Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 635 (BOM)

Agostinho Rocky Fernandes v. State of Goa

2012-03-21

F.M.REIS

body2012
Judgment Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Vivek Rodrigues, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. 3. All the above Petitions were taken up together for hearing as the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties have pointed out that the impugned Order in all the above Petitions, is a common Order passed by the Respondent no.2 dated 22.02.2012 and the report submitted by the Respondent no. 3 dated 09.02.2012. 4. Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has brought to my notice the roznama in the proceedings before the Respondent no.3 and pointed out that though the matter was posted for arguments on a particular date, the Respondent no.3 without hearing the arguments has proceeded to submit a report to the Respondent no.2. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Respondent no.2 has acted on the said report and, as such, grave injustice has occasioned to the Petitioners as they were not heard by the Respondent no.3 before submitting the report. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the conduct of the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 in passing the impugned Order and the report are in breach of the principles of natural justice and as such vitiated and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri Vivek Rodrigues, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents, does not dispute the fact that the matter was fixed for arguments on 21.02.2012 and that the Respondent no.3 submitted the report on 09.02.2012 without giving an opportunity to the Petitioners to advance any submission. Learned Counsel further points out that the activities carried out by the Petitioners in the disputed structures are contrary to the CRZ Regulations as, admittedly, the area where the disputed structures are located are within a distance of 200 metres from the High Tide Line wherein no development is ermissible. Learned Counsel further pointed out that no commercial activities are permitted under CRZ Regulations, in any event, in such areas. Learned Counsel further pointed out that considering the nature of the activities being carried out by the Petitioners, the question of any interference by this Court in the impugned Order does not arise. 6. This Court by a Judgment dated 19.03.2012, disposed of Writ Petition no. 208/2012, Writ Petition no. Learned Counsel further pointed out that considering the nature of the activities being carried out by the Petitioners, the question of any interference by this Court in the impugned Order does not arise. 6. This Court by a Judgment dated 19.03.2012, disposed of Writ Petition no. 208/2012, Writ Petition no. 209/2012 and Writ Petition no. 210/2012, filed by the parties who were also parties to the impugned common Judgment passed by the Respondent no.2 dated 22.02.2012. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties have not disputed that the facts arising in the said disposed Writ Petitions are similar to the facts arising in the above Petitions. 7. Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, upon instructions from the Petitioners who are present in Court, has made a statement that if any commercial activities are being carried out by the Petitioners in the disputed structures, the Petitioners shall not carry out any commercial activities in the disputed structures without prejudice to the rights and contentions until the proceedings are finally disposed of by the Respondent no.2. The said statement of Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners, who are present in Court, is accepted. 8. For the reasons stated in the said Judgment dated 19.03.2012 and in view of the said statement of Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, I deem it appropriate that the impugned Judgment passed by the Respondent no.2 and the report submitted by the Respondent no.3 be quashed and set aside and the Respondents be directed to hear the Petitioners and pass appropriate Orders in compliance with the Judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 24.01.2012 passed in Writ Petition no. 788/2011. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following : 1. The impugned Order passed by the Respondent no.2 dated 22.02.2012 and the Report dated 09.02.2012 submitted by the Respondent no.3 as against the Petitioners herein, are quashed and set aside. 2. The Respondent no.3 is directed to submit a fresh report in accordance with the said directions of the learned Division Bench of this Court by Order dated 24.01.2012 after hearing the Petitioners in accordance with law. 3. Such report shall be submitted by the Respondent no.3 within three weeks from the date of receipt of the Order. 4. 2. The Respondent no.3 is directed to submit a fresh report in accordance with the said directions of the learned Division Bench of this Court by Order dated 24.01.2012 after hearing the Petitioners in accordance with law. 3. Such report shall be submitted by the Respondent no.3 within three weeks from the date of receipt of the Order. 4. Upon receipt of such report, the Respondent no.2 shall proceed to pass an appropriate Order in compliance with the Order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition no. 788/2011 within a period of two weeks thereafter. 5. The said statement made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, upon instructions of the respective Petitioners, is accepted without prejudice and rights to the contentions on merits. 6. All the contentions of the parties are left open. 7. Rule is disposed of accordingly. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the Respondent no. 2 on 22.03.2012 at 3.00 p.m. and abide by its directions. 9. All the above Petitions are disposed of accordingly with no Orders as to costs.