JUDGMENT : R.D.Dhanuka, J. By this PIL Writ Petition, the petitioners seek an order calling for the records of the approvals granted by the Town Planning Department, Collector (North), Panchayat of Morjim and Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (for short MOEF & CC) and have prayed for quashing and setting aside those orders. The petitioners have also prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the State of Goa and Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) to take steps to demolish the construction of the project of the respondent no.7 and to restore the beach to its original condition. By consent of parties, this PIL Writ Petition was heard finally. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this PIL Writ Petition are as under :- 2. The petitioner no.1 is an environmental NGO based in Goa and has filed various PIL Writ Petitions in public interest for enforcement of the provisions of environment, wildlife, forest, pollution and CRZ notifications. The petitioner no.2 has also filed various proceedings from time to time in public interest. 3. On 19th February 1991, respondent no.3 (MOEF & CC) issued notification S.O. 114(E) under the Environment (Protection) Act,1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules,1986 inter alia declaring coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zone (for short "CRZ") and to regulate the activities within the CRZ areas (for short "1991 CRZ Notification"). 4. Under the said 1991 CRZ Notification, development of activities in the coastal stretches within 500 meters from High Tide Line (HTL) on the landward side are regulated. Under the said notification, no new construction was permitted in CRZ-I areas within 500 meters from the HTL. In CRZ-III areas, the area up to 200 meters from HTL was earmarked as a "No Development Zone." Development of vacant plots between 200-500 meters of HTL for construction of hotels and beach resorts was permitted with prior approval of MOEF & CC, subject to certain terms and conditions. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that as per Coastal Regulation Zone Notification,2011 (for short "2011 CRZ Notification), all turtle nesting beaches are designated as CRZ-I. The notification also requires that management plans shall be prepared for those four designated turtle nesting beaches. South Goa also has two designated turtle nesting beaches at Galgibag and Agonda. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that as per Coastal Regulation Zone Notification,2011 (for short "2011 CRZ Notification), all turtle nesting beaches are designated as CRZ-I. The notification also requires that management plans shall be prepared for those four designated turtle nesting beaches. South Goa also has two designated turtle nesting beaches at Galgibag and Agonda. Morjim beach is one of the two designated turtle nesting beaches in North Goa, the other being Mandrem beach, which is adjacent to Morjim. The two beaches together are approximately 5 km in length. It is the case of the petitioners that as per 2011 CRZ Notification, construction of hotels is not permitted in CRZ-I areas. 6. On 27th September 1996, pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the 1991 CRZ Notification, Goa Coastal Zone Management Plan (for short "CZMP") was prepared. On 27th September 1996, MOEF & CC approved the Goa CZMP, subject to certain terms and conditions set out therein. 7. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that in so far as the Pernem Taluka, where the subject property of the respondent no.7 is situated is concerned, it was specifically provided that sand dunes, mangroves and turtle nesting sites falling in Morjim village were classified as CRZ-I areas and the settlement areas were classified as CRZ-III areas. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that a portion of the subject property of respondent no.7 was classified as a "Settlement" area in the Regional Plan for Goa-2021 notified by the respondent no.5 ("The Town Planner") on 24th November 2010. 8. On 12th April 2001, MOEF & CC issued Notification No.S.O. 329 (E) wherein certain portions of 1991 CRZ Notification were amended. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that by the 2001 CRZ Notification, certain exceptions to the earlier prohibition on any new construction within 500 meters of HTL in CRZ-I areas were provided. The construction that came to be permitted in CRZ-I areas was (a) projects relating to Department of Atomic Energy, (b) pipelines and transmission lines, and (c) facilities essential for activities permitted in CRZ-I. 9. The construction that came to be permitted in CRZ-I areas was (a) projects relating to Department of Atomic Energy, (b) pipelines and transmission lines, and (c) facilities essential for activities permitted in CRZ-I. 9. On 13th October 2006, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order in Writ Petition No.422 of 1998 thereby directing the GCZMA to identify the open plots in CRZ-III zone which are available for construction of hotels and to frame appropriate policy/regulation for utilisation thereof before they are being allowed to be utilised for such construction activities. 10. On 16th October 2008, the Draft Regional Plan for Goa, 2021 was published in the Official Gazette Series No.III No.29 inviting written comments from the public. The comments submitted by the public and local bodies on the Draft RPG 2021 were considered by the concerned State Level Committee. It was the case of the respondent no.7 that on 8th November 2010, at the 137th meeting of the Town & Country Planning Board, the draft RPG 2021 was considered and approved with modification. On 9th November 2010, the said Town & Country Planning Board submitted the said draft to State for approval. On 9th November 2010, State Government approved the Draft RPG 2021 only in respect of Canacona and Pernem Taluka. The property of the respondent no.7 is situated in Pernem Taluka. 11. On 24th November 2010, the respondent no.5 exercised the powers conferred under Sections 15 and 17 of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act,1974 and notified the Regional Plan for Goa-2021 (Part) in respect of Canacona and Pernem Taluka as approved by the State Government. In the said notification, it was directed that on and from the date of publication thereof, all development programmes undertaken within Canacona and Pernem Taluka shall be as per the provisions of RPG-2021. 12. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that in the said RPG2021, the subject property falls partly within "settlement" zone and partly within "orchard zone." The portion which falls within the "orchard zone" is situated within 200 meters of HTL and in any event, no Development Zone as per applicable CRZ regulations. It is further case of the respondent no.7 that the portion which falls within the "settlement zone" is between 200-500 meters from HTL. As per applicable CRZ regulations, construction of hotels is permitted in the CRZ zone. It is further case of the respondent no.7 that the portion which falls within the "settlement zone" is between 200-500 meters from HTL. As per applicable CRZ regulations, construction of hotels is permitted in the CRZ zone. Under RPG-2021, one of the permitted uses in areas falling within "settlement zone" is beach resorts/hotels/motels. 13. On 6th January 2011, the respondent no.3 MOEF & CC issued notification No.S.O.19(E) to supersede the 1991 CRZ Notification. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that by the said 2011 CRZ Notification, the said notification has diluted the scope and restrictions applicable to CRZ-I areas as per the 1991 CRZ Notification. In so far as CRZ-III areas are concerned, the classification of these areas virtually remained unchanged as compared to the 1991 CRZ Notification. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that even under the CRZ notification, construction of hotels/beach resorts on open/vacant plots was permitted. It is also the case of the respondent no.7 that it cannot be contended that the entire beach stretch (even on those beaches where there are sand dunes and turtle nesting sites) falls in CRZ-I. 14. According to the respondent no.7, the guidelines for construction of hotels/beach resorts in designated areas of CRZ-III areas are set out in Annexure-III of the 2011 CRZ Notification. Under those guidelines, no construction was permitted within 200 meters in the landward side of HTL. However, construction was expressly permitted from the hazard line or 200 meters from HTL whichever is more. In the said guidelines, it was clarified that ecologically sensitive areas, including breeding and spawning grounds, construction of beach resorts/hotels was not permitted which would convert the actual turtle nesting sites. 15. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that in the 2011 CRZ Notification, areas requiring special consideration were specified and with regard to the State of Goa, a separate section was provided. Under the said notification, specific activities were to be regulated and various measures were to be undertaken. The beaches such as Mandrem, Morjim, Galgibag and Agonda had been designated as turtle nesting sites and protected under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and those areas shall be surveyed and a Management Plan was to be prepared for protection of those turtle nesting sites. No development activities shall be permitted in the turtle breeding areas referred to in sub-paragraph (vii) of the said CRZ Notification. 16. No development activities shall be permitted in the turtle breeding areas referred to in sub-paragraph (vii) of the said CRZ Notification. 16. Pursuant to the order dated 13th October 2006, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.422 of 1998, GCZMA appointed the Remote Sensing Instruments, India to prepare an atlas of maps showing the open plots admeasuring 4000 sq.mtrs. and above in CRZ-III areas for development of hotels/beach resorts by satellite imagery interpretation. The said Remote Sensing Instruments, India, accordingly, submitted a report titled 'Open Plot Identification of CRZ-III area of Goa.' In the said report, a map was enclosed reflecting the subject property i.e. Survey No.123/1 (in yellow colour) as an open areas admeasuring more than 4000 sq.mtrs. in the CRZ-III zone. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that the subject property is an open plot in CRZ_III areas on which construction of hotels/beach resorts is permitted as per the 2011 CRZ Notification read with order dated 13th October 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.422 of 1998. 17. On 16th June 2011, respondent no.2 (GCZMA)/the Department of Science, Technology & Environment issued a 'Policy for utilisation of available plots in CRZ-III Zone for the purpose of establishing Hotels/Beach Resorts' (for short "Hotel Policy"). 18. Some time in the year 2011, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition bearing No.29 of 2011 invoking the writ jurisdiction seeking to quash and set aside the Hotel Policy. In the challenge to the Hotel Policy, GCZMA, respondent no.2 filed an affidavit dated 27th September 2011 explaining the process of assessment of applications for projects for development of Hotels/Beach Resorts in CRZ-III areas and clarifying that a detailed process of analysis, assessment and appraisal was being undertaken by the concerned authorities and State of Goa to ensure protection of the environment and to avoid considering any project that is detrimental to the protection and development of the environment. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that for ecologically sensitive areas, detailed site inspection and verification as per the Hotel Policy was carried out. By an order dated 19th March 2012, this Court disposed of the said writ petition no.29 of 2011 filed by the petitioners as premature without examining the merits of the rival contentions. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that for ecologically sensitive areas, detailed site inspection and verification as per the Hotel Policy was carried out. By an order dated 19th March 2012, this Court disposed of the said writ petition no.29 of 2011 filed by the petitioners as premature without examining the merits of the rival contentions. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that the said Hotel Policy contains specific guidelines for considering proposals for construction of Hotels/Beach Resorts in CRZ-III areas. As per these guidelines, only those projects in the areas classified as "settlement" in RPG-2021 are to be considered for construction of Hotels/Beach Resorts in CRZ-III areas. 19. On 24th February 2015, Respondent no.7 made an application before GCZMA for seeking approval for revised plan of proposed construction of Hotel in Survey No.123/1(Part-A) of Morjim village, Pernem Taluka, Goa. On 29th May 2015, GCZMA granted approval/recommendation clearance in favour of the respondent no.7 in terms of the CRZ Notification, 2011, as amended for the project proposal of construction of Hotel Project located in Survey No.123/1 (Part A) of Morjim Village, Pernem Taluka (as per enclosed plan only) in terms of the CRZ angle only including the norms of Floor Space Index (FSI) or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as per the CRZ Notification 2011 subject to further compliance mentioned therein. 20. Condition No.3 provided that the project proponent shall not undertake/carry out any construction within 200 meters from HTL and within the area between Low Tide and High Tide Line. Condition No.5 provided that the proposed construction shall be beyond 200 meters from HTL. Condition No.9 provided that construction as per the approved plan shall be permitted only on the landward side of the existing road or the landward side of the authorised structure and shall be subjected to the existing local Town and Country Planning (TCP) Regulations including the norms specified in the CRZ Notification 2011 in respect of FSI or FAR. It was made clear that such construction shall be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the CRZ Notification 2011, as amended and TCP regulation. It was mentioned in the said approval that the TCP Department and local body shall ensure that planning building/regulations are strictly complied with. 21. It was made clear that such construction shall be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the CRZ Notification 2011, as amended and TCP regulation. It was mentioned in the said approval that the TCP Department and local body shall ensure that planning building/regulations are strictly complied with. 21. One of the conditions prescribed that the said NOC/Approval/Clearance/Recommendation was issued without prejudice to any other permission as required under the law including that of ownership of property, court case etc. Prior to the commencement of the 'construction' work, it would be incumbent upon the applicant to obtain permission from any other authority as required under the law including from the local authority, TCP Department, Revenue Authority etc. The project proponent shall also obtain conversion sanad, change of zone etc. before actual commencement of civil work. 22. On 1st December 2015, the respondent no.7 submitted an application requesting for NOC from GCZMA. On 22nd February 2016, the said GCZMA granted fresh approval for revised plans of respondent no.7. On 11th June 2015, Additional Collector-I issued Conversion Sanad pursuant to the application made by the respondent no.7 under Rule 7 of the Goa Land Revenue (Conversion for use of land and non-agricultural Assessment) Rules,1969 granting permission for use of the subject property (for "commercial use"). 