collector, South Goa and the District Collector, South Goa will be the nodal agency of the said Committee. The Joint Committee is directed to give its findings in respect of the road construction which is allegedly undertaken by respondent No.2- Project Proponent, whether it is falling within 500 mtrs of the HTL or beyond it and whether the same forms part of the said project...."
53. In compliance with the above direction, it is submitted that the Answering Respondent conducted a site inspection of Respondent No.2's Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 37 of 51 property bearing Survey No.134/3, village Cavelossim on 03.10.2024, in which following observations and recommendations were made:-
"
1. The Survey No. 134/3 of Cavelossim Village of Salcete Taluka falls partly in No Development Zone in CRZ-III, partly between 200-500m from HTL in CRZ-III, partly outside CRZ areas and substantial portion is covered by sand dunes (CRZ-IA) as per CZMP 2011.
2. During site inspection it was noticed that there exists compound wall on the southern and eastern side of the property. MS sheet fencing supported on MS Channels, etc. has been erected enclosing all the sides of the ongoing project, with gate on eastern side with approximately 4.00 m wide access on southern side. (as shown in ANNEXURE I).
3. Furthermore, it was observed that the proposed hotel project, situated on survey number 134/3 in Cavelossim Village, Salcete, Goa, was under construction and is not completed as yet.
4. The sand dune indicated as per CZMP 2011 has been cut by the respondent, NOVA RESORTS PVT. LTD. for construction/widening of approach/access road.
5. Mapping of the road using DGPS is carried out and superimposed on the plan.
6. The Sand dune admeasuring 1100.00 sq. mtrs. was mentioned in the site inspection report dated 17/11/2021. This sand dunes areas are shown as access/approach road and public beach access road on the approved plan with bearing No. GCZM_A/15-16/09/1775 dated 20/10/2015 and which has been damaged in the course of their development.
7. The Sand dune which bears as mention as 1100 sq. mts. was comprising of an area of property bearing Survey No. 134/3 and Survey No. 135/4 having an area of 360.90 sq. mts. and 739.10 sq. mts. cumulating to the area of 1100 sq. mts.
Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 38 of 51
8. It is observed that property bearing Sy. no. 135/4 is outside the 500 mts. and as per finally notified CZMP 2011 there is no sand dune.
9. The actual area of road in property bearing Sy. No. 134/3 which is part of the sand dune, as per CZMP 2011 is 304.90 sq. mts."
54. A perusal of the observations of the Site Inspection Report indicates that out of the total area of 1,100 m2 of sand dunes found at the property of Respondent No.2- Nova Resorts, an area of 360.90 m2 is located in Survey No.134/3 and falls within 500 m. from the High Tide Line as per the final 2011 CZMP. The remaining area, i.e. 739.10 m2, is situated beyond 500 m. from the High Tide Line in Survey No. 135/4. The actual area of the road constructed by Respondent No. 2 is 304.90 m2. This road is a part of the sand dune area situated in Survey No. 134/3 as per the final 2011 CZMP.
55. In addition to the above, this Tribunal had directed the Answering Respondent to clarify the following aspects:-
"9. In the minutes of the meeting dated 19.04.2022, it is also recorded that area of 1100 sq. mtrs be compensated within the PP's property under Survey No.134/3 on the north-eastern side of the location. How this could be permitted under law/relevant provision of the law and how any exemption could have been granted, as stated in paragraph No.8 of the minutes, need to be clarified by GCZMA. It will be appropriate to have clarification from respondent No.1-GCZMA in this regard...."
56. In regard to the above, it is submitted by the Answering Respondent that the construction permission to Respondent No.2 was first granted on 20.10.2015, while the CZMP for Goa as per the 2011 CRZ Notification was finalized and approved by Respondent No.4- Ministry of Environment & Climate Change only on 06.09.2022. Hence, the final 2011 CZMP was not Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 39 of 51 in existence at the time when the construction permission was granted. Moreover, the answering Respondent also did not have access to the report titled "Coastal Sand Dunes of Goa" prepared by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) at that point of time. It was only on 17.11.2021, i.e. after the inspection of Respondent No.2- Nova Resort's site, that the answering Respondent was appraised of the fact that Respondent No.2 had constructed a road on a sand dune area.
