JUDGMENT F.M. Reis. J. - Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The above petition seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the respondent whereby the petitioner has been directed to demolish the disputed structure situated in the property surveyed under No, 184/0 of Arambol Village. 3. Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground initially that the show cause notice dated 24.09.2004 clearly relies upon the survey report of the Dy. Collector as well as the panchanama drawn by the local panchayat, which copies were not furnished to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. The learned Counsel further pointed out that not furnishing the said documents itself vitiate the show cause notice and consequently the impugned order was passed in breach of the principle of natural justice. In support of the said submission, the learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in (2006) 2 GLR 149 in the case of Eknath Kanolkar v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority. The learned Counsel further pointed out that without prejudice to his first submission along with reply filed by the petitioner, numerous documents were produced including the construction licence as well as the house tax receipts and other materials including the location plan which conclusively suggest that the disputed structure was in existence much before the CRZ notification of 1991 came into force. The learned Counsel has taken me through the plan which was duly approved which clearly suggests that the licence was issued to the petitioner to put up the disputed structure in the suit property. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order of the respondent and pointed but that the documents produced by the petitioner have been discarded by the respondent on the specious ground that the said documents are not in respect of the disputed structure when there is no specific finding as to which structure such documents referred to. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the authorities have misconstrued the documents inasmuch as in one of the receipts issued even the survey number of the property where the disputed structure stands has been clearly mentioned. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the authorities have misconstrued the documents inasmuch as in one of the receipts issued even the survey number of the property where the disputed structure stands has been clearly mentioned. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the respondent has also erroneously discarded the documents on the ground that the survey number has not been mentioned when the receipt itself discloses such survey number. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the location plan of the construction permitted by the authority was produced which clearly shows that the disputed structure is referable to the licence issued in favour of the petitioner. The learned Counsel thereafter has taken me through the resolution passed by the local Panchayat which is dated 09.01.2004 which inter alia shows that the Panchayat authority came to the conclusion in view of the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner that the disputed structure is not an illegal construction. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the said resolution was passed in view of the show cause notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner with regard to the disputed structure. The learned counsel has taken me through the impugned order passed by the respondent and pointed out that such documents have not been considered by the respondent whilst passing the impugned order. The learned Counsel as such submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order. The learned counsel has pointed out that though the documents have been produced nevertheless no such documents referred to the survey number of the property. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the said documents are not in respect of the disputed structure and as such, the respondent was justified to pass the impugned order. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the report of the Dy. Collector relied upon by the respondent clearly shows that the disputed structure was erected by the petitioner in breach of a CRZ notification of 1991. The learned counsel further pointed out that the contention of the petitioner that the said structure was in existence much before the CRZ notification came into force is totally misplaced as the evidence on record suggest that the disputed structure is a new structure. The learned counsel further pointed out that the contention of the petitioner that the said structure was in existence much before the CRZ notification came into force is totally misplaced as the evidence on record suggest that the disputed structure is a new structure. The learned Counsel as such submits that no interference is called for in the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and I have also gone through the records. On perusal of the show cause notice. I find that the respondent has relied upon the survey report prepared by the Dy. Collector as well as the panchanama drawn by the local Panchayat. There is a specific averment in the petition that the said documents were not furnished to the petitioner. The respondent have not disputed the said contention by filing reply to the above petition. Considering the said aspect and taking into consideration the ratio laid down by this Court in the judgment of Eknath Kanolkar (supra), the show cause notice stands vitiated for not furnishing the documents relied upon by the respondent in support of the said show cause notice. On this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Be that as it may, on perusal of the impugned order, I find that the authorities have not scrutinized each and every document produced by the petitioner in support of his contention that the disputed structure was constructed much before the CRZ notification came into force. The resolution which was passed by the Panchayat relied upon by Shri Pangam. learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has not even be considered by the respondent. No doubt, the respondent would be entitled to take an independent view in the matter nevertheless, the reason as to why the observations of the panchayat in the said resolution are not accepted has not spelt out by the respondent whilst passing the impugned order. The respondent has discarded the documents which are adduced by the petitioner on the specious ground that the said documents do not stipulate the survey number of the property of the disputed structure. But however, the receipt which is dated 01.11.1980 stipulate the survey number of the disputed property. Apart from that, considering the survey report relied upon by the respondent and the location plan produced by the petitioner. But however, the receipt which is dated 01.11.1980 stipulate the survey number of the disputed property. Apart from that, considering the survey report relied upon by the respondent and the location plan produced by the petitioner. it would not be inappropriate for the respondent to consider whether the disputed structure is referable to the plan which was duly approved by the statutory authorities. Considering that the material produced by the petitioner has not been duly considered by the respondent whilst passing the impugned order and as Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate was unable to point out that there was any scrutiny of the documents produced by the petitioner whilst passing the impugned order. I find it appropriate that keeping the contention of the parties open on merits. it would proper that the respondent be directed to decide the show cause notice afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. The respondent shall also furnish the copies of the survey report and documents referred to in the show cause notice dated 24.09.2004 to the petitioner. The petitioner would be entitled to file an additional reply with regard to the said documents sought to be relied upon by the respondent. 7. Hence. I pass the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 22.12.2004 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondent is directed to decide the show cause notice dated 24.09.2004 afresh after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. (iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (iv) The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of