23. On 9th July 2015, the Deputy Town Planner issued a Technical Clearance Order for carrying out construction of the Hotel Project in favour of the respondent no.7, subject to certain conditions specified in the said order. On 13th January 2016, respondent no.7 addressed a letter to Deputy Town Planner, Mapusa, Goa revising the plans for construction of the Hotel Project and requested for approval of the same. On 16th June 2016, Deputy Town Planner issued a Technical Clearance Order based on revised plans for construction of the Hotel Project submitted by the respondent no.7 subject to compliance of certain conditions by the respondent no.7 set out therein. 24. On 14th July 2015, the Health Officer, Community Health Centre, Pernem Goa issued "No Objection" from a sanitary point of view for the construction of the project, subject to certain conditions set out therein. On 6th August 2015, the Sarpanch and Secretary of the respondent no.1 (Panchayat) granted construction license/permission in favour of the respondent no.7 for the project for a period of 3 years commencing on 6th August 2015 ("First Panchayat License"). On 6th August 2015, the Sarpanch and Secretary of the respondent no.1 (Panchayat) granted construction license/permission in favour of the respondent no.7 for the project for a period of 3 years commencing on 6th August 2015 ("First Panchayat License"). On 29th June 2016, the Sarpanch and Secretary of the respondent no.1 (Panchayat) granted construction license/permission in favour of the respondent no.7 for the Hotel Project for a period of 3 years commencing on 12th July 2016 ("Second Panchayat License"). 25. On 7th September 2015, the Executive Engineer, Work Division-1, WRD, Patto, Panjim Goa issued no objection certificate to the respondent no.7 for the Hotel Project under the provisions of Goa Irrigation Act, 1973 and the Goa Ground Water Regulation Act, 2002, subject to certain conditions. On 11th December 2015, the Member Secretary of the respondent no.6 Board granted consent in favour of the respondent no.7 to establish under Section 36 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 for a period of 3 years for construction of the Hotel Project, subject to certain conditions set out therein. 26. The respondent no.6 Board issued an amended Consent to Establish under Section 36 of the aforesaid provisions on 10th November 2016. On 2nd November 2016, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Goa issued a letter stating that for the past 2 decades, an area admeasuring about 40,700 sq.mtrs. at Morjim beach had been treated as a "No Development Zone" because the said area is under the management of the Forest Department, Goa as a turtle nesting area. A plan demarcating the turtle nesting site at Morjim beach was enclosed to the said letter. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that subject property does not fall within the said turtle nesting area demarcated in the plan annexed to the said letter dated 2nd November 2016. 27. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that pursuant to an order passed by the National Green Tribunal (Western Zone Bench, Pune) on 17th December 2014, National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management of the respondent no.3 was appointed by the respondent no.2 authority to carry out an assessment of carrying capacity for the beaches of Goa for providing shacks and other temporary seasonal structures. The said National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management prepared and published a report titled "Carrying Capacity of Beaches of Goa for Providing Shacks and Other Temporary Seasonal Structures in Private Areas." 28. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that during the period between 2016-17 prior to submitting applications to the authorities, the respondent no.7 obtained an Environment Impact Assessment Report wherein it was specifically observed that the present project structures are proposed in the CRZ-III area located in the developable belt situated within 200 m to 500 m from HTL where no dunes and turtle nesting sites exist. 29. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that at the 175th of the Expert Appraisal Committee of the respondent no.3 held on 7th September 2017, the subject proposal to construct a Hotel on the subject property of the respondent no.7 was considered. It was noted in the said minutes that project of the respondent no.7 was more than 1.0 km away towards the north of the buffer zone of the turtle nesting site. The nesting site is demarcated by the office of Deputy Conservator of Forest, Government of Goa as per their letter dated 2nd November 2016. Committee further observed that area being close to a turtle nesting site, it would only be appropriate that a robust turtle conservation action plan in consultation with the concerned agency in the State Government need to be in place in addition to the implementation/plan envisaged or undertaken by the State agency." The proposal of the respondent no.7 was granted CRZ clearance subject to condition that considering the proximity of the site to sea turtle nesting area, illumination at the resort must be Sea turtle friendly. Guidelines for the same can be sought from Wildlife Institute of India. 30. On 10th October 2017, based on the recommendation of the Expert Appraisal Committee, respondent no.3 (MOEF & CC) granted CRZ Clearance for construction of the project to the respondent no.7 under the 2011 CRZ Notification, subject to the compliance of conditions specified in the said order. One of the conditions specified was that the project proponent shall in association with the concerned agency in the State Government implement a robust turtle conservation programme considering that the site is in close proximity to a turtle nesting area. 31. One of the conditions specified was that the project proponent shall in association with the concerned agency in the State Government implement a robust turtle conservation programme considering that the site is in close proximity to a turtle nesting area. 31. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that on 25th October 2017, the respondent no.7 commenced construction of project at the subject property. On 28th March 2018, the Secretary, TCP Department, Goa passed an order superseding an earlier order dated 4th June 2012 by which directions had been issued to withhold RPG 2021 as a reference plan for determining land use. By the said order dated 28th March 2018, permission was granted to put lands falling in "settlement zone" as per RPG 2021 to the uses permitted therein. 32. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that on 15th June 2018, at the 175th meeting of GCZMA held on 22nd May 2018, the said authority decided to carry out an inspection of the subject property jointly with the representatives of DSLR and the Department of Forests. The said joint inspection was carried out on 15th June 2018. Pursuant to the said joint inspection, 2 expert members of GCZMA jointly prepared a report wherein it was observed that the protected Turtle Nesting site of the Forest Department is more than 700 m away from the construction of project of the respondent no.7 and was lying towards its south side. The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Mapusa, Goa prepared a report in which it was observed that construction of project of the respondent no.7 was in progress from about 200 mtrs. from High Tide Line and there are hardly any vegetation in the said plot. 33. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that the said joint inspection report was placed by GCZMA at it's 177th meeting held on 26th June 2018. GCZMA in the said meeting resolved to forward the report to the respondent no.8 i.e. Goa Forest Department through the Principal, Conservator of Forests, Chief Wildlife Warden (CWW) for his comments so as to ascertain the extent of the mandatory buffer zone beyond the turtle nesting site. GCZMA in the said meeting resolved to forward the report to the respondent no.8 i.e. Goa Forest Department through the Principal, Conservator of Forests, Chief Wildlife Warden (CWW) for his comments so as to ascertain the extent of the mandatory buffer zone beyond the turtle nesting site. On 9th July 2018, the respondent no.7 revised the plans for the project (by reducing the number of villas from 20 to 14 villas) and submitted a letter to the Deputy Town Planner requesting for approval of the construction of the project. On 27th July 2018, the Deputy Town Planner issued a Technical Clearance Order in favour of the respondent no.7 for the said Hotel Project subject to compliance of certain conditions by the respondent no.7 set out in the said order dated 27th July 2018. 34. On 19th July 2018, at the 179th meeting of the GCZMA, the said authority noted the clarification received from the office of the respondent no.8 in which it was clarified that the project site is 700 meters north of the turtle nesting site but there was no buffer zone beyond the turtle nesting site. After deliberation, GCZMA decided to uphold it's earlier recommendation for the project to respondent no.3 (MOEF & CC) in terms of it's earlier minutes of the 116th meeting held on 26th May 2015. 35. On 26th September 2018, pursuant to the order dated 3rd September 2018 passed by this Court in this PIL Writ Petition, respondent no.8 prepared a report. In the said report, it was stated that the said respondent no.8 had been involved in marine turtle conservation since 1986, and has over 17 years of experience in this field. There was a natural buffer zone behind the sand dunes situated close to the turtle nesting site. Since the main turtle nesting site was in front of this sand dune, it acts as a natural buffer zone for the nesting site. Goa Forest Department had been protecting the said nesting site since the year 1997-1998. The turtle nesting site under the management of the Forest Department was about 40,000 sq.mtrs. and the same was treated as "No Development Zone." 36. On 18th January 2019, MOEF & CC issued a Notification for inter alia promoting development through a sustainable manner based on scientific principles and in supersession of 2011 CRZ Notification. The turtle nesting site under the management of the Forest Department was about 40,000 sq.mtrs. and the same was treated as "No Development Zone." 36. On 18th January 2019, MOEF & CC issued a Notification for inter alia promoting development through a sustainable manner based on scientific principles and in supersession of 2011 CRZ Notification. On 3rd April 2018, the petitioners filed this PIL Writ Petition for various reliefs. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court permitting the petitioners to carry out amendment to the PIL Writ Petition, the petitioners raised additional grounds in the petition and challenged the approvals granted by the Town Planning Department, Collector (North), Panchayat of Morjim and MOEF & CC. This PIL Writ Petition is opposed by all the respondents by filing affidavits. The petitioners have filed affidavit-in-rejoinder. 37. Ms.Norma Alvares, learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to some of the annexures to the writ petitions, various affidavits filed by the respondents and to the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioners. She placed reliance on Section 7 of the CRZ Notification 2011 and would submit that "turtle nesting ground" falls under CRZ-I A (g). She placed reliance on Section 8 of the said CRZ Notification 2011 which provides for norms for regulation of activities permissible under the said CRZ Notification 2011. She submits that under CRZ-I, no new construction shall be permitted except for the areas specified in Paragraphs (a) to (f) provided therein. She submits that in so far as beaches such as Mandrem, Morjim, Galgibag and Agonda are concerned, these beaches are designated as turtle nesting sites and protected under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. These areas are to be surveyed and management plan has to be prepared for protection of these turtle nesting sites. 38. Learned counsel placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply dated 27th September 2011 filed by GCZMA in PIL Writ Petition No.29 of 2011 filed by the petitioner no.1 against GCZMA and prayed for quashing the Goa Government's policy for construction of Hotels in the CRZ and more particularly in paragraph 11 thereof. 38. Learned counsel placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply dated 27th September 2011 filed by GCZMA in PIL Writ Petition No.29 of 2011 filed by the petitioner no.1 against GCZMA and prayed for quashing the Goa Government's policy for construction of Hotels in the CRZ and more particularly in paragraph 11 thereof. It is submitted that based on the said affidavit filed by GCZMA, this Court in its judgment dated 19th March 2012 observed that when such statements are made before this Court and they are made on affidavit which has been affirmed by Member Secretary of GCZMA, this Court has no doubt that they are in the nature of undertakings to this Court. Such Statements indicate that detailed site inspection and verification as required in the Hotel Policy, is yet not carried out and that exercise had been completed only for a particular period, then there is no question of any proposal or project being approved and permitted unless these steps and measures recorded in the said order had been undertaken and completed. 