Judgment : Heard Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Amey Kakodkar, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Addl. Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the Respondents. 3. The above Petition seeks to quash and set aside the Orders dated 10.01.2011, 25.01.2011 and 13.05.2011, all issued by the Respondents under the Goa Ground Water Regulation Act, 2002, (for short, 'The Water Regulations Act'). 4. During the course of the hearing of the above Petition, Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petition has pointed out that though all the impugned Orders in the above Petition have been issued under The Water Regulations Act, nevertheless, the said Act was not applicable or extended to the area where the property of the Petitioner is located. Learned Counsel as such submits that all the impugned Orders are without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. 5. Shri Amey Kakodkar, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents, fairly does not dispute the fact that at the relevant time, the said Water Regulations Act, was not extended to the area where the disputed property is located. Learned Addl. Government Advocate however points out that the Respondent no. 1 has issued another show cause notice to the Petitioner dated 21.06.2012 with regard to the disputed property. 6. Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, however, points out that taking into consideration the permission granted to the Petitioner he is entitled for renewal from February, 2012. Shri Kakodkar, learned Addl. Government Advocate, however, points out that the said matter is not for consideration by this Court and the same would have to be dealt on its own merits at an opportune time. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the rival parties and I have also gone through the records. Taking into consideration that it is not in dispute that the Water Regulations Act, was not extended to the area where the disputed property was located at the time when the impugned Orders were issued, such Orders itself would be without jurisdiction. As such, Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is justified to contend that the impugned Orders passed by the Respondents dated 10.01.2011, 25.01.2011 and 13.05.2011 cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. As such, Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is justified to contend that the impugned Orders passed by the Respondents dated 10.01.2011, 25.01.2011 and 13.05.2011 cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Be that as it may, the show cause notice issued by the Respondents to the Petitioner, in any event, is not a matter for consideration before this Court and the same would have to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties with regard to such show cause notice are left open. 9. With regard to the contention of Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner with regards to the claim of renewal of his permission, the said aspect is also not for consideration before this Court nor forms part of pleadings of the Petition. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for renewal is a matter to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. 10. In the light of the observations made herein and subject to the above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The impugned Orders dated 10.01.2011, 25.01.2011 and 13.05.2011, are quashed and set aside. (ii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (iii) Petition stands disposed of accordingly.