JUDGMENT (B.R. Gavai, J.) Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard by consent. 3. The petitioners have approached this Court initially for a writ or order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 12.11.2013 passed by the respondent no. 3/Gram Panchayat thereby resolving to keep the application of petitioner for grant of NOC pending. 4. However during the pendency of the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 Panchayat has passed a resolution on 17.12.2013 thereby refusing permission on the ground that the property in question is designated in CRZ-III area and, as such, no construction is permitted. 5. We have heard Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C. A. Coutinho, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 3 and Mr. Alex Pereira, intervenor in person yesterday on 23.12.2013. 6. Since prima facie we are of the view that the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat which is the contempt of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition NO. 862/2012 dated 15.1.2013, we had directed the Sarpanch and the Secretary of the Village Panchayat to remain present. 7. Today, the Sarpanch Mr. Moises Vaz and Secretary Mr. Narayan Asgaonkar, are present in the Court and state that Sarpanch is proposing to move a resolution to grant NOC to the petitioner on 28.12.2013. 8. In so far as intervernor's application is concerned, vide order dated 15.1.2013 the Division Bench of this Court has observed thus in paragraph 17 as under:- “The application for intervention is dismissed. Al the contentions raised by the applicant in the said intervention application on facts and in law are also dismissed.” 9. The aforesaid order has not been assailed by intervenor before higher forum. In view of judicial proprietary and discipline, we are bound by view taken by the Division Bench of this Court. In that view of the matter, in so far as intervention application is concerned, the same stands dismissed as such. 10. In so far as rejection of NOC is concerned, we find that rejection is on the same grounds which have been found to be untenable by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 15.1.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 862/2012. 11. In any case State government now itself has formulated a policy thereby permitting shacks having temporary structure for a limited period between 1st October to 31st May. 12. 11. In any case State government now itself has formulated a policy thereby permitting shacks having temporary structure for a limited period between 1st October to 31st May. 12. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. Though we could have very well taken action against the sarpanch and the secretary, of the Village Panchayat for committing contempt of Court, we refrain ourselves from doing so, in as much as the sarpanch has realised the mistake and himself has proposed to move a resolution for grant of NOC to the petitioners. However, we do not find it necessary to keep the issue pending inasmuch, as the issue has already been put to rest by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 862/2012. 13. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (aa). Respondent no. 3 is directed to grant NOC to the petitioner for making an application for erection of shack. NOC shall be granted within a period of three day from today. On such NOC being granted, the Director of Tourism to consider the application of the petitioners in accordance with law. 14. Parties to act on the duly authenticated copy. 15. Writ Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.