JUDGMENT : Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Government Advocate waives service on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4. Shri Nadkarni, the learned Counsel waives service for respondent no.5. Shri Gawas, the learned Counsel waives service for respondent no.6. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 22/02/2016, passed by the second respondent, Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA, for short), under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the Act, for short), directing demolition of the construction, standing in Survey No. 223/1A and 222/3A of village Anjuna, Bardez, Goa. 3. The brief facts are that the fifth respondent lodged a complaint with the GCZMA, alleging illegal and unauthorised construction of some structures by the petitioner in Survey Nos.222/3A and 223/1A of village Anjuna, Bardez, Goa, which were allegedly constructed in breach of the CRZ Regulations. The GCZMA issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 11/01/2016, claiming that the petitioner had made illegal construction of a ground + 1 structure, styled as “Alcove Resort', with 7 to 8 permanent cottages and restaurant and permanent structures along with staircase leading to the beach, which are falling within 10 to 50 metres of the High Tide Line (HTL) and without obtaining necessary permissions/ approval from the Statutory Authorities and in violation of CRZ Notification, 2011. The said notice was served on the petitioner on 13/01/2016 and the petitioner was asked to remain present for personal hearing on 18/01/2016. The petitioner, accordingly, remained present and filed an application, seeking 15 days' time to enable the petitioner to compile the relevant documents and to file a detailed reply. The GCZMA, accordingly, granted time to the petitioner to file a detailed reply till 28/01/2016, on which date, the petitioner filed a detailed reply raising various contentions. In short, it was contended that the structures are existing structures much prior to the year 1991 and there is no violation of CRZ Regulations. However, the GCZMA, by the impugned order, has directed demolition of the subject structures, which order is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 4. I have heard Shri Nitin Sardessai, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Linhares, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4, Shri Nadkarni, the learned Counsel for the fifth respondent and Shri Gawas, the learned Counsel for the sixth respondent. 4. I have heard Shri Nitin Sardessai, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Linhares, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4, Shri Nadkarni, the learned Counsel for the fifth respondent and Shri Gawas, the learned Counsel for the sixth respondent. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the record and gone through the impugned order. 5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice is vague as it does not show particulars of the structures, which are said to be illegal and erected in violation of the CRZ Regulations. The learned Senior Counsel has referred to the show cause notice, in order to point out that it refers to a ground + 1 storied structure with 7 to 8' permanent cottages and then refers to a restaurant and “permanent structures along with the staircase, leading to the beach”. It is submitted that the show cause notice ought to have been specific as to the structures, which are claimed to be illegal and unauthorised. It is next submitted that the show cause notice was issued merely based on the complaint filed by the fifth respondent and without the GCZMA carrying out any site inspection/ panchanama in respect of the subject structures. It is submitted that, in the absence thereof, the GCZMA could not have issued show cause notice and initiated action. It is next submitted that as per rule 4(3-a) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 ('Rules' for short), the show cause notice has to be a 15 days' notice while only 5 days' time was granted in as much as the notice was served on the petitioner on 13/01/2016 and the petitioner was asked to remain present on 18/01/2016. It is submitted that the impugned order travels beyond the show cause notice in as much as the impugned order records that the petitioner had converted the use of the structures from residential to commercial, which was not part of the show cause notice. It is submitted that on 18/01/2016, the petitioner had only sought time to file a detailed reply and there was no personal hearing as such conducted on that day. It is submitted that the petitioner had never waived his right of personal hearing. It is submitted that on 18/01/2016, the petitioner had only sought time to file a detailed reply and there was no personal hearing as such conducted on that day. It is submitted that the petitioner had never waived his right of personal hearing. It is submitted that the GCZMA had granted time till 28/01/2016, when the petitioner filed a detailed reply, after which there is no opportunity of personal hearing granted. There is no consideration of the various documents produced by the petitioner on record, including the permission for repairs granted by the office of the Town Planner as far back as on 10/05/1994. It is submitted that the Village Panchayat had issued show cause notice alleging illegal construction and ultimately, those proceedings were dropped, which is evident from the letter dated 23/03/2011. It is submitted that there is no consideration on these aspect and there is no finding in the impugned order that the construction of the subject structures is after the year 1991. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order stands vitiated. 6. On the contrary, the learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that there was a direction by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in the matter and the petitioner was heard on 18/01/2016 and further time was granted to file a detailed reply till 28/01/2016, which would satisfy the requirement of 15 days clear notice. It is submitted that the petitioner was all along aware of the structures, in respect of which the show cause notice pertains and thus, the contention raised on account of the show cause notice being vague is misplaced. It is submitted that the GCZMA, after hearing the petitioner, has rightly directed demolition of the structures. The learned Additional Government Advocate alternatively submitted that in the event this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order, the GCZMA will conduct inspection of the structures and issue a fresh show cause notice, if necessary and then, decide the matter afresh, after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. Shri Nadkarni, the learned Counsel for the fifth respondent has submitted that there was no dispute as to the identity of the structures, as the petitioner was all along aware about the structures, in respect of which the action is initiated and therefore, the ground about the show cause notice being vague, is not correct. 