57. After considering the above facts and circumstances, the answering Respondent relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation v. Diksha Holdings reported in [(2001) 2 SCC 97], wherein it was directed that the area of 1,100 m2 of sand dunes cut by Respondent No. 2- Nova Resorts be compensated within its property as the need to preserve ecology and to promote economic growth in a balanced and sustainable manner was envisioned due to the fact that the approval was conveyed by this Authority itself to construct the project on 20/10/2015 when CZMP 2011 was not in place and due to the fact that the principle of promissory estoppel will be applicable. The answering Respondent further directed that the area of 1,100 m2 must be preserved as sand dunes along- with those other areas shown in the Draft CZMP. Therefore, it is in this context that the answering Respondent directed compensation of the area of sand dunes cut by Respondent No. 2 which as on date admeasures to only 360.90 sq. mtrs. of the property bearing Sy. No.134/3.
58. Respondent No.2 has filed composite affidavit-in-reply dated 09.11.2024 to the counter affidavit dated 16.10.2024 and site inspection report dated 03.10.2024 filed on behalf of Respondent No.1, wherein it is submitted that the averment of Respondent No.1 to the effect that Respondent No.2 has destroyed the sand dune to the extent of 304.90 m2 Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 40 of 51 falling within 0 to 500 of HTL, is wrong. As per the site inspection report dated 03/10/2024, following observations were made:-
"Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 41 of 51
59. Thereafter, in subsequent paragraphs of this composite affidavit, denial is made by Respondent No.2 in respect of any destruction of sand dunes at its end.
60. Respondent No.1- GCZMA has filed additional affidavit dated 11.11.2024, wherewith a Site Inspection Report is annexed, in which following conclusions were drawn:-
"4.0 CONCLUSIONS:
The Road length within 500m CRZ line is about 226m. the above length is based on field survey and as per approved CZMP of Goa as per CRZ notification, 2011. Refer Table 1 and Annexure II for more details.
Approximately 4.00 m wide unmetalled access road on southern side which is separated from ongoing construction project site by MS sheet fencing supported on MS Channels on the northern side and compound wall in the southern side of the road, were also noticed.
During site inspection, it was noticed that there exists a compound wall on the Southern and eastern sides of the property. MS sheet fending supported on MS Channels etc. has been erected enclosing all the side of the ongoing construction project, with gate on the eastern side."
61. In the annexed Inspection Report of the Joint Committee, following was observed:-
"Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 42 of 51
62. Respondent No.2 has filed another additional affidavit dated 15.01.2025, wherein it is submitted that there are several anomalies and discrepancies in the CZMP Plan 2011, which are to the knowledge of the authorities including Respondent No.1- GCZMA. In spite of the said fact, Respondent No. 1 failed to bring the said facts on record before this Tribunal and represented before this Tribunal pursuant to the inspection report dated 03/10/2024 that the sand dunes are purportedly destroyed Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 43 of 51 to the extent of 304.90 sq. mtrs within the property bearing Survey No.134/3. Answering Respondent has not destroyed any sand dunes during the course of construction at any point of time nor does Respondent No.2 intend to degrade the environment by any of its acts. The project of the Respondent No.2 i.e. actual construction of the building is located in the portion of Survey No.134/3 of Village Cavelossim where there are no sand dunes identified even in CZMP Plan 2011.
63. Appellants have filed additional affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 02.04.2025 to the affidavits of Respondent No.2, in which it is submitted that the CZMPs prepared under the CRZ Notification of 2011 have been finally notified and approved by the MoEF&CC in September 2022, and stand as valid, enforceable law of the land. Respondent No.2 itself has not challenged the CZMP maps, and certainly is not entitled to any reliefs from this Tribunal in the present Appeal with regard to its alleged grievances with the CZMP map. Respondent No.2 is time-barred from challenging the CZMP maps under the CRZ Notification of 2011 which have been in force from September 2022. All the submissions and documents attached by Respondent No.2 indicate that Respondent No.2 only took cognizance of its alleged issues with the CZMP map since November 2024, after the GCZMA has confirmed via two distinct inspections (the first dated 17.11.20241 and the second dated 03.10.2024) that the Respondent No.2 has taken the steps elucidated in its affidavit, which speaks volumes as to the motivations behind its affidavit and the measures it is now taking to oppose the CZMP maps of 2011 etc. In view of these facts, it is submitted that no response or action is possible on the complaint of Respondent No.2 looking to the fact that the CZMPs have become final.