39. It is submitted that no management plan has been prepared for protection of beaches at Morjim and Mandrem as has been done for Galgibag and Agonda beaches. She submits that instead of preparing management plan for these beaches at Morjim and Mandrem, a small beach stretch, 700 mtrs. in length, located at one corner of Morjim Beach which is the Forest Department's turtle hatchery is being shown as turtle nesting site for both Morjim and Mandrem beaches. It is submitted that GCZMA's approval for the project contains no reference at all to the turtle nesting beach, although the project area and Morjim beach are located in the same CRZ. 40. It is submitted that without independently verifying the data or enquiring with the GCZMA and in the absence of information on this vital eco-sensitive aspect in its approval letter, MOEF & CC has simply presumed the information of the respondent no.7 to be correct and has granted CRZ Clearance for construction of the Hotel. She submits that the respondent no.7 had informed the MOEF & CC that its project "is more than a kilometre away from the buffer zone of the Morjim turtle nesting site. She submits that the information furnished by the respondent no.7 to GCZMA was totally incorrect. She submits that the respondent no.7 had informed the MOEF & CC that its project "is more than a kilometre away from the buffer zone of the Morjim turtle nesting site. She submits that the information furnished by the respondent no.7 to GCZMA was totally incorrect. She submits that since the approval granted by GCZMA is based on incorrect information furnished by the respondent no.7, the clearance granted by GCZMA is required to be quashed and set aside and to be re-considered. 41. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in this writ petition, the petitioners have impugned CRZ Clearance dated 10th October 2017, approval dated 29th May 2015 and 22nd February 2016 granted by GCZMA and the State Authority permissions including those of the Town Planning, Village Panchayat and Collector. She submits that the information regarding turtle nesting site stated in the CRZ clearance does not even corroborate with GCZMA's findings in the investigation carried out by it subsequent to the filing of this PIL Writ Petition. No management plan for the turtle nesting beach at Morjim is prepared by the authority though same is a mandatory requirement of the CRZ 2011 Notification. She submits that clearance thus granted by MOEF and CC to the Hotel Project of the respondent no.7 is in gross violation under CRZ 2011 Notification as well as the order passed by this Court in PIL Writ Petition No.29 of 2011 which was filed by the petitioner no.1. 42. It is submitted by the learned counsel that CRZ Notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 overrides Town Planning law. Construction of Hotel is not permitted in CRZ-I areas. Construction of Hotels is only permitted in CRZ-III between 200-500 mtrs. area falling within 0-200 mtrs. from HTL is No Development Zone. A Hotel Project in the CRZ requires EC/CRZ Clearance from MOEF & CC. The project must be recommended by GCZMA after detailed scrutiny of the project, site visit etc. before granting EC/CRZ Clearance. If any such recommendation is made by GCZMA, the project has to be re-examined by the EAC of the MOEF & CC, after which MOEF & CC will take final decision on grant of CRZ Clearance. Only after CRZ Clearance is obtained, State Authorities (Town Planning, Village Panchayat, Collector) consider local approvals for the project which permissions must be in accordance with the norms of the CRZ Notification. Only after CRZ Clearance is obtained, State Authorities (Town Planning, Village Panchayat, Collector) consider local approvals for the project which permissions must be in accordance with the norms of the CRZ Notification. All the conditions of the CRZ Clearance must be part of the development permissions issued to the project. 43. It is submitted by the learned counsel that CRZ Clearance dated 10th October 2017 granted by the MOEF & CC states that project of the respondent no.1 is more than 1 km away from the buffer zone of the turtle nesting site which had been demarcated by the Forest Department vide letter dated 2nd November 2016. Such information had been provided to MOEF & CC by the respondent no.7. The said CRZ Clearance provides that the project is located in the CRZ-III and that it had been recommended for CRZ Clearance by GCZMA vide letter dated 22nd February 2016. She submits that the Hotel property of the respondent no.7 situates approximately at HTL and shared a boundary with Morjim beach. The authority has approved construction beyond 200 mtrs. from HTL on the assumption that the Hotel property is in CRZ-III. In CRZ-III, areas,0-200 mtrs. is also available to a Hotel for various activities including entertainment of guests. She submits that once in operation, the Hotel Project would commence from the border of the beach which has been allocated to turtles for nesting. 44. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the turtle nesting site is demarcated by the Forest Department vide letter dated 2nd November 2016. The said letter was written by the Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF)-North to the Department of Environment, Government of Goa, in connection with a Beach Carrying Capacity study being undertaken by NCSCM for the Government of Goa regarding temporary structures (Shacks, deckbeds, etc.) along with Goa's coast. The said letter further provides details of the area, admeasuring 40,700 sq.mtrs. which was under its management for protection of turtle nests in Morjim and Mandrem. 45. It is submitted by the learned counsel that Forest Department's protected site is in fact a hatchery, fenced and protected by the Forest Department to ensure that the turtle eggs are not destroyed during the hatching period. She submits that the turtle breeding is itself quite unique. During the breeding season i.e. October to May, adult turtles migrate from distant destinations to breed and nest, on undisturbed beaches. She submits that the turtle breeding is itself quite unique. During the breeding season i.e. October to May, adult turtles migrate from distant destinations to breed and nest, on undisturbed beaches. They generally return annually to the same beaches they are familiar with. They mate in the shallow waters and when the female is ready to lay her eggs, she crawls high up to the soft dry sands, digs a hole, lays her eggs (around 100 to 180), conceals and covers them up with sand and then returns to the sea. Generally dark nights are preferred by Olive Ridley turtles. 46. It is submitted that the turtles are very sensitive and conscious of surroundings and may return to the sea without nesting if they are disturbed while excavating the nest. The eggs hatch on their own, within 8-9 weeks. After the baby turtles emerge, they crawl instinctively and unerringly to the sea without any parenting and are all at once on their own. It is one of the marvels of nature. She submits that these information are obtained by the petitioners from the Galgibag Management Plan. 47. It is submitted by the learned counsel that with a view to see that there are number of predators (humans and animals) who may destroy the eggs, the Forest Department has set up this protected site, to which it transfers the eggs which are laid on Morjim/Mandrem beaches and ensures their safekeeping with an object to ensure that the eggs are safe till they hatch. However, the protected area cannot itself become the sole extent of the turtle nesting site. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the letter dated 13th July 2018 addressed to GCZMA by Deputy Conservator of Forest stating that in cases where sporadic turtle nesting happens outside the identified turtle nesting part of the beach, the eggs are shifted and placed in a nursery for safety for hatching located in the turtle nesting part of Morjim beach on its southern end. She placed reliance on the report dated 26th September 2018 filed by PCCF stating that during the nesting season,24x7 protection is provided to the nests and those nests which are sometimes laid outside this protected zone, are brought in there and kept in a makeshift hatchery/nests. 48. She placed reliance on the report dated 26th September 2018 filed by PCCF stating that during the nesting season,24x7 protection is provided to the nests and those nests which are sometimes laid outside this protected zone, are brought in there and kept in a makeshift hatchery/nests. 48. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 6th July 2009 in Writ Petition No.292 of 2009 in the case of Mahaseer Hotels Vs. GCZMA. She submits that in the said judgment, this Court observed that the increasing number of nests clearly shows that the concern expressed by Goa Foundation could not be stated to be ill founded. The fact that Mandrem beach is main nesting site of Olive Ridley turtles in Goa is mentioned by the petitioners in the said writ petition. She relied upon the observations made in paragraph 6 of the said judgment wherein it is observed that the GCZMA had granted the clearance without looking at the EIA which recorded that Morjim and Mandrem are turtle nesting sites. She submits that in this case, GCZMA did not consider the issue of turtle nesting site at all when it recommended the Hotel Project for CRZ Clearance, even though this is the most significant feature of the Morjim CRZ. There is not a whisper of turtle nesting in the GCZMA NOCs dated 29th May 2015 and 22nd February 2016. 49. It is submitted by the learned counsel that it is only after the filing of this PIL Writ Petition, GCZMA decided to examine the matter afresh. A joint site inspection with Forest Department and DSLR was conducted on 15th June 2018 which concluded that 'The protected turtle site of the Forest Department is more than 700 m away from the construction of the project of the respondent no.7 and is lying towards its south side.' She submits that at its 177th meeting on 26th June 2018, GCZMA decided to request for comments of the Chief Wildlife Warden on the extent of the mandatory buffer zone beyond the turtle nesting site. The CWW did not reply. The Deputy Conservator Forest however, sent letter dated 13th July 2018 stating that there is no buffer zone beyond the turtle nesting site. Thereafter at its 179th meeting dated 19th July 2018, the GCZMA decided to uphold its earlier recommendation of the project dated 26th May 2015. 50. The CWW did not reply. The Deputy Conservator Forest however, sent letter dated 13th July 2018 stating that there is no buffer zone beyond the turtle nesting site. Thereafter at its 179th meeting dated 19th July 2018, the GCZMA decided to uphold its earlier recommendation of the project dated 26th May 2015. 50. It is submitted by the learned counsel that GCZMA does not recognise the Hotel Project of the respondent no.7 as being more than a kilometre away from the buffer of turtle nesting site. In fact, the distance of the project from the turtle nesting beach has not been considered at all by GCZMA. 51. It is submitted that till management plan is prepared by authority pursuant to the order dated 19th March 2012, there was no question of granting any permission to the respondent no.7 for commencement of construction of Hotel Project. She submits that admittedly no management plans in respect of Morjim and Mandrem breaches have been prepared by the authority till date. She submits that Morjim beach falls in CRZ-I as per plan except settlement area i.e. cluster of homes. Since turtle nesting area falls in CRZ-I, construction of any Hotel Project was not permissible under CRZ 2011 Notification. She submits that project of the respondent no.7 is within 200 mtrs. from High Tide Line. 52. It is submitted by the learned counsel that as per CRZ 2011 Notification, the entire area has to be considered as turtle nesting zone. Method of measurement adopted by authority in this case was totally incorrect. The measurement was required to be taken from beach area and not hatchery area. The project of the respondent no.7 was within zero meter from beach. Even if construction may be beyond 200 meters from HTL, the respondent no.7 may carry out other objectionable activities or activities which would disturb or interfere with laying of eggs of Olive Ridley turtles which is not permissible. The MOEF & CC was not given correct information about location and distance of hotel from HTL and from the place of turtle nesting are. 53. The MOEF & CC was not given correct information about location and distance of hotel from HTL and from the place of turtle nesting are. 53. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to minutes of 175th meeting of Expert Appraisal Committee for project and would submit that though various recommendations have been made by the EAC regarding turtle nesting, MOEF & CC had granted approval in favour of the respondent no.7 for carrying out Hotel Project without considering the concerned turtle nesting. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the letter dated 27th October 2016 addressed by Deputy Conservator of Forest to the Director of Department of Environment stating that Galgibag Turtle Nesting Sites and Agonda Turtle Nesting Sites are adjacent areas to the Turtle Nesting Sites which are sand dunes within CRZ-I and also are significantly important for Turtle Conservation. By the said letter, Deputy Conservator of Forest also enclosed details of Turtle Nesting and Hachlings released since 2005 to 2016 till date for consideration of the Director of Department of Environment. 54. Learned counsel placed reliance on page 702 of the PIL Writ Petition and would submit that the said map would clearly indicate that the entire Galgibag beach as well as Agonda beach have been classified as Turtle Nesting Site. She submits that Deputy Conservator of Forest had recommended for declaring the entire Morjim beach as No Development Zone. It is submitted that the eggs laid by the Olive Ridley turtles in nest are physically lifted by Department and moved to hatchery which process may affect the population of Olive Ridley turtles. 55. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on affidavit-in-reply filed by the GCZMA in PIL Writ Petition No.29 of 2011 referring to the policy guidelines for considering project proposals for the purpose of establishing Hotels/Beach Resorts in CRZ-III area. Those guidelines also prescribed various process such as for assessment at the level of Goa-State Expert Appraisal Committee for consideration the project proposal. She also placed reliance on the order dated 19th March 2012 passed by this Court in PIL Writ Petition No.29 of 2011 filed by the petitioner no.1 against GCZMA and others. Those guidelines also prescribed various process such as for assessment at the level of Goa-State Expert Appraisal Committee for consideration the project proposal. She also placed reliance on the order dated 19th March 2012 passed by this Court in PIL Writ Petition No.29 of 2011 filed by the petitioner no.1 against GCZMA and others. It is submitted that in the said affidavit, it was clearly stated that as per the provisions of CRZ 2011 Notification, State Government has to identify and map sand dunes mangroves, Khazan Lands and prepare management plans for turtle nesting sites at Mandrem, Morjim, Galgibag and Agonda. 56. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the letter dated 13th July 2018 addressed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests to GCZMA stating that there is no buffer zone beyond the turtle nesting site. The project site is around 700 mtrs. away north of the Turtle Nesting Site at Morjim beach. In cases, where sporadic turtle nesting happens outside the identified turtle nesting part of the beach, the eggs are shifted and placed in a nursery for safety for hatching located in the turtle nesting part of Morjim beach on its southern end. 57. