Judgment : Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The above petition challenges the order passed by the respondent dated 23/05/2005 whereby the petitioner has been directed to demolish the structures as mentioned in the show cause notice as the respondent came to the conclusion that such structures were illegal and located within no development zone of the CRZ in gross violation of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 3. Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 2/05/2001 is vague as the survey number mentioned therein i.e. 12/4 of Sernabatim village though the location of the disputed structures has not been specified. The learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that even in the subsequent show cause notice dated 9/09/2003 the same allegations also do not specify the exact location of the disputed structures. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner has given a comprehensive reply disputing the contentions of the respondent by inter alia stating that all the structures existing in the property surveyed under no.12/4 were in existence much prior to the year 1991 and as such the CRZ restrictions are not applicable to the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that along with the reply filed by the petitioner a number of documents were produced to establish that the structure in the property surveyed under no.12/4 were in existence much before the year 1991 as repairs to such structures were carried out after obtaining permission from the statutory Authorities. The learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken me through the no objection certificates issued by the concerned Panchayat and pointed out that such certificates are pertaining to the disputed structures. The learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken me through the impugned order passed by the respondent and pointed out that the respondent has failed to scrutinize the effect of the said documents and by sweeping observations that as such documents are not supported by any statutory licence from the Authority, the same cannot be considered. The learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken me through the impugned order passed by the respondent and pointed out that the respondent has failed to scrutinize the effect of the said documents and by sweeping observations that as such documents are not supported by any statutory licence from the Authority, the same cannot be considered. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that it was incumbent upon the respondent to scrutinize each and every document produced by the petitioner and after examining such document give reasons as to why every such document is not considered. The learned Senior Counsel, as such, submits that non consideration of the documents by the respondent itself vitiates the impugned order and as such the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to be reconsidered afresh. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner has also raised the grievance that despite of the fact that the respondent has relied upon the panchanama and site inspection report nevertheless the copies thereof have not been furnished to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has pointed out that the disputed structures were put up much after the CRZ restrictions came into force in the year 1991. The learned Counsel pointed out that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as the respondent came to the conclusion that such structures were constructed only after the year 1991. The learned Government advocate further points out that the respondent as such were justified to pass the impugned order as according to the learned Counsel the disputed structures were in breach of the CRZ regulations which came into force from the year 1991. The learned Counsel further pointed out that he does not dispute the fact that though the documents were produced by the petitioner nevertheless each and every document produced by the petitioner has not been duly scrutinized by the respondent. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. On perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner, a substantial number of documents were produced by the petitioner in support of his contentions. Such documents inter alia included some NOCs granted by the panchayat way back in the year 1984, 1986 and 1990. On perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner, a substantial number of documents were produced by the petitioner in support of his contentions. Such documents inter alia included some NOCs granted by the panchayat way back in the year 1984, 1986 and 1990. Whether such NOCs are in respect of the disputed structures is a matter which the respondent would have to consider after scrutinizing the said documents and hearing the petitioner in accordance with law. But however, non consideration of any relevant documents by itself would vitiate the impugned order. Taking note of the contentions of the learned Government Advocate that the documents which have been produced by the petitioner have not been duly scrutinized by the respondent, without going into the correctness of the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties on merits, I find it appropriate that the impugned order passed by the respondent be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to be decided afresh after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent fairly states that documents such as panchanama and site inspection report would be made available to the petitioner before the matter is heard on merits. 6. In view of the above, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 23/05/2005 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondent is directed to decide the show cause notice dated 9/09/2003 afresh in the light of the observations made herein above after hearing the parties in accordance with law. (iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (iv) The petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.