JUDGMENT (B.R. Gavai, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner had initially approached this Court for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certioriari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 13th November, 2013 and 31st October, 2013 issued by the respondent no.3. Vide the said communication, the petitioner was informed about the resolution passed by the respondent no.3 – Village Panchayat that his application for grant of NOC for applying to the Director of Panchayat for erection of shack is kept pending. 3. However, during the pendency of the petition, it was informed to the Court that the respondent no.3 – Village Panchayat would consider the petitioner's application. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent no.3 - Village Panchayat had passed a resolution thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of NOC. The petitioner has challenged the said resolution by amending the petition. 4. The perusal of the resolution reveals that the application has been rejected on the two grounds; one that the public access has been blocked by the vegetation and the second that eastern side of the road building is not as per the approval of TCP. 5. The perusal of the record would reveal that initially the Village Panchayat had taken action against the petitioner with regard to the same. The petitioner had challenged the same before the Director of Town and Planning and the order passed by the Village Panchayat was stayed. Perusal of the record would reveal that vide order dated 16th November, 2013, the Village Panchayat had passed the order thereby withdrawing its earlier order and additional Director of Panchayat was also informed about the same. 6. It is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the panchayat that the order dated 16th November, 2013 has been passed and the earlier order dated 29th August, 2013 is withdrawn since the same was passed without issuing show cause notice. However, the perusal of the order dated 16th November, 2013 would reveal that it is not stated so in the order. 7. Shri Aleixo Arnolfo Pereira has applied for intervention and contends that in the Survey Number concerned the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority has found that the shacks are not permissible. 8. However, the perusal of the order dated 16th November, 2013 would reveal that it is not stated so in the order. 7. Shri Aleixo Arnolfo Pereira has applied for intervention and contends that in the Survey Number concerned the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority has found that the shacks are not permissible. 8. We find that the said issue is not germane while the Village Panchayat considers for grant of NOC. In any case, that is not the reason on which the Village Panchayat has refused the NOC. In any case, if any such order is passed by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, the Director of Tourism is bound to consider such order while considering whether permission has to be granted to the petitioner or not. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the Village Panchayat has refused NOC to the petitioner on an extraneous consideration. The learned Counsel for the Village Panchayat fairly concedes that the NOC for shack is not on the land about which the Village Panchayat alleges that it blocks the access to the citizens or there is construction in violation of the TCP. 9. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (aa). The respondent no.3 – Village Panchayat is directed to issue NOC to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. On the petitioner being granted NOC by the Village Panchayat, the Director of Tourism will consider the same in accordance with law. Parties to act on the authenticated copy.