64. Respondent No.2 has filed Sur-Rejoinder affidavit dated 10.04.2025 to the additional affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 02.04.2025 filed by the Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 44 of 51 appellant, wherein it is submitted that the impugned direction/order was passed on 03/03/2022 when admittedly the CZMP Plan was not finalized and as such an attempt on the part of the Appellant to penalize and victimize Respondent No.2 on the basis of CZMP Plan being said to have attained finality on the date of the impugned order, should not be allowed to happen and reiterated that the objections, which Respondent No.2 has raised against the CZMP Plan in so far as it pertains to the Survey No.134/3, are still pending consideration, as has been clearly acknowledged by Respondent No.1.
65. Respondent No.1- GCZMA has filed additional affidavit dated 24.04.2025, in which the procedure to be followed for rectification of the CZMP Map is indicated.
66. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the other parties and perused the entire records in depth.
67. It is apparent from the perusal of record that the appellant is assailing the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by Respondent No.1- GCZMA discharging the proceedings pertaining to revocation of permission granted in favour of Respondent No.2, as it is held that violations did not warrant revocation of permission.
68. This Tribunal had heard Original Application No.28/2021 (WZ) (Paul Lobo & Ors. vs. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority & Ors.), wherein appellants herein had raised grievance against the grant of permission dated 20.10.2015 for running a hotel in favour of Respondent No.4- M/s. Nova Resorts Pvt. Ltd. on plot bearing Survey No.134/3 in Cavelossim Village, Salcete Taluka, Goa, in which it was held by this Tribunal that the said Original Application was filed beyond five years from the date of original permission granted on 20.10.2015. Hence, the Tribunal was Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 45 of 51 confining itself to the prayer for revocation of permission on account of violations in the last five years. However, if the said permission is illegal but beyond limitation before this Tribunal, the matter can be raised before an appropriate forum where constraint of limitation is not applicable. In this very order, the Tribunal had further directed Respondent No.1- GCZMA to look into the matter in the first instance and determine, after considering the rival view points, whether there are violations warranting revocation of the permission granted on 20.10.2015.
69. Pursuant to the above order of the Tribunal, an inspection was conducted by Respondent No.1- GCZMA on 17.11.2021, report of which is annexed as Annexure A-6 at page nos.106 to 110 of the paper book, wherein it was observed with respect to flattening of sand dunes for filling low-lying areas that no filling of low lying area with sand extracted from dunes was noted. The spot indicated by the complainants was filled with construction debris. With respect to cutting and damaging sand dune for construction of road, it was observed that a portion of the sand dune identified by the NCSCM in Draft CZMP had been cut along the edge for widening of existing road. Incidentally, an approx. 5 m. wide road is shown on draft CZMP from the village road through the property upto 260 metres from the HTL. Oldest available Google Earth Image also suggests that a kutcha road existed at the spot prior to December 2002. A 10 metre wide access road is shown on plans approved by the Authority. Likewise, another portion of the sand dune has been cut to enable construction of public access to the beach. The total area of sand dune affected is 1100 m2 etc.
70. In the above-mentioned Inspection Report, findings and recommendations are recorded to the effect that violations do not warrant revocation of permission granted to Respondent No.2- Project Proponent. Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 46 of 51 The portion of sand dunes cut by the Project Proponent for construction of approach road and public access road are marked for said purposes on the approved plan. The Panchayat license permits the PP to develop the internal access roads. The permanent works (i.e. laterite masonry compound wall on southern and eastern sides and security cabin) constructed as on date are as per the approved plan. It is further recorded in this report that the PP has paid around Rs.1.24 Cr. to various licensing authorities towards license fees, infrastructure tax etc. The erection of temporary MS sheet fencing on the eastern side of the property under Sy No.134/3 is in violation and must be removed and the land restored to its original condition. Similarly, the MS channels (without MS sheets) erected on the western side of the property under Sy. No.134/3 embedded in the sand dune along the northern and southern boundaries are also in violation and must be removed and the dune restored to its original condition, etc.
71. Based on the above-mentioned Site Inspection Report, impugned order was passed by Respondent No.1- GCZMA discharging the proceedings in respect of revocation of permission dated 20.10.2015 granted in favour of Respondent No.2.
72. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the said order on the ground that in the Inspection Report dated 17.11.2021, there was a clear communication made of total 1100 m2 area of sand dunes to have been adversely affected by the construction activities of Respondent No.2- Project Proponent and therefore, the permission, in no way, could have been upheld and the same needed to be set aside on the ground that the order is erroneous.
Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 47 of 51
73. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has raised objection against this appeal on the ground of limitation as well as the maintainability. As regards the limitation, we find that the order, which has been assailed by the appellants, is of 03.03.2022 passed by Respondent No.1, while the present appeal has been filed on 30.05.2022.
74. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken the ground that the impugned order was received by the appellants on 05.03.2022 and therefore, 30 days' time would lapse on 04.04.2022, hence the total period, within which the present appeal has been preferred, is well within 90 days from the date of order.
75. The explanation has been given by learned counsel for the appellants for condoning the said delay by saying that the appellants had to seek legal advice to collect documents and submission of follow up representations to Respondent No.1- GCZMA. All this consumed time beyond 30 days, which need to be condoned.
76. From the side of Respondent No.2, it is submitted by learned counsel that no justifiable reason has been shown by the appellants for filing this appeal with delay, hence the present appeal should be dismissed on this count itself.
77. But we may mention here that this issue was already considered by us in the order dated 22.04.2024, whereby we had already allowed the delay in filing the present appeal. So, we hold that this issue already stands decided by the said order.
78. With respect to maintainability, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has raised objection by saying that the order of discharging the proceedings would not be covered under Section 5 of the Environment Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 48 of 51 (Protection) Act, 1986 read-with Rule 4 of the EP Rules, as the same is not covered under directions, which can be assailed under Section 16 (g) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. This issue stands finally decided by this very Tribunal vide order dated 23.01.2023 in the matter of Jose Fernandes & Anr. vs. GCZMA & Ors. [Appeal No. 42/2022(WZ)], holding therein that withdrawal of proceedings by the GCZMA against the Respondent does amount to a direction under Section 16 (g) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants had full right to file the present appeal against the discharge order.
79. The main question, which we have to decide in the present appeal, is whether the revocation of the permission dated 20.10.2015 granted to Respondent No.2 has been wrongly discharged by Respondent No.1 through the impugned order.
80. With respect to giving finding on the above issue, we deem it appropriate to take into consideration the report of the Joint Committee, which was constituted by this Tribunal vide order dated 22.08.2024, in which the Committee has made observations (at page no.1347 of the paper book) that the project site at Survey No.134/3 at Cavelossim Village of Salcete Taluka falls partly between 200-500 m from the HTL in CRZ-III, partially falls under the CRZ I A (sand dune) and partly outside 500m CRZ line (CRZ Area) as per the Approved CZMP 2011. Further, it is recorded that total road length within 500m of CRZ line is about 226m. The road made by flattening/cutting of sand dune is about 70m (within CRZ area) which is identified in red colour. The road length beyond 500m CRZ line is about 29m. The calculation is based on field survey and as per the approved CZMP of Goa as per CRZ Notification, 2011. The Map, showing these details, is annexed at page no.1350 of the paper book, as below: - Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 49 of 51
81. A close scrutiny of above Map would indicate that the sand dune area in it is shown by orange colour and by red colour is shown access road, which is not in sand dune. But part of the road, which is 72.30m, is found to be in sand dune. On the other hand, 8.20m road was found to be in sand dune. So, total road in sand dune is found to be 72.30m + 8.20 m = 80.50m. This road width is approximately 4 mtrs. wide, hence total area, which is encroached on sand dune, comes to 322 sq. mtrs., which could have been destroyed by making any kind of construction including road. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has argued that this road was built long back and hence, the sand dunes therein cannot be restored, after such a long gap, and the same is argued to be time barred.
82. In regard to the above, we are of the view that in the matters involving environmental issues, this Tribunal has suo moto power if any Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 50 of 51 act committed by the Project Proponent comes to the knowledge that the same has been done in contravention of the environmental laws and would damage to the environment. In that situation, an appropriate order would be issued, irrespective of whether that is time barred or not. Keeping this fact in view, we are of the opinion that the area of 322 sq. mtrs., as shown in the Map at page no.1350 of the paper book, needs to be restored by Respondent No.2- Project Proponent.
83. In light of the above, we may conclude here that the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 needs to be set aside only to the extent that discharge proceedings pertaining to revocation of permission dated 20.10.2015 will stand modified to the extent that the area of 322 sq. mtrs., which is shown in the Map at page no.1350 of the paper book, on that area, the permission for construction could not have been granted, the same being sand dune area. Therefore, the discharge of the proceedings in respect of the said area is found to be erroneous.
84. With the above directions/observations, we dispose of the present appeal accordingly.
85. Pending I.A also stand disposed of.
86. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr.Vijay Kulkarni, EM August 26, 2025 APPEAL NO.20 OF 2022 (WZ) I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ) P.Kr.
Appeal No.20 OF 2022 (WZ) [I.A. NO.64 OF 2022 (WZ)] Page 51 of 51