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the order dated 3rd September 2018 passed by this Court in PIL No.4 of 2018, the Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden, Government of Goa filed affidavit-in-reply and annexed a copy of the report of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden. She submits that in the said report, it is stated that the area under its management as Turtle Nesting Site on the Morjim beach admeasuring about 40,000 sq.mtrs. has been treated as a 'No Development Zone' where sea turtles visit for nesting during their breeding season between October to March/April. During the nesting season, 24x7 protection is provided to the nests and those nests which area some times laid outside this protected zone, are brought in there and kept in a makeshift hatchery/nests. 58. Learned counsel for the petitioners also invited our attention to the Report of Joint Site Inspection submitted by Dr. Prabhakar Shirodkar and Eng. Audhoot Bhonsule to verify that the construction done by the respondent no.7 in survey No.123/1-A is falling within 'No Development Zone' in CRZ-III area and also beyond the Turtle Nesting Site of Morjim Village, Pernem Taluka, Goa. Learned counsel for the petitioners also invited our attention to the Report of Joint Site Inspection submitted by Dr. Prabhakar Shirodkar and Eng. Audhoot Bhonsule to verify that the construction done by the respondent no.7 in survey No.123/1-A is falling within 'No Development Zone' in CRZ-III area and also beyond the Turtle Nesting Site of Morjim Village, Pernem Taluka, Goa. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the Extract of Minutes of the 177th Meeting of the GCZMA held on 26th June 2018 which refers to the report submitted by the Forest Department which in its report has remarked that the project site of the respondent no.7 is 700 m away from the protected turtle nesting area and that the protected area for nesting shifts if the nesting takes place outside the protected area. It was resolved by the authority to forward the report from Forest Department to CWW, Government of Goa for comments so as to ascertain the extent of mandatory buffer zone beyond the turtle nesting site. 59. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the letter dated 20th November 2018 from DCF, Wildlife & Eco-Tourism (North) to the Director of the petitioner no.1 informing that 'the operation of Motorised water sports at Morjim and Mandrem will drive away, pose a imminent threat to the habitat and breeding process of turtles and thus should not be allowed in Morjim and Mandrem beach.' This has been informed to the Director of Tourism, Department of Tourism, Panaji for necessary action with reference to the Court orders. 60. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Minutes of 93rd Meeting of GCZMA held on 5th October 2013. She submits that in the said minutes of meeting, GCZMA noticed on going construction carried out by M/s. Club fresh which was in close proximity between 1 to 2 km of the turtle nesting site of Morjim beach. It is recorded in the said meeting that various activities were carried out by the said M/s.Club fresh. Due to such activities, disturbance like loud music, illumination, pollutions like plastic, glass bottles, soft drink cans etc. may deter the entry of turtles on the beach. In the said minutes of meeting, an unanimous decision was recorded that the permanent structure of M/s.Club Fresh which lies in No Development Zone should be demolished/removed and the site be restored to its original condition. 61. may deter the entry of turtles on the beach. In the said minutes of meeting, an unanimous decision was recorded that the permanent structure of M/s.Club Fresh which lies in No Development Zone should be demolished/removed and the site be restored to its original condition. 61. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that sport activities on these beaches have been stopped by the State Government because of the order passed by this Court in various PIL Writ Petitions on the ground that that it affects the turtle nesting. Such activities are shifted to other beaches. It is submitted that in view of construction of hotels and other structures of the respondent no.7, there is threat to the habitat and breeding process of turtles at Morjim and Mandrem beach. It is submitted that though hatchery may serve its purpose but the same is not sufficient to protect turtle nesting site. The authority can reconsider the proposal of the respondent no.7 after management plan is submitted by GCZMA. She submits that the said protected hatchery was set up as per the Forest Department's mandate under the Wild Life Protection Act, however once CRZ 2011 identified the beaches of Morjim and Mandrem as turtle nesting beaches, it was necessary that a fresh assessment/survey was to be carried out and management plans prepared for the entire stretches of the two beaches as was done in south Goa. No Survey is admittedly done or management plan prepared for Morjim and Mandrem beaches, post 2011. Forest Department has never denied that the full beach stretches of Morjim and Mandresm are not turtle nesting beaches. She submits that Forest Department is not the authority to ensure compliance with the CRZ Notification which is the task and the purpose for which GCZMA has been set up. 62. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Hanuman Laxman Aroskar Vs. Union of India delivered on 29th March 2019 in Civil Appeal No.12251 of 2018 and in particular paragraphs 60,67,68,77,114 and 143 and the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Khedut Samaj Vs. 62. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Hanuman Laxman Aroskar Vs. Union of India delivered on 29th March 2019 in Civil Appeal No.12251 of 2018 and in particular paragraphs 60,67,68,77,114 and 143 and the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Khedut Samaj Vs. State of Gujarat delivered on 29th August 2018 in R/WP (PIL) Nos.52 & 16 of 2016 and in particular paragraphs 13 and 14 in support of the submission that since information published by the respondent no.7 about distance of its project from HTL was itself false and incorrect, the impugned permission granted by the authority based on such incorrect information deserves to be set aside. She also relied upon the order passed by the National Green Tribunal in the case of Sreeranganathan K.P. Vs. Union of India, 2014 1 ALLNGTReporter (1) (SZ) 1. 63. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that inspite of the statement made by GCZMA before this Court in the year 2012 about survey and management plans being prepared by the State Government which statement is accepted by the Court in the nature of undertakings, GCZMA & MOEF & CC have not submitted any management plan in so far as Morjim and Mandrem breaches are concerned. GCZMA could not have approved the Hotel Project of the respondent no.7 in absence of a management plan for Morjim turtle nesting site. She submits that Goa Coastal Zone Management Plan prepared in 1997 continues to operate in the State of Goa. The said management plan states as regards to Morjim CRZ is concerned that Morjim is CRZ-I except settlement area which is CRZ-III. She submits that settlement area referred to is the gaothan where the fisherfolk and other traditional communities have their homes. 64. It is submitted that there is no settlement zone as per the statutory Regional plan. She submits that Morjim is a village, a rural 'relatively undisturbed' area. In villages, the settlement is invariably confined to a few small pockets ('vaddos'/wards) while the rest of the village comprising fields/hills/forests/scrub lands are largely undisturbed. These are the vacant areas of CRZ-III, where construction of hotels may be considered. In the case of Morjim, however, the CZMP describes Morjim as CRZ-I except the village settlement. Hotels are not permitted in CRZ-I nor within the village settlement. These are the vacant areas of CRZ-III, where construction of hotels may be considered. In the case of Morjim, however, the CZMP describes Morjim as CRZ-I except the village settlement. Hotels are not permitted in CRZ-I nor within the village settlement. The issue of the vacant plots for Hotels, the gaothan, the intent of the CRZ in reserving the 200- 500 mtrs. zone for construction of residential houses of the traditional communities has been extensively dealt with by this Court in its judgment dated 13th October 2006 in Writ Petition No.422 of 1998 filed by the Goa Foundation Vs. Panchayat of Candolim. She submits that in any event, until Management Plan for Morjim is prepared, indicating the areas outside the beach which are required for protection of the turtle nesting site and would form part of the turtle breeding area and would therefore be designated as CRZ-I, the Morjim CRZ must continue to remain as CRZ-I except for the settlement area of the village. No Hotel is permissible in CRZ-I. 65. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the GCZMA dated 11th April 2019 and in particular paragraphs 8 and 9. In the said affidavit, it is stated that only what is notified by the Forest Department is "Turtle Nesting Site" and therefore only the area so notified by the Forest Department is CRZ-I areas and rest of the stretch of Morjim is CRZ-III area. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the copy of the approved Goa State Coastal Zone Management Plan dated 27th September 1996 and more particularly page 34 which deals with Pernem Taluka. She submits that in the said approved plan, it is specifically provided that sand dunes, mangroves and turtle nesting sites falling in Morjim village area classified as CRZ-I and settlement area is classified as CRZ-III. She submits that plot of the respondent no.7 falls under CRZ-I and thus no development activity is permissible in the turtle nesting site. 66. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered on 13th October 2006 in Writ Petition No.422 of 1998 filed by the petitioner no.1 against Panchayat of Candolim and others and in particular paragraphs 12 and 13. 66. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered on 13th October 2006 in Writ Petition No.422 of 1998 filed by the petitioner no.1 against Panchayat of Candolim and others and in particular paragraphs 12 and 13. She submits that only "traditional rights" and "customary uses" are permitted such as existing fishing villages and gaothans in the area lying between 200 and 500 mtrs. of the HTL. 67. It is submitted that out of more than two dozen beautiful beaches that Goa is blessed with, only four beaches have been designated as turtle nesting beaches. The selection of these four beaches is not by human design but a preference expressed by the turtles itself. There may be various impediments to nesting and they come from many sources - artificial light, noise/music, undesirable movement on and near the beaches, large number of tourists, night parties, entertainment activities etc. The CRZ 2011 requires a management plan to be prepared so that interference with the turtles on these beaches is minimal. As the turtle breeding season coincides with the tourism season, it is important that activities related to tourism are not permitted near these four beaches so as to safeguard the turtle habitat. Ordinary residents normally retire to their homes after dark, but tourists usually come during the night hours which is adverse to turtle nesting. 68. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 13th February 2012 in the case of Endangered Asiatic Wild Buffalo in I.A. Nos.1433 and 1477 of 2005 and in particular paragraphs 14 and 21 thereof. She also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 13th February 2012 in I.A. Nos.1287 & Ors. dealing with sandalwood as an endangered species. 69. It is submitted that there is no robust turtle conservation plan. The turtles should be given large areas for nesting. An appropriate order be thus passed by this Court in this PIL Writ Petition. 70. Mr.Shyam Mehta, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.7, on the other hand, tendered compilation of documents and invited our attention to various paragraphs of the averments made in the PIL Writ Petition and various affidavits filed by the respondents and also the documents annexed thereto. 70. Mr.Shyam Mehta, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.7, on the other hand, tendered compilation of documents and invited our attention to various paragraphs of the averments made in the PIL Writ Petition and various affidavits filed by the respondents and also the documents annexed thereto. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that GCZMA has already granted NOC for the project of the respondent no.7. On 29th May 2015, after considering CRZ 2011 Notification, the said permission was granted for construction of Hotel Project located in Survey No.123/1 (Part A) of Morjim Village, Pernem Taluka including norms of Floor Space Index (FSI) or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as per the CRZ Notification 2011 subject to further compliance mentioned therein. On 11th June 2015, under Rule 7 of the Goa Land Revenue (Conversion for use of land and non-agricultural Assessment) Rules, 1969, Additional Collector-I granted permission for use of the subject property (for "commercial use"). 71. On 9th July 2015, Deputy Town Planner issued a Technical Clearance Order for carrying out construction of the Hotel Project in favour of the respondent no.7, subject to certain condition specified in the said order. On 16th June 2011, the Deputy Town Planner issued a Technical Clearance Order in favour of the respondent no.7 in respect of revised plan for the Hotel Project. On 14th July 2015, the Health Officer, Community Health Centre, Pernem Goa informed the respondent no.7 that there was no objection from a sanitary point of view for the construction of the project, subject to certain conditions set out therein. 72. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the Sarpanch and Secretary of the respondent no.1 (Panchayat) issued a letter on 6th August 2015 granting construction license/permission in favour of the respondent no.7 for the project for a period of 3 years commencing on 6th August 2015. On 7th September 2015, the Executive Engineer, Work Division-1, WRD, Patto, Panjim Goa issued no objection certificate in favour of the respondent no.7 for the Hotel Project. On 7th September 2015, the Executive Engineer, Work Division-1, WRD, Patto, Panjim Goa issued no objection certificate in favour of the respondent no.7 for the Hotel Project. On 11th December 2015, the Member Secretary of the respondent no.6 Board granted consent in favour of the respondent no.7 to establish under Section 36 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 for a period of 3 years for construction of the project, subject to certain conditions set out therein. 