Judgment : F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, Mr. M.P. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, Mr. Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.7 and Mr. Parag Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.8. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. The above petition came to be filed by the petitioner taking exception to the construction being put up by respondents No.7 and 8 in their respective properties situated in the Village of Benaulim. The main grievance of the petitioner was that the construction activities being carried out by the respondent No.8 are without obtaining the requisite permissions from the Statutory Authorities. The other grievance raised by the petitioner was that the construction was being put up in violation of the CRZ Notification, 1991. In the replies filed by the Authorities and the documents produced by them, we find that the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority/respondent No.9 has already initiated action in terms of the CRZ Notification and, in fact, a notice with that regard has already been issued on 17th April, 2014. A copy of the said notice has also been served on the petitioner herein. 4. With regard to the other grievance of the petitioner in connection with the alleged breach committed by respondent No.8 in terms of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, we find that the Dy. Director of Panchayats, South Goa, Margao has already assumed powers vested under Section 66 (5) of the Act and the proceedings are pending in that regard. 5. In such circumstances, as the concerned Authorities have already initiated action, we find that the grievances of the petitioners in connection with the construction activities being carried out by the respondent No.8, have been substantially worked out, at this stage. 6. Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further points out that until the Authorities finally dispose of the proceedings initiated by them, respondent No.8 should not be allowed to continue further with the construction activities at the site in question. 7. Mr. 6. Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further points out that until the Authorities finally dispose of the proceedings initiated by them, respondent No.8 should not be allowed to continue further with the construction activities at the site in question. 7. Mr. Parag Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.8 points out that in the affidavit filed by respondent No.8, there is a specific averment to the effect that respondent No.8 shall not carry out any construction activity in the property in question, until the Authorities issue the requisite permissions/licences. Shri Parag Rao, upon instructions of the respondent No.8, states that no construction activity would be started without obtaining the requisite permissions from the concerned authorities. Accepting the said statement of the respondent No.8 in the said affidavit and of the learned Advocate Shri Parag Rao, we find that the apprehension of the petitioner that the respondent No.8 may put up further constructions without obtaining the requisite permissions/licences, would not survive. Hence, as far as respondent No.8 is concerned, as the action has already been initiated by the Statutory Authorities, we find that the question of keeping the petition pending further does not arise at all. But, however, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State Authorities assures the Court that the action which has been initiated by the State Authorities, shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible. 8. As far as respondent No.7 is concerned, we find that the Authorities have already granted permissions to the respondent No.7 in connection with the disputed construction. The grievance of the petitioner, as far as respondent No.7, as such, does not subsist and, as such, the question of granting any relief to the petitioner in relation to the construction of respondent No.7 does not arise at all. 9. Accepting the statement of respondent No.8 in the affidavit as an undertaking to this Court, as well as the assurance of the learned Advocate General referred to hereinabove, we dispose of the writ petition on such terms. The Rule stands disposed of accordingly. It is however clarified that all contentions of both the parties, on merits, are left open and that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Liberty to the parties to apply in case of any clarification.