Judgment A.P. LAVANDE, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard forthwith. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondent No.1 to execute and operate its Orders dated 18/2/2010 and 16/11/2011 (ANNEXURES “B”-COLLY AND “I” RESPECTIVELY TO THE PETITION); (B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to execute and operate its Orders dated 18/2/2010 and 16/11/2011 (ANNEXURES “B”-COLLY AND “I” RESPECTIVELY TO THE PETITION); (C) For ad-interim ex-parte reliefs in terms of Prayer Clauses (A) and (B) above; (D) For such other and further relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper; (E) For costs.” 3. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is, as under: The petitioner is a power of attorney holder of the coowners of the properties bearing Survey Nos. 71/0, 65/0 and 64/0 of Village Arambol and property bearing Survey No.274/1 of Village Mandrem. The properties are contiguous. According to the petitioner, the said properties fall in CRZ-III and as such, no development is permissible in the said properties. It is the case of the petitioner that for past several years, the following persons from the Villages have been putting up illegal shacks/huts in the said properties wherein commercial activities are carried out: 1. Jao Baptista D'Souza; 2. Alexiano Rodrigues; 3. Cipriano Rodrigues; 4. Loyad D'Souza; 5. Santan Rodrigues; 6. Prajoy Fernandes; 7. Augostin Fernandes; 8. Lorenc Fernandes; 9. Diago Fernandes; 10. Anton Mendes; 11. Minguel Fernandes; 12. Pascol Fernandes; and 13. Emit Fernandes. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 753/2009 before this Court, in which respondent No.1 herein produced demolition order dated 8/2/2010 by which direction was given to demolish the said illegal construction. Lorenc Fernandes; 9. Diago Fernandes; 10. Anton Mendes; 11. Minguel Fernandes; 12. Pascol Fernandes; and 13. Emit Fernandes. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 753/2009 before this Court, in which respondent No.1 herein produced demolition order dated 8/2/2010 by which direction was given to demolish the said illegal construction. It is further the case of the petitioner that the said persons filed several writ petitions and learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 25th March, 2010 disposed of all the petitions, on the basis of a statement made on behalf of the petitioners in those writ petitions that within 10 days, the petitioners would apply for regularisation from respondent No.1. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioners in the said petitions sought regularisation before respondent No.1 of the structures erected by them, upon which notices were issued to the petitioners, calling upon them to give their say. The petitioner herein filed his objection and sought rejection of the applications filed by the said persons. It appears that no orders have been passed on the said applications. It is specifically the case of the petitioner that the said shacks/huts continued in the year 2010, till end of tourist season and thereafter, again in the year 2011, the very same persons have erected the shacks/huts in the properties of the petitioner. The petitioner filed complaint dated 30.9.2011 to respondent No.1 to take immediate action in the matter. Since, no action was taken up by respondent No.1, the petitioner, through his Advocate, gave notice dated 10.11.2011 to respondent No.1. Thereafter, respondent No.1 addressed a communication dated 16.11.2011 to respondents No.3 and 4, as well as the Sarpanchas of Village Panchayats of Arambol and Mandrem, calling upon them to remove the structures which have been erected unauthorisedly, without any approvals. Respondents No.3 and 4 and Sarpanchas of the said Village Panchayats were directed to file compliance report by 5th December, 2011. It is further the case of the petitioner that no action has been taken, inspite of the communication dated 16.11.2011 issued by respondent No.1. 4. An affidavit has been filed by Shri Ajit N. Panchwadkar, presently holding the post of Deputy Collector, Pernem. It is further the case of the petitioner that no action has been taken, inspite of the communication dated 16.11.2011 issued by respondent No.1. 4. An affidavit has been filed by Shri Ajit N. Panchwadkar, presently holding the post of Deputy Collector, Pernem. Perusal of the same discloses that on 22/11/2011, he received a communication and on the same day he issued Memorandum to the Talathis of Arambol and Mandrem, calling upon them to conduct a detailed survey and submit a check list within 5 days. Both the Talathis submitted the check lists which have also been placed on record. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued show causes notices to the persons who had allegedly carried out the illegal constructions. On 5/12/2011, respondent No.4 reported the action taken in the matter. It is, therefore, the case of respondent No.4 that there is no cause of action to file the present petition, inasmuch as action has been already taken by respondent No.4 in terms of the communication dated 16/11/2011. 5. Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said 13 persons who have carried out the illegal constructions of shacks/huts in the properties of the petitioner are bent upon violating the Environment Protection Act by erecting shacks/huts, every year for carrying out commercial activities, clearly in breach of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act and the Regulations framed there under inasmuch as the properties in which the constructions have been carried out, fall within CRZ-III, in which no developmental activities are permissible. Learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the communication dated 16/11/2011 of respondent No.1, there was no question of respondent No.4 holding further inquiry in the matter and respondent No.4 ought to have simply implemented the directions given in the said communication. Mr. Pangam submitted that the procedure followed by respondent No.4 is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Environment Protection Act and the Regulations framed there under inasmuch as respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the directions given by respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act. 6. Mr. Rodrigues, learned Addl. Govt. Mr. Pangam submitted that the procedure followed by respondent No.4 is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Environment Protection Act and the Regulations framed there under inasmuch as respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the directions given by respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act. 6. Mr. Rodrigues, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that although before passing order dated 18.2.2010, respondent No.1 had followed the principles of natural justice and the said order was passed only after giving opportunity of being heard to the said 13 persons who have carried out illegal constructions in the properties of the petitioner, no such opportunity was given by respondent No.1 before addressing communication dated 16/11/2011. Mr. Rodrigues, therefore, submitted that respondent No. 4 was justified in holding an inquiry in compliance of the principles of natural justice and, as such, no fault can be found with the action taken by respondent No.4 in calling upon the Talathis of the Village Panchayats to prepare the check list and in giving opportunity of being heard to the said 13 persons. Mr. Rodrigues further submitted that respondent No.4 would complete the inquiry within a short time as directed by this Court and submit the report to respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 would act upon the report of respondent No.4 and in case it is disclosed from the report that the constructions carried out by the said 13 persons are contrary to the CRZ Regulations, respondents No.1, 3 ad 4 shall take appropriate action for demolition of the said structures within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act provides that the Central Government may, in exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under the Act, issue directions in writing, to any person, officer or any authority and such person, officer or authority shall be bound to comply with such directions. It is not in dispute that the powers under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act have been conferred upon respondent No.1 and, as such, respondent No.1 is entitled to exercise its powers and perform the functions in terms of the Environment Protection Act. It is not in dispute that the powers under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act have been conferred upon respondent No.1 and, as such, respondent No.1 is entitled to exercise its powers and perform the functions in terms of the Environment Protection Act. In case any construction is illegally carried out in an area covered under the CRZ notifications, respondent No.1 is bound to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Act, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person who has carried out the illegal construction. Obviously, therefore, an order under Section 5 can be passed by respondent No.1 only after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person affected and once such an order is passed by respondent No.1, the authority to whom the directions are issued to implement the order, is bound to execute the same and no question of giving further opportunity of being heard arises. As stated by Mr. Rodrigues, for the reasons best known to respondent No.1, respondent No.1 has not given opportunity of being heard to the said 13 persons before issuing communication dated 16.11.2011. Therefore, though ordinarily, respondent No. 4 ought not to have given opportunity of being heard to the said 13 persons, considering that no opportunity of being heard was given to the said 13 persons by respondent No.1, we are not inclined to find fault with the action taken by respondent No.4. But, since respondent No. 4 has given opportunity of being heard to the said 13 persons, in our considered opinion, there is no question of giving further opportunity by respondent No.1 while giving further directions. As stated above, Mr. Rodrigues has fairly submitted that in the event report prepared by respondent No.4 discloses that illegal constructions carried out by the said 13 persons are contrary to the CRZ Regulations, respondents No.1, 3, and 4 shall take appropriate action for demolition of the same. 9. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, the writ petition can be conveniently disposed of by giving appropriate directions to the respondents. Respondent No.4 is directed to submit report to respondent No.1 by 10th February, 2012. 9. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, the writ petition can be conveniently disposed of by giving appropriate directions to the respondents. Respondent No.4 is directed to submit report to respondent No.1 by 10th February, 2012. In the event, the report of respondent No. 4 discloses that the constructions carried out by the said 13 persons are patently illegal and in violation of the CRZ Regulations, respondent No.1 shall give appropriate directions for demolition of the same which shall be carried out by respondents No.3 and 4 on or before 20th February, 2012. In case the petitioner applies for copy of the report given by respondent No.4 and/or directions given by respondent No.1, respondents No. 4 and 1 shall furnish copies of the same to the petitioner. 10. Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.