73. It is submitted that Deputy Conservator of Forests, Goa by letter dated 2nd November 2016 informed the respondent no.7 that for the past 2 decades, an area admeasuring about 40,700 sq.mtrs. at Morjim beach had been treated as a "No Development Zone" because the said area is under the management of the Forest Department, Goa as a turtle nesting area. He submits that National Green Tribunal (Western Zone Bench, Pune) had appointed National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management of the respondent no.3 to carry out an assessment of carrying capacity for the beaches of Goa for providing shacks and other temporary seasonal structures. 74. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to the report submitted by the said authority regarding "Carrying Capacity for the Beaches of Goa for Providing Shacks and Other Temporary Seasonal Structures in Private Areas." He submits that his client had already obtained an Environment Impact Assessment Report during the period between 2016-17. He submits that in the said report obtained by his client, it was specifically observed that the present project structures are proposed in the CRZ-III area located in the developable belt situated within 200 m to 500 m from High Tide Line where no dunes and turtle nesting sites exist. 75. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to minutes of 175th meeting of Expert Appraisal Committee of MOEF & CC approving proposal of the respondent no.7 subject to certain conditions. He submits that in the said minutes, it was clearly observed that project of the respondent no.7 was more than 1.0 km away towards the north of the buffer zone of the turtle nesting site. The nesting site is demarcated by the office of Deputy Conservator of Forest, Government of Goa. He submits that in the said minutes, it was clearly observed that project of the respondent no.7 was more than 1.0 km away towards the north of the buffer zone of the turtle nesting site. The nesting site is demarcated by the office of Deputy Conservator of Forest, Government of Goa. He invited our attention to the Clearance granted by MOEF & CC on 10th October 2017, based on the recommendation of the Expert Appraisal Committee, the respondent no.3 (MOEF & CC) granting CRZ Clearance for construction of the project to the respondent no.7 under the 2011 CRZ Notification, subject to the compliance of conditions. He relied upon Condition No.(iv) stating that the project proponent shall in association with the concerned agency of the State Government implement a robust turtle conservation programme considering that the site is in close proximity to a turtle nesting area. It is submitted that on 25th October 2017, the respondent no.7 commenced construction of project and has almost completed construction of project. It is submitted that this PIL Writ Petition however, has been filed after gross delay. This Court shall not entertain this PIL Writ Petition on this ground itself. 76. The next submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.7 is that as per the 1991 CRZ Notification, development of vacant plots between 200-500 meters of HTL in CRZ-III is permissible for construction of hotels/beach resorts. He strongly placed reliance on Regulation 6(2) of CRZ-III(ii). He submits that Coastal Zone Management Plan for Goa was already approved by MOEF & CC on 27th September 1996. As per CZMP, settlement areas inter alia in Morjim village were classified as CRZ-III. He submits that CZMP, however, did not identify the settlement areas. The settlement areas were identified and demarcated by the Regional Plan for Goa-2021. It is submitted that plot of the respondent no.7 i.e. Survey No.123 (Part)/1A was partly shown as a "settlement area" and partly as an "orchard." The portion up to 200 meters from HTL was the "orchard" and that beyond 200 meters was the "settlement area." 71. On 9th July 2015, Deputy Town Planner issued a Technical Clearance Order for carrying out construction of the Hotel Project in favour of the respondent no.7, subject to certain condition specified in the said order. On 9th July 2015, Deputy Town Planner issued a Technical Clearance Order for carrying out construction of the Hotel Project in favour of the respondent no.7, subject to certain condition specified in the said order. On 16th June 2011, the Deputy Town Planner issued a Technical Clearance Order in favour of the respondent no.7 in respect of revised plan for the Hotel Project. On 14th July 2015, the Health Officer, Community Health Centre, Pernem Goa informed the respondent no.7 that there was no objection from a sanitary point of view for the construction of the project, subject to certain conditions set out therein. 72. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the Sarpanch and Secretary of the respondent no.1 (Panchayat) issued a letter on 6th August 2015 granting construction license/permission in favour of the respondent no.7 for the project for a period of 3 years commencing on 6th August 2015. On 7th September 2015, the Executive Engineer, Work Division-1, WRD, Patto, Panjim Goa issued no objection certificate in favour of the respondent no.7 for the Hotel Project. On 11th December 2015, the Member Secretary of the respondent no.6 Board granted consent in favour of the respondent no.7 to establish under Section 36 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 for a period of 3 years for construction of the project, subject to certain conditions set out therein. 73. It is submitted that Deputy Conservator of Forests, Goa by letter dated 2nd November 2016 informed the respondent no.7 that for the past 2 decades, an area admeasuring about 40,700 sq.mtrs. at Morjim beach had been treated as a "No Development Zone" because the said area is under the management of the Forest Department, Goa as a turtle nesting area. He submits that National Green Tribunal (Western Zone Bench, Pune) had appointed National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management of the respondent no.3 to carry out an assessment of carrying capacity for the beaches of Goa for providing shacks and other temporary seasonal structures. 74. He submits that National Green Tribunal (Western Zone Bench, Pune) had appointed National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management of the respondent no.3 to carry out an assessment of carrying capacity for the beaches of Goa for providing shacks and other temporary seasonal structures. 74. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to the report submitted by the said authority regarding "Carrying Capacity for the Beaches of Goa for Providing Shacks and Other Temporary Seasonal Structures in Private Areas." He submits that his client had already obtained an Environment Impact Assessment Report during the period between 2016-17. He submits that in the said report obtained by his client, it was specifically observed that the present project structures are proposed in the CRZ-III area located in the developable belt situated within 200 m to 500 m from High Tide Line where no dunes and turtle nesting sites exist. 75. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to minutes of 175th meeting of Expert Appraisal Committee of MOEF & CC approving proposal of the respondent no.7 subject to certain conditions. He submits that in the said minutes, it was clearly observed that project of the respondent no.7 was more than 1.0 km away towards the north of the buffer zone of the turtle nesting site. The nesting site is demarcated by the office of Deputy Conservator of Forest, Government of Goa. He invited our attention to the Clearance granted by MOEF & CC on 10th October 2017, based on the recommendation of the Expert Appraisal Committee, the respondent no.3 (MOEF & CC) granting CRZ Clearance for construction of the project to the respondent no.7 under the 2011 CRZ Notification, subject to the compliance of conditions. He relied upon Condition No.(iv) stating that the project proponent shall in association with the concerned agency of the State Government implement a robust turtle conservation programme considering that the site is in close proximity to a turtle nesting area. It is submitted that on 25th October 2017, the respondent no.7 commenced construction of project and has almost completed construction of project. It is submitted that this PIL Writ Petition however, has been filed after gross delay. This Court shall not entertain this PIL Writ Petition on this ground itself. 76. It is submitted that on 25th October 2017, the respondent no.7 commenced construction of project and has almost completed construction of project. It is submitted that this PIL Writ Petition however, has been filed after gross delay. This Court shall not entertain this PIL Writ Petition on this ground itself. 76. The next submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.7 is that as per the 1991 CRZ Notification, development of vacant plots between 200-500 meters of HTL in CRZ-III is permissible for construction of hotels/beach resorts. He strongly placed reliance on Regulation 6(2) of CRZ-III(ii). He submits that Coastal Zone Management Plan for Goa was already approved by MOEF & CC on 27th September 1996. As per CZMP, settlement areas inter alia in Morjim village were classified as CRZ-III. He submits that CZMP, however, did not identify the settlement areas. The settlement areas were identified and demarcated by the Regional Plan for Goa-2021. It is submitted that plot of the respondent no.7 i.e. Survey No.123 (Part)/1A was partly shown as a "settlement area" and partly as an "orchard." The portion up to 200 meters from HTL was the "orchard" and that beyond 200 meters was the "settlement area." 77. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to the order dated 13th October 2006 passed by this Court directing the concerned authorities to identify the open/vacant plots in CRZ-III zone which were available for construction of hotels and to frame an appropriate policy for utilization thereof before construction activities were permitted. It is submitted that GCZMA appointed one Remote Sensing Instruments, India to identify the open plots admeasuring 4,000 sq.mtrs. and above in CRZ-III for development as hotels/beach resorts. It is submitted that in the said report dated 5th April 2011, the portion of the plot of the respondent no.7 has been indicated as beyond 200 meters from HTL and identified as an open/vacant area. The State Government thereafter framed Hotel Policy containing terms and conditions for securing approval of project proposals for Hotels/Beach Resorts in CRZ-III areas. He submits that one of the conditions was that the said area should be classified as a settlement area in terms of RPG -2021. 78. The State Government thereafter framed Hotel Policy containing terms and conditions for securing approval of project proposals for Hotels/Beach Resorts in CRZ-III areas. He submits that one of the conditions was that the said area should be classified as a settlement area in terms of RPG -2021. 78. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that this Court in the said order dated 13th October 2006 has categorically held that it was permissible to develop open/vacant plots in CRZ-III areas and to construct Hotels/Beach Resorts by virtue of Clause (ii) of CRZ-III norms specified in the 1991 CRZ Notification of the open/vacant plots and the framing of the Hotel Policy. He submits that all conditions for developing the plot of the respondent no.7 for construction of Hotels/Beach Resorts have been fulfilled by the respondent no.7. He submits that plot of the respondent no.7 is already in CRZ-III and falls within 200-500 meters of the HTL. The said plot is designated as a "settlement area." The said plot is identified as an open/vacant plot of 4,000 sq.mtrs. or above. The plot of the respondent no.7 also satisfies the terms and conditions of Hotel Policy framed pursuant to the order passed by this Court. 79. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment Protection Act,1986 empowers Central Government to place limitations and restrictions on the development of land in order to protect the environment. Central Government has accordingly placed various restrictions on the development of coastal area vide CRZ Notifications. The Goa CZMP was prepared by State Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it. The Goa CZMP identified and classified various CRZ areas which classification is final and binding on all concerned. He submits that once the plot of the respondent no.7 was classified as CRZ-III vide 1991 CRZ Notification read with the Goa CZMP and RPG-2021, it was permissible for his client to develop the same for the purpose of Hotels/Beach Resorts in accordance with prevailing rules and regulations including the Hotel Policy. Such right of his client cannot be taken away under CRZ Notification read with Goa CZMP. 80. Learned senior counsel submits that the said CRZ 2011 Notification does not make any change with regard to the right to develop vacant plots in CRZ-III areas between 200-500 mtrs. of HTL. Such right of his client cannot be taken away under CRZ Notification read with Goa CZMP. 80. Learned senior counsel submits that the said CRZ 2011 Notification does not make any change with regard to the right to develop vacant plots in CRZ-III areas between 200-500 mtrs. of HTL. The said Goa CZMP continues to remain in force and hence settlement areas continues to be CRZ-III areas. He submits that right of his client to develop the said plot remained unaffected by the CRZ 2011 Notification. 81. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to Regulation 8(V) 3(vii) of CRZ 2011 Notification and would submit that under the said provisions, a Management Plan has to be prepared by the State Government for the protection of the turtle nesting sites at Mandrem, Morjim, Galgibag and Agonda. He submits that Regulation 8(V)(3)(viii) provides that no development activities shall be permitted in the said turtle nesting sites. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the Turtle Management Plan is a plan for protection of the turtle nesting sites only which is concerned with ensuring that the turtle nesting sites remain undisturbed and accessible to turtles and are protected from intrusions and obstructions affecting turtle nesting. Such Management Plan would include restricting human access to such areas as well as regulating sound and light. Such a Management Plan is applicable only to the designated turtle nesting sites in CRZ-I areas and are not concerned with any other areas, including CRZ-III areas. He submits that any such Turtle Management Plan cannot alter/amend/override/abrogate the provisions of the CRZ Notification or the CZMP. 82. Learned senior counsel submits that though there exists a provisional Turtle Management Plan for Galgibag, no such Turtle Management Plan has been prepared in respect of Morjim and Mandrem beach. He submits that even the said Turtle Management Plan for Galgibag does not place any restriction or limitation on development of CRZ-III areas. The said Turtle Management Plan, however, makes various short term and long term recommendations for the conservation and protection of turtle nesting sites as well as the turtles themselves. He submits that Regulation 8(V) 3 (viii) also prohibits development activities only on turtle nesting sites in CRZ-I areas. The said provision has no application to CRZ-III areas. The said Turtle Management Plan, however, makes various short term and long term recommendations for the conservation and protection of turtle nesting sites as well as the turtles themselves. He submits that Regulation 8(V) 3 (viii) also prohibits development activities only on turtle nesting sites in CRZ-I areas. The said provision has no application to CRZ-III areas. He submits that CRZ 2011 Notification must be read as a whole and when read as such, it is clear that the restriction placed by Regulation 8(V) (3) (viii) applies only to the actual turtle nesting sites in CRZ-I. He submits that it is an admitted position that the said plot of his client is not on any turtle nesting site. 83. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to the report dated 26th September 2018 prepared by the respondent no.8 annexed to his affidavit dated 1st October 2018 stating that although this area is not under the direct ownership of Forest Department, it is designated as turtle nesting site under the CRZ Notification and has been included as CRZ-IA along with the Sand Dune areas in the Coastal Zone Management Plan of Goa, which is being prepared by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Zone Management, Chennai under the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. The same has been shown in the draft map of Morjim beach attached to the said report. It is submitted that turtle nesting site is a minimum of 700 meters away from the said plot of the respondent no.7 as the crow flies and nearly 1km on foot. 84. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that Turtle Management Plan has to be prepared by the Forest Department under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Under the provisions of the said Act, there is no power conferred upon Forest Department to place any restriction qua development or use on any property. No such restriction can be placed in the Management Plan to be prepared by the Forest Department as the same would be without authority of law. He submits that though Regulation 8(V) 3(viii) suggests that Morjim beach has been designated as a turtle nesting site, there is no notification or order of any authority in fact designating the entire Morjim beach as a turtle nesting site. According to Forest Department, it is only the area at the mouth of the river admeasuring 40,700 sq.mtrs. He submits that though Regulation 8(V) 3(viii) suggests that Morjim beach has been designated as a turtle nesting site, there is no notification or order of any authority in fact designating the entire Morjim beach as a turtle nesting site. According to Forest Department, it is only the area at the mouth of the river admeasuring 40,700 sq.mtrs. which has been treated as the turtle nesting site since more than two decades. In support of this submission, learned senior counsel placed reliance on few paragraphs of the affidavit-in-reply filed by his client and also the report annexed to the affidavit filed by the respondent no.8. 85. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on CRZ 2019 Notification issued on 18th January 2019 by MOEF & CC and would submit that the said Notification sub-divides the CRZ-I and CRZ-III areas into CRZ-IA, CRZ-IB, CRZ-IIIA and CRZ-IIIB. The CRZ-IIIA and CRZ-IIIB are sub-divided on the basis of the population density. Plot of the respondent no.7 falls within CRZ-IIIA area. The permissible development in CRZ-IIIA area is similar to that permissible under the earlier CRZ Notification in CRZ-III areas. 86. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on paragraph 1.5 of Annexure-1 titled "Conservation, Protection and Management Framework for Ecologically Sensitive Areas" which contains provisions relating to protection and conservation of turtle nesting sites. He submits that these provisions are similar to the special provisions relating to the State of Goa in the 2011 CRZ Notification and of the same effect. He submits that under the said provisions, there is no beach identified as turtle nesting site and it has been left to the concerned State Governments/Union Territories to identify the same. Learned senior counsel submits that draft CZMP for Goa provides that only that area of Morjim beach at the mouth of the river as demarcated in the map annexed to the report of the respondent no.8 is designated as Turtle Nesting Site. 87. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that distance of the said plot of his client from either the turtle nesting site or the beach is wholly irrelevant. He submits that neither the CRZ Notifications nor the Goa CZMP nor the RPG-2021 nor the Hotel Policy provides for any authority to take into account or consider the distance between the turtle nesting site or the beach and the project site. He submits that neither the CRZ Notifications nor the Goa CZMP nor the RPG-2021 nor the Hotel Policy provides for any authority to take into account or consider the distance between the turtle nesting site or the beach and the project site. He submits that in any event, since his client has fulfilled all the conditions prescribed by the applicable CRZ Notification, Goa CZMP, the RPG-2021 and the Hotel Policy, his client is entitled to develop a hotel/beach resort at the subject property. 88. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that his client had proposed to construct 14 villas along with a reception area. His client has already obtained an "occupation certificate" for 7 villas. More than 80% of the overall work for the project is already completed. Constructions of remaining 7 villas would be completed within 2 months. He submits that under various CRZ Notifications, within 0-200 mtrs. from High Tide Line, no construction activity is permitted. However, plot of land falling within such distance can be used as Garden area. He submits that there are several structures in between the turtle nesting area and the subject property of his client. These factors have been confirmed after numerous surveys including by way of satellite imagery and site inspections conducted by numerous authorities such as GCZMA and the respondent no.8. Several hotels and other structures are already constructed by others in the same area. 89. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.7 invited our attention to the Notification in the Official Gazette issued by the Government of Goa on 27th January 2017 adopting Tourism Policy for erection of temporary seasonal structures, beach shacks, huts and others of the years 2013-16 for further period from 2016-19 in whole. He submits that in so far as Mandrem and Morjim beaches are concerned, validity of license is provided for three years from 2016 to 2019 in respect of 10 and 11 numbers of shacks respectively of size of the Shack 18m X 8m each. The said notification provides that the said license shall be granted for erection of temporary shacks on those identified beach stretches including Mandrem and Morjim after a joint inspection to be carried out by Officials of Tourism Department along with Officials of GCZMA, subject to various conditions mentioned therein. 90. The said notification provides that the said license shall be granted for erection of temporary shacks on those identified beach stretches including Mandrem and Morjim after a joint inspection to be carried out by Officials of Tourism Department along with Officials of GCZMA, subject to various conditions mentioned therein. 90. Learned senior counsel invited my attention to condition no.46 of the said notification and would submit that in so far as turtle nesting beaches identified by the Forest Department/Wildlife unit/Competent Authority are concerned, it is specifically provided that the precise location of the shacks on Morjim and Mandrem beaches shall be fixed in consultation with Forest Department who may identify the turtle nesting sites. The allottee shall not allow operation of beach shack and related activities like placing of deck-beds, artificial lighting, playing of loud music, display of fireworks which has adverse effect on the turtles nesting after 6.00 p.m. till the sunrise on the next day. 91. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that it is not the case of the petitioner or authorities that due to such license granted by the Notification dated 27th January 2017 issued by the Government of Goa for erection of temporary seasonal structures and beach shacks, there was any disturbance to turtle nesting area. He submits that all such shacks are permissible within 200 mtrs. from High Tide Line. Most of the beds are inside the sea. As against this position, plot of the respondent no.7 cannot even be seen from turtle nesting site and is far away. He submits that the State Government has already granted permission for shacks at the distance of 30 mtrs. from actual turtle nesting area. Policy framed by the State Government is already approved by this State. In support of this submission learned senior counsel for the respondent no.7 invited our attention to the order passed by this Court in PIL Writ Petition No.9 of 2011. He submits that Ms Norma Alvares, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was appointed as amicus curiae by this court in the said writ petition. Policy regarding temporary permission to erect temporary shacks has been approved by the authority on turtle nesting beaches. Both the judges during the course of arguments also visited the Mordrem and Morjim beaches and had apprised themselves of actual site conditions, distance and how the eggs laid by the turtles are protected. 92. Policy regarding temporary permission to erect temporary shacks has been approved by the authority on turtle nesting beaches. Both the judges during the course of arguments also visited the Mordrem and Morjim beaches and had apprised themselves of actual site conditions, distance and how the eggs laid by the turtles are protected. 92. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on "Marine Turtle Newsletter" issued by expert Mohammad Zahirul Islam of Bangladesh in respect of Marine Turtle Nesting at St. Martin's Island, Bangladesh. He submits that in the said letter, according to the said expert, the total coastal length of Saint Martin's is about 14 km, of which 14% or about 2km is suitable for nesting. The said letter describes the nesting season and various factors which were obstructing turtle nesting activities. He submits that walking can be restricted on beach identified as turtle nesting area beyond specified hours. Lighting, Music, entry on such turtle nesting site can be regulated by the Government. 93. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to the research of another scholar from University of Michigan Museum of Zoology explaining the turtle nesting activities, reproduction etc. It is submitted that it is a common ground that Olive Ridley Sea Turtle comes at turtle nesting site at night, lays eggs and goes away. Such eggs laid by such Olive Ridley Sea turtles are protected by the staff appointed by Forest Department and such eggs are shifted to hatchery separately earmarked. He submits that this Court has ample powers to issue appropriate directions to regulate turtle nesting to protect such eggs laid by Olive Ridley Sea Turtles. 94. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.7 placed reliance on some of the paragraphs of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.8 and the order dated 3rd September 2018 passed by this Court in PIL Writ Petition. He also placed reliance on the report annexed to the said affidavit-in-reply by the Chief Wildlife Warden who had 33 years experience including 17 years experience of working at Andaman and Nicobar Islands. He submits that according to the report, all appropriate and necessary protections to protect turtle nesting sites are provided for 24X7 hours. He submits that safeguard provided by the officers of Forest Department to protect such eggs successfully is more than for 20 years. No temporary structures are permitted by the State of Goa in this hatchery area. 95. He submits that according to the report, all appropriate and necessary protections to protect turtle nesting sites are provided for 24X7 hours. He submits that safeguard provided by the officers of Forest Department to protect such eggs successfully is more than for 20 years. No temporary structures are permitted by the State of Goa in this hatchery area. 95. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the report of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Chief Wildlife Warden, Government of Goa dated 26th September 2018 annexed to the affidavitin-reply filed by the respondent no.8 and would submit that even according to the said report, the sand dunes along with the coastal belt plantation play a crucial role in reducing direct distances caused by noise and lights to the turtle coming to the beach at night for laying eggs. He submits that according to the said report, for the year 2008-2009 to 2017- 18, number of Hatchlings released, Egg Spoiled/Hatchlings dead would clearly indicate that in the year 2017-18 as against 1695 number of eggs laid,1050 number of Hatchlings were released in sea. 96. It is submitted that the concern expressed by the petitioners about protection of turtle nesting sites and the eggs laid by the Olive Ridley Sea Turtles are taken care of for last more than two decades. The construction carried out by the respondent no.7 has not affected the Turtle Nesting Site in any manner whatsoever. The report submitted by the Expert annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.8 shall be accepted by this Court. 97. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on various provisions of Environment Protection Act,1986 and more particularly Section 3 Rule 5(3)(d), various provisions of CRZ Notification,2011 providing for various restrictions imposed on the development, for issuance of CRZ Notifications etc. He submits that his client has already complied with the provisions of the said Environment Protection Act also and has not committed any breach thereof. He submits that in so far as use of plot within 200 mtrs. from HTL, this Court can always impose conditions for use of such portion of land including use of such plot for garden. The respondent no.7 has carried out construction in the settlement area. 98. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the Writ Petition No.422 of 1998 and in particular paragraphs 2,9,12,13 and 20 in support of his various submissions. The respondent no.7 has carried out construction in the settlement area. 98. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the Writ Petition No.422 of 1998 and in particular paragraphs 2,9,12,13 and 20 in support of his various submissions. Learned senior counsel submits that the respondent no.7 had revised the plan for the project (by reducing the number of villas from 20 to 14 villas) and submitted a letter to the Deputy Town Planner requesting for approval of the construction of the project. On 27th July 2018, the Deputy Town Planner issued a Technical Clearance Order in favour of the respondent no.7 for the said Hotel Project subject to compliance of certain conditions. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on minutes of 179th meeting of GCZMA in which clarification received by the respondent no.8 was noted. 99. It was clarified that the project site is 700 meters north of the turtle nesting site but there was no buffer zone beyond the turtle nesting site. After deliberation, GCZMA decided to uphold it's earlier recommendation for the project to respondent no.3 (MOEF & CC) in terms of it's earlier minutes of the 116th meeting held on 26th May 2015. He strongly placed reliance on CWW's report which clearly recorded that there was a natural buffer zone behind the sand dunes. Since the main turtle nesting site is in front of this sand dune, it acts as a natural buffer zone for the nesting site. The Goa Forest Department has been protecting the said nesting site since the year 1997-98. 100. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on 2019 CRZ Notification issued by MOEF & CC on 18th January 2019 in supersession of the 2011 CRZ Notification. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Goa Foundation, Goa Vs. Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 97 and in particular paragraphs 1,6 to 11 and 35 in support of his submission about buffer zone and the settlement area. Learned senior counsel distinguished the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 101. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent nos.2, 4, 5, 6 & 8, on the other hand, invited my attention to various provisions of 1991 CRZ Notification and submits that certain activities are permissible on the land falling in CRZ-I and also CRZ-III. Learned senior counsel distinguished the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 101. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent nos.2, 4, 5, 6 & 8, on the other hand, invited my attention to various provisions of 1991 CRZ Notification and submits that certain activities are permissible on the land falling in CRZ-I and also CRZ-III. He submits that once Coastal Zone Management Plan comes into force, all activities can only be in accordance with such plan. The plot of the respondent no.7 falls in the settlement area and thus falls in CRZ-III. Land of the respondent no.7 is not in Gaothan area. He submits that settlement area is not defined. 102. Learned Advocate General invited our attention to the judgment delivered by this Court on 13th October 2006 in Writ Petition No.422 of 1998 with Writ Petition No.99 of 1999 filed by the Goa Foundation Vs. The Panchayat of Candolim and more particularly paragraphs 7, 12, 13 and 14 thereof. He submits that this Court has held that under clause (iii) of the said CRZ Notification, construction of Hotels/Beach Resorts for temporary occupation of tourists/visitors is permitted subject to the condition stipulated in the guidelines at Annexure-II of the said Notification. The said clause specifically refers to "development of vacant plots between 200 and 500 mtrs. of HTL." Clause (iii) thereof refers to "construction/reconstruction of dwelling units between 200 and 500 mtrs. of the HTL." The said clause (iii) specifically refers to the development of an area lying between 200 and 500 mtrs. of High Tide Line exclusively for construction or reconstruction of the dwelling units. The open plots in such area are allowed to be utilized for construction of the Hotels in terms of the clause (ii) thereof. He submits that this Court has also held that the expression "construction/reconstruction of dwelling units" in clause (iii) further refers to "within the ambit of traditional rights and customary uses such as existing fishing villages and gaothans." 103. Learned Advocate General also placed reliance on paragraph 13 of the said judgment in which it is held that while on one hand construction of Hotels/Beach Resorts are permissible in the vacant plots in the said area, on the other hand, construction activity which is permissible under clause (iii) relates to the dwelling units. Learned Advocate General also placed reliance on paragraph 13 of the said judgment in which it is held that while on one hand construction of Hotels/Beach Resorts are permissible in the vacant plots in the said area, on the other hand, construction activity which is permissible under clause (iii) relates to the dwelling units. It is held that the framers of the law did not contemplate any construction activity within the area of 200 to 500 mtrs. of High Tide Line otherwise than the one specifically stated in the clauses (ii) and (iii) of the said notification and they are dwelling units, with one exception in favour of Hotels/Beach Resorts but only in vacant plots in the said zone. It is submitted that the entire arguments of the petitioners is thus contrary to the view already taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the said judgment. 104. Learned Advocate General also placed reliance on paragraph 32 of the said judgment in which this Court issued various directions to the respondents to the said writ petition (i) to conduct survey and inquiry as regards the number of dwelling units and all other structures and constructions which were existing in the CRZ-III zone in Goa, village or townwise as on 19th February 1991 and increase in number thereof thereafter, datewise, (ii) to identify all types of structures and constructions made in CRZ-III zone, except the dwelling units, after 19th February 1991 in the locality comprised of the dwelling units and to take action against the same for their demolition in accordance with the provisions of law. This Court has also directed the authority to identify the open plots in CRZ-III zone which are available for construction of Hotels and to frame appropriate policy/regulation for utilization thereof before they are being allowed to be utilized for such construction activities. 105. This Court has further directed the authority that till and until the survey and inquiry is completed, as directed above, no new license for any type of construction in CRZ-III zone shall be issued or granted and no new structure of whatsoever nature shall be allowed to be constructed in CRZ-III zone, except repairs and renovation of the existing houses which shall be subject to the appropriate order on completion and result of the survey and inquiry to be held as directed in the said order. 106. 106. Learned Advocate General tendered a report submitted by Remote Sensing Instruments, India dated 5th April 2011 submitted to Member Secretary, GCZMA, Goa, India in respect of identification of the open plots on CRZ-III area of Goa pursuant to the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. The said agency identified and delineate contiguous open plots admeasuring 4000 sq.mtrs. and above in the CRZ-III area of Goa and prepared a map showing open area with having area more than 4000 Sq. mtrs. in CRZ-III zone (200-500 mtrs. from HTL) Morjim village. The plot of the respondent no.7 was mentioned as one of the plots bearing Survey No.123 in the said map admeasuring 4000 sq.mtrs. with open area. 107. Learned Advocate General also placed reliance on the policy issued by the Director/Ex-Officio Jt. Secretary (STE) with approval of the Government of Goa vide U.O. No.96 dated 27th May 2011. The said policy also refers to the report submitted by M/s RSI, Hyderabad to Remote Sensing Instruments, India. The said policy provides that any new development of a Hotel/Beach Resort/Motels or any structure with rooms for the purpose of temporary accommodation of visiting tourists, to be undertaken within 200 to 500 mtrs. shall require to follow the guidelines as detailed therein, subject to the State Government Development and Planning Regulations and Policy. It is provided that the Town and Country Planning Department had vide Final Report, RPG-21 dated 23rd November 2010 had specified guidelines and had indicated that Beach Resorts/Hotels/Motels would be permitted on special conditions in Settlement Zone as maped and defined in the land use maps approved by the Government. In the said policy, the guidelines for considering project proposals for Hotels/Beach Resorts in CRZ-III areas is set out. He submits that State of Goa does not approve permission for construction of Hotel merely on the basis of open plot declared by the Government but approves subject to compliance of various conditions. 108. Learned Advocate General placed reliance on various paragraphs of the judgment of this Court delivered on 19th March 2012 in PIL No.29 of 2011 filed by Goa Foundation against Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority and others and would submit that this Court in the said judgment considered affidavit-in-reply filed by the GCZMA in great detail. 108. Learned Advocate General placed reliance on various paragraphs of the judgment of this Court delivered on 19th March 2012 in PIL No.29 of 2011 filed by Goa Foundation against Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority and others and would submit that this Court in the said judgment considered affidavit-in-reply filed by the GCZMA in great detail. He submits that the respondent no.7 was required to obtain several permissions after identification of the plots as open area having more than 4000 sq. mtrs. and then only further permission could be applied provided the site condition and only if all other statutory requirements were satisfied. He submits that the petitioners have not challenged the identification of the open area but have only challenged final permission granted by the authority in favour of the respondent no.7. There is no averment made in PIL Writ Petition for disentitlement of the plot of the respondent no.7 as a vacant land. 109. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that in this case, plan of the respondent no.7 was sanctioned after 2011 and thus provisions of 2011 CRZ Notification would apply which makes a separate and specific provision in so far as State of Goa is concerned. It is submitted that the plot under reference was admeasuring 21241 sq. mtrs. and was earmarked as Orchard Zone in RPG-2021 and as per the RPG-2021, plot of the respondent no.7 was earmarked as partly Settlement Zone and partly Orchard Zone. He submits that since the proposal of the respondent no.7 was recommended by the Goa Investment Promotion Board under the provisions of Goa Investment Promotion Board Act, 2014, the Town Planning Department considered the issue as to whether relaxation could be granted to the circular dated 4th June 2012 to the extent the area is earmarked as Settlement Zone in RPG-2021 beyond 200 mtrs. of CRZ line. 110. Decision of the Government for grant of relaxation of order dated 4th June 2012 for proposal cleared by the Goa Investment Promotion and Facilitation Board for areas falling in Settlement Zone/Industrial Zone as per RPG-2021 was obtained accordingly. of CRZ line. 110. Decision of the Government for grant of relaxation of order dated 4th June 2012 for proposal cleared by the Goa Investment Promotion and Facilitation Board for areas falling in Settlement Zone/Industrial Zone as per RPG-2021 was obtained accordingly. The respondent no.7 was accordingly issued a Technical Clearance by an order dated 9th July 2015 by granting relaxation to Circular dated 4th June 2012 on the basis of in principle clearance accorded by the IPB, clearance accorded by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority and Conversion Sanad issued by the Additional Collector in respect of the said property of the respondent no.7. 111. Learned Advocate General submits that State of Goa has already approved a separate policy allowing the shacks on some portions of beaches which is also approved by this Court. No development activity has been permitted in turtle breeding area. Learned Advocate General strongly placed reliance on the order dated 10th December 2013 passed by Division Bench of this Court in PIL Writ Petition Nos.9 of 2011 along with 167 of 2007 filed by J.W. D'Souza Vs. State of Goa and Ors. in support of his submission that this Court had permitted to put up shacks and deck-beds on the particular beaches subject to certain terms and conditions. He submits that in the said petition, learned counsel for the petitioners was appointed as amicus curiae by this Court to assist the Court. 112. Learned Advocate General invited our attention to the Tourism Policy for erection of temporary seasonal structures, beach shacks, huts and others of the years 2013-16 for further period from 2016-19 in whole which includes Mandrem and Morjim beaches. He submits that in so far as Mandrem and Morjim beaches are concerned, validity of license is provided for three years from 2016 to 2019 in respect of 10 and 11 numbers of shacks respectively of size of the Shack 18m X 8m each. 113. He submits that in so far as Mandrem and Morjim beaches are concerned, validity of license is provided for three years from 2016 to 2019 in respect of 10 and 11 numbers of shacks respectively of size of the Shack 18m X 8m each. 113. Learned Advocate General invited our attention to the order dated 17th December 2014 passed by the National Green Tribunal (Western Zone) Bench, Pune in M.A.No.24 of 2014 directing GCZMA to carry out study to assess the carrying capacity of different beaches in State of Goa, for providing such shacks and other temporary structures, in environmentally sustainable manner to protect the coastal environment, based on the 'precautionary principle' in next 6 months and directed that based on findings of this study, the permissions for the year 2015- 2016, only shall be granted. He submits that pursuant to the said order, State of Goa carried out study to assess the carrying capacity of different beaches in State of Goa. He placed reliance on the report submitted by the National Centre For Sustainable Coastal Management regarding "Carrying Capacity of Beaches of Goa for Providing Shacks & Other Temporary Seasonal Structures in Private Areas." 114. It is provided in the said report that CRZ Notification, 2011 recognizes beaches such as Mandrem, Morjim, Galgibag and Agonda as designated turtle nesting sites. The said report states that while there are no beach shacks allotted at Galgibag and Agonda, beach shacks are allotted by the Department of Tourism in Morjim except beach portion abutting Survey number 117 for the past two decades. The shacks in Morjim are allotted beyond the said areas on various conditions/guidelines. Learned Advocate General placed reliance on few paragraphs of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Chief Conservator of Forest/Chief Wildlife Warden of the respondent no.8 of Government of Goa. In the said affidavit-in-reply, the respondent no.8 had annexed a detailed report along with map showing a Turtle Nesting Site at Morjim. The said affidavit-in-reply and the said report were filed pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 3rd September 2018 in this PIL Writ Petition. 115. In the said affidavit-in-reply, the respondent no.8 had annexed a detailed report along with map showing a Turtle Nesting Site at Morjim. The said affidavit-in-reply and the said report were filed pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 3rd September 2018 in this PIL Writ Petition. 115. It is submitted that the said report was submitted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Chief Wildlife Warden, Government of Goa who was involved in marine turtle conservation since 1986 when he was first posted in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, with over 17 years of experience over there during three tenures. He submits that the said expert had already placed on record in the said report that the southern part of Morjim beach also has a well developed sand dune system behind the High Tide Line, which is between 100 to 200 mtrs. wide. Behind the sand dunes, there is a coastal belt plantation of Casuarina which was raised in 2012-13 and has now formed a shelter belt of thick vegetation, starting from the southern tip of Morjim Beach for almost 500 mtrs. towards north. It acts as a buffer zone behind the sand dunes till an existing road and the village behind. The main turtle nesting part of the beach is in front of this sand dune, stretching from the tip of the beach on the south for about 700 mtrs. towards north which is preferred for nesting by the endangered marine turtle Olive Ridley. 116. The Goa Forest Department is protecting this stretch of Morjim, along with parts of Ashwem and Mandrem beaches further north of Morjim, since 1997-98. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that in the said report, the said expert had also furnished details of Nesting Data of Olive Ridley Turtle at Morjim Beach for the period 2008-09 to 2017-18, number of Nest, number of Eggs led, number of Hatchlings released and Eggs Spoiled/Hatchlings dead. He submits that sufficient safeguard is thus provided by the said authority at Morjim and Mandrem beaches and more particularly regarding Turtle Nesting Site is concerned. 117. It is submitted that in the said report, it is clearly mentioned that existing development behind the turtle nesting site beyond the existing road has no perceptible impact on the nesting; the project site at Survey No.123/1 which is further more than 700 mtrs. 117. It is submitted that in the said report, it is clearly mentioned that existing development behind the turtle nesting site beyond the existing road has no perceptible impact on the nesting; the project site at Survey No.123/1 which is further more than 700 mtrs. away from the northern tip of main nesting zone and where development is to be taken up 200 mtrs. behind the High Tide Line as per CRZ Notification. The Forest Department in collaboration with local villagers and Panchayat is taking all possible steps in according protection to nesting marine turtles and their overall conservation, not only at Morjim but at other important beaches of Goa also. It is submitted that development has been taking place in the settlement area and not towards Arabian Sea side. 118. It is lastly submitted by the learned Advocate General that this Court shall not interfere with the permission/sanction granted by the authority in favour of the respondent no.7 in view of the authority not having committed any violation of any of the provisions of the law and has granted permission in compliance with the provisions of law. 119. Ms Norma Alvares, learned counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder submits that the project of the respondent no.7 is immediately adjacent to the Turtle Nesting Site and not 1 km away as sought to be advanced by MOEF & CC. She submits that inspite of the assurance given by the State of Goa in PIL Writ Petition No.29 of 2011 to prepare Turtle Management Plan for Morjim and Mandrem, no such plan has been prepared so far and thus no permission could have been granted by the authority for construction of Hotel Project in absence of such Turtle Management Plan. She submits that GCZMA did not inform the MOEF & CC that Morjim has a turtle nesting beach and plot of the respondent no.7 abuts the beach and has a common boundary. She submits that permission granted by MOEF & CC is based on incorrect and misleading data furnished to it by GCZMA and the respondent no.7. 120. She submits that GCZMA did not inform the MOEF & CC that Morjim has a turtle nesting beach and plot of the respondent no.7 abuts the beach and has a common boundary. She submits that permission granted by MOEF & CC is based on incorrect and misleading data furnished to it by GCZMA and the respondent no.7. 120. In so far as identification of the protected site by the Forest Department is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the Forest Department did not produce a single document to show that the said Department did not accept the whole of Morjim and Mandrem as turtle nesting beaches and insisted on its small corner only. She submits that the Forest Department is not answerable for enforcement of the provisions of the CRZ 2011 Notification but the State Government is answerable for the same. 121. It is submitted by the learned counsel that reliance placed on the said policy for Morjim and Mandrem, prohibition of deck-beds, watersports, beach parties etc. would not indicate that Turtle Management Policy is in place. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no.7 that the distance has to be measured "as the crow flies" is concerned, it is submitted that turtle may come straight from the sea waters onto the beach right in front of the Hotel property and thus measurement "as the crow flies" is of no significance. 122. In so far as the reliance placed on the shacks policy framed by the State of Goa and approved by this Court permitting temporary structures, deck-beds etc. on some of the beaches is concerned, it is submitted that this Court has been petitioned to examine the status of the turtle nesting habitat. The National Green Tribunal has been examining the shack issue with specific reference to the turtle nesting beaches. Recently, the National Green Tribunal imposed penalty of Rs.One crore on the GCZMA for its lackadaisical attitude to illegal constructions in the No Development Zone of the turtle nesting beaches. The National Green Tribunal has referred to the entire beach stretch of Morjim and Mandrem as none of the offending shacks and beach beds are to be found within the corner plot designated as turtle nesting site and hatchery. The National Green Tribunal has referred to the entire beach stretch of Morjim and Mandrem as none of the offending shacks and beach beds are to be found within the corner plot designated as turtle nesting site and hatchery. She submits that in any event, various restrictions imposed in the shack policy, restriction of beach beds on Morjim and Mandrem beaches, the water sport would clearly indicate that the Morjim and Mandrem beaches are indeed turtle nesting areas otherwise several restrictions such as dimming lights, shutting of noise, loud music, prohibiting beach weddings etc. would not have been imposed. She submits that even the interaction of this bench with the Forest Department during the site visit further confirms that the Chief Wildlife Warden also considered the full beaches as turtle nesting sites. She submits that only four forest guards patrol the full stretches (4 ½km) of the two beaches to monitor the turtle nesting. 123. It is submitted by the learned counsel that none of the respondents have bothered to highlight GCZMA's role in the approval granted to the project. The said agency appointed to protect the Goa CRZ did not even realise that it was dealing with a turtle nesting beach. The said authority did not make any assessment of how the activities of the Resort would have impact on the beach and required attaching turtles, when it had taken such view for a project (Club Fresh) 2 km away. The said GCZMA authority was bound to examine whether adequate care was taken to ensure that the Hotel project would not affect turtle nesting which is an activity much prior to the Hotel Project. 124. It is submitted that even though the respondent no.7 had made a statement before this Court that they would abide by the conditions as may be imposed by this Court, this Court cannot easily impose such conditions without expert's assistance. This Court thus shall direct that the project be placed on hold and the Ministry reassess its CRZ clearance in the light of correct facts. There is neither a Management Plan for the beaches nor a buffer and the Hotel property directly abuts the beach. 125. In so far as the role played by the Forest Department is concerned, it is submitted that the said Forest Department has no role in the CRZ. The Forest Department is not an authority under the CRZ Notification. There is neither a Management Plan for the beaches nor a buffer and the Hotel property directly abuts the beach. 125. In so far as the role played by the Forest Department is concerned, it is submitted that the said Forest Department has no role in the CRZ. The Forest Department is not an authority under the CRZ Notification. Its mandate does not extend to the coastal area unless a forest is involved. It is the GCZMA and the State Government that can command directions which must be obeyed. The State Government/GCZMA can take assistance of whosoever it wishes to prepare plans etc. but the responsibility lies with the GCZMA/State Government. She submits that Galigibag Turtle Management Plan was prepared for GCZMA by the Department of Science, Tech. & Env. with inputs from Forest Department and the Biodiversity Board. 126. It is submitted that Morjim beach is designated as CRZ-I except for the settlement which is CRZ-III. The submission of the respondents that "settlement" in the CZMP refers to "settlement" as per the Regional Plan 2021 is incorrect. The Regional Plan is a document framed under Town Planning law which categorizes settlement, commercial, industrial, orchard, natural cover, agriculture, etc. and they do not match the CRZ classification which is very specific. The CRZ Notification is issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. She placed reliance on Section 24 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and submits that the said Act overrides local law. 127. It is submitted that the jurisdiction of the Town Planning laws stops at 500 mtrs. from HTL. In the CRZ, only CRZ law prevails unless the notification itself specifically states that building permissions will be subject to local town planning laws. The settlement in the CZMP means village settlement i.e. the gaothan or residential part of the village, not opening the whole village area for development. CRZ-III are substantially undeveloped areas and the CRZ Notification is meant to keep them this way. Settlement in the Regional Plan means a whole host of activities permitted in the same area-residences, hotels, shops, buildings, religious places, clubs etc. CRZ allows only two categories - residences for locals only and as an exception, Beach Resorts but they must be in separate areas and vacant areas. 128. Settlement in the Regional Plan means a whole host of activities permitted in the same area-residences, hotels, shops, buildings, religious places, clubs etc. CRZ allows only two categories - residences for locals only and as an exception, Beach Resorts but they must be in separate areas and vacant areas. 128. It is submitted that the State Government ought to have decided as to how many Resorts maximum it would allow per village and then to select the areas accordingly. The exercise carried out by the State Government which took 6 years to complete identification of "designated areas" was a total waste of time and money and did serve no purpose. The assessment of whether or not the plot is suitable for a Resort has to be considered afresh each time, since ecological aspects were not considered when huge swathes of land were coloured yellow to indicate vacant plots. 129. In so far as the Morjim beach is concerned, CZMP has demarcated only village gaothan/settlement as CRZ-III. It does not mean that the balance area of the village automatically becomes CRZ-III too. The sand dunes have to be demarcated as CRZ-I, the mangroves identified and the land required for protection of the turtle nesting beach would also be CRZ-I. The resort may be restrained from accessing all the facilities that Hotels in general CRZ-III areas are allowed, as it is a turtle nesting beach. The State Government could also decide not to let the undisturbed areas in Morjim to be used for beach resorts because of the crowds they attract, the night spending parties, extravaganzas, etc. all of which may help the State's coffers but not the turtles. 130. Learned counsel placed reliance on Section 16B of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 allowing any individual who is not satisfied with the zoning classification to apply for change, pay the required charges and the Town Planning Board will consider the change of zone. She submits that "orchard" could thus easily disappear if the zone is changed and tree felling permission is granted. The respondent no.7 may thus in future apply for change and would get away by invoking Section 16B of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. It is submitted by the learned counsel that at present, the CZMP 1996 is the existing authorised plan for Goa under the CRZ 2011. The respondent no.7 may thus in future apply for change and would get away by invoking Section 16B of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. It is submitted by the learned counsel that at present, the CZMP 1996 is the existing authorised plan for Goa under the CRZ 2011. Future plans can be assessed at a future date. 131. In so far as Beach Carrying Capacity Report is concerned, it is submitted that the said report based on the data provided to it by the Forest Department cannot be considered as an independent assessment. No reliance can be placed on the said report. Morjim beach also has sand dunes, one of which is on the Hotel property. There is no reason why this dune and others adjacent to it should not become part of the Morjim Turtle Management Plan. The Hotel Marbela was illegally constructed and is ordered to be demolished. The appeal process is on. The tourists in the tourism season coincide with turtle nesