JUDGMENT A.S. Naidu, J.- This miscellaneous application has been rued inter-alia praying to initiate a proceeding under Section 26 read with Section 28 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and direct appropriate action against the respondents for non- compliance of the judgment passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 23 of 2012. Admittedly the said Appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 27th August, 2012. To appreciate the controversy it would be prudent to refer to some of the facts which are as follows :- The order dated 11th April, 2012 passed by Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) was assailed by Shri Rudresh Naik, the present appellant in Appeal No. 23/2012. By the said order a GCZMA had directed the appellant to make good of the Geological and Ecological loss caused at the site, by back filling the cut portion and the cavity formed to land appertaining to survey No. 41/2 situated at Vaghurme Village, Ponda Taluka and to restore the area to its original status and carry out plantation in the area, within thirty (30) days from the date of the receipt of the order. The main contention raised by this Tribunal was that the order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing and sufferers from non-consideration of vital and important materials. 2. Admittedly, the appellant is the proprietor of "Sudarshan Dry Docks" and a partner of Firm called M/s Swastik Cruises, the said Firm is involved in tourism business like conducting boat cruises in the rivers of Goa. It engaged three vessels to carry the tours or tourists in a routine manner. He had purchased a piece of land measuring 13,525 sq.mts for the purpose of hi$ business. The said land is adjacent to the river and is, suitable for setting up facilities for inspection, maintenance and repairs of the vessels. To facilitate such uses the appellant had to construct a slip-way and carry on other developments. He had applied on 10th July, 2009 to GCZMA for according necessary permission. Unfortunately the Authority adopted dilly-dally tactics and the appellant was constraint to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in W.P. (C) No. 165 of 2010. During pendency of the said writ a show cause notice was issued by GCZMA, consequently, the case was disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to take appropriate action. Unfortunately the Authority adopted dilly-dally tactics and the appellant was constraint to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in W.P. (C) No. 165 of 2010. During pendency of the said writ a show cause notice was issued by GCZMA, consequently, the case was disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to take appropriate action. While matters stood thus GCZMA passed orders restraining the appellant from going ahead with the work. The Petitioner was therefore once again constrained to approach the Hon'ble Court, by filing another writ petition. The said case was allowed by the High Court and orders passed set aside mainly on the ground that adequate opportunity was not granted to the appellant before passing of the orders. It is alleged that being enraged by the said order, the Authorities passed the impugned order dated 11th April, 2012 directing the appellant to make good of the geological and ecological loss at the site by back filling the cut portion in the disputed properties and restore area back to its original status and carry out plantation in the area. The said order as stated earlier was assailed in Appeal No. 23 of 2012. 3. State of Goa through its Chief Secretary and Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority represented through its Member Secretary were impleaded as parties to the Appeal. Notice was issued to the said respondents and the same were duly served. Unfortunately both the respondents failed to appear before this Tribunal inspite of the fact that adequate time was granted. Consequently, this Tribunal had no other way out but to dispose of the case in their absence, observing as follows :- "It appears that the dispute has a chequered career, in as much as it has travelled to the Hon'ble High Court twice and is prolonging for quite some time. Protection of environment being the paramount concern/duty of this Tribunal while setting aside the impugned order dated 11th April, 2012, we direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh without prejudice to his rights, and the contentions raised and submissions advanced within a period of three weeks the date of this order before respondent No.2. The said amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposits by respondent No.2 in a Nationalised Bank. 1 lakh without prejudice to his rights, and the contentions raised and submissions advanced within a period of three weeks the date of this order before respondent No.2. The said amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposits by respondent No.2 in a Nationalised Bank. On depositing the said amount, respondent No. 2 authorities shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and decide the matter once again in accordance with law on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this judgment. It is needless be said that if the contentions of the appellant are accepted the amount one lakh shall be refunded with interest. On the other hand, if the appellant is found guilty, the amount shall be utilized for restoration of the Environment". 4. In consonance with the directions issued, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. one lakh before the Authorities on 05th September, 2012, respondent No.2 encashed cheque consequently a portion of the order was complied. Unfortunately, the respondent did not implement the second portion of the order and did not issue neither any direction to the appellant to appear for hearing nor fixed any date. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the respondent, the appellant have once again moved this Court and filed this miscellaneous application making several allegations. 5. By order dated 01st November, 2012, notice was issued to the respondents to appear and show cause as to under what circumstances the directions given by this Tribunal in judgment dated 27th August, 2012 in Appeal No. 23 of 2012 was not complied in full. This Tribunal took a serious view with regard to the fact that after encashing an amount of Rs. one lakh deposited by the appellant in consonance with the direction, orders issued by this Tribunal, the authorities failed to comply with the rest of the portion of the order i.e. is an opportunity of hearing within the time fixed. 6. After receiving notice, the respondents appeared and filed a reply taking a stand that the Principal Secretary who is the Ex-officio Chairman was transferred on 21st August, 2012 and a new Secretary joined in the month of September and October that apart other officers were busy in compiling reports with regard to Justice Shah Commission Report in Goa. 6. After receiving notice, the respondents appeared and filed a reply taking a stand that the Principal Secretary who is the Ex-officio Chairman was transferred on 21st August, 2012 and a new Secretary joined in the month of September and October that apart other officers were busy in compiling reports with regard to Justice Shah Commission Report in Goa. The Member Secretary of GCZMA was also on leave in the month of October and several other reasons were also assigned explaining the delay caused, and a prayer was made to condon the delay and extend the period stipulated in the judgment, so that the directions issued can be complied. 7. After going through the reply and after hearing Learned a counsel, we are not very much satisfied with the explanations given. Law is well settled that a direction passed by this Tribunal has to be complied with utmost promptitude on top priority basis. If the respondents were able to encash the bank guarantee, we find no reasons as to why the opportunity of hearing could not be granted to the appellant. That apart according to law, the Member Secretary is a full time officer and cannot be assigned with any other supplementary duties. Thus, there was no reason as to why the Member Secretary did not comply with the orders passed by this Tribunal. 8. We have heard Learned counsel for the parties at length. Some of the officers of GCZMA were also present in the Court. We have no hesitation to hold that the authorities did not act in a prudent manner and rather exhibited their inaction to Rule of Law. However, we are conscious that the dispute is pending since quite sometime. It has travelled to Hon'ble High Court number of times, before this Tribunal also this is the second round. Therefore, we feel ends of justice and equity would be better served if we conclude the controversy once for all. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties agreed to said proposition. Therefore, on the basis of the agreement and consent arrived at, we direct as follows :- The appellant shall deposit a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the authorities within a period of Three(3) weeks hence. The authorities shall close all the proceedings which have been initiated against the Applicant in respect of the disputed lands pending as on date. Therefore, on the basis of the agreement and consent arrived at, we direct as follows :- The appellant shall deposit a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the authorities within a period of Three(3) weeks hence. The authorities shall close all the proceedings which have been initiated against the Applicant in respect of the disputed lands pending as on date. The directions issued by the Member Secretary in his order dated 11th April, 2012 would be deemed to have been fully complied with. The authorities shall utilize the aforesaid sum of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited and Rs. 1 lakh which has already been deposited by the Applicant towards restoring the geological and ecological loss caused to the area and also for afforestation purpose. 9. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant had filed an application seeking to accord permission to carry out certain developments to his property. If such a petition is pending, the Member Secretary or the Authority, as the case may be, shall dispose it of on its merits. in accordance with law within a period of Six(6) weeks from the date of communication of this order. without being in any way prejudiced by any of the observations made in the order dated 11th April, 2012. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this miscellaneous application stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own cost.