7. Shri Nadkarni, the learned Counsel for the fifth respondent has submitted that there was no dispute as to the identity of the structures, as the petitioner was all along aware about the structures, in respect of which the action is initiated and therefore, the ground about the show cause notice being vague, is not correct. It is submitted that the GCZMA had granted time till 28/01/2016 to the petitioner to file reply, which would satisfy the requirement of 15 days' clear notice. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of approaching the NGT against the impugned order and in view of availability of an alternate remedy, the petition may not be entertained. It is submitted that a show cause notice was issued and the petitioner was allowed to file a detailed reply. It is submitted that the petitioner was also heard on 18/01/2016 and as such, there is no breach of the principles of natural justice in this case, so as to carve out any exception for entertaining the petition. 9. I have carefully considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made. 10. It is now well settled that the reluctance to entertain a petition in the wake of availability of an alternate remedy, is self-imposed restriction with well known exceptions. One of the exceptions is where there is breach of principles of natural justice, demonstrated by the party concerned. In the present petition also, the petitioner is coming with a ground of there being breach of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order, which are found to be justified for reasons hereinafter set out. For this reason, I do not find that the objection on account of the availability of an alternate remedy can be sustained. 11. It is not in dispute that the GCZMA did not conduct any site inspection nor any panchanamna was drawn about the location, nature and extent of the structures, which were subject matter of the complaint, lodged by the fifth respondent. It appears that the GCZMA has merely acted on the basis of the complaint, without first verifying what is the nature of the construction and its exact location. It appears that the GCZMA has merely acted on the basis of the complaint, without first verifying what is the nature of the construction and its exact location. Normally, it would be expected from the GCZMA to first conduct a site inspection, draw a proper panchanama and then initiate action, if the subject structures are found to be illegal or unauthorised and having erected in breach of the CRZ Notification. That does not appear to have been done in this case. A perusal of the show cause notice would indicate that the GCZMA had referred to a ground + 1 storied structure with 7 to 8 permanent cottages and a restaurant and permanent structures along with staircase leading to the beach, constructed in the property bearing Survey No.223/1A. Had the GCZMA conducted an inspection, the exact nature, location and the number of structures could have been set out in the show cause notice. It also appears that the show cause notice does not make any reference to change of user of the subject structures from residential to commercial purpose. However, the final order of demolition proceeds on the said aspect. It is also a matter of record that the show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 13/01/2016 and he was asked to remain present on 18/01/2016 while rule 4(3-a) of the Rules requires 15 days' notice. Even taking note of the fact that the petitioner was granted time till 28/01/2016, which would satisfy the requirement of 15 days' clear notice, no personal hearing as such, has been granted thereafter. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mukund Joshi Vs. State of Goa (W.P.No.13/2016, decided on 21/01/2016), has, inter alia, held in para 8 of the judgment that “hearing would include giving an opportunity to the parties to advance oral submissions unless the petitioner waives his right to advance his oral submissions.” In the present case, it is evident that the only personal hearing that was granted was on 18/01/2016, on which date, the petitioner had sought time to file a detailed reply and there is no personal hearing granted after the petitioner filed a detailed reply on 28/01/2016. 12. 12. On behalf of the fifth respondent, reliance is placed on the Minutes of the meeting held on 18/01/2016, in which, the following decision is recorded : “After detailed discussion and due deliberations and on considering the oral submissions made by the Ld. Advocate D. Shirodkar present on behalf of Mr. Milton Marques, the Authority decided to grant 15 days time period to Mr. Milton Marques for filing of his detailed reply in the interest of natural justice with effect from the date of receipt of the Show Cause Notice Cum Personal hearing i.e. 13/01/2016 as informed by the Advocate of Mr. Milton Marques which expires on 27/01/2016 and in case of non-receipt of any reply from Mr. Milton Marques within the stipulated time period the Authority shall proceed with final decision in the matter. The Authority also informed both the parties that no further personal hearing to the parties shall be granted and final decision will be taken based on the documents submitted by the parties. The same is agreed by both the parties and their representatives.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the petition, the petitioner has specifically averred that there was no hearing as such conducted on 18/01/2016 and the only request, which was made, was for grant of time to file a detailed reply. There is a specific ground raised in this regard in the petition, which is not controverted by the GCZMA. In any event, the petitioner, not having been granted any opportunity of hearing, after filing of the reply on 28/01/2016, I find that the matter needs to be remanded back to the GCZMA for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. 14. In the result, the following order is passed : (i) The petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned order is hereby set aside. (iii) Respondent no.2 shall carry out inspection of the subject structures and if found necessary, shall issue fresh show cause notice and pass orders afresh, after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law. (iv) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 6 months from today. (v) Rival contentions of the parties are left open. (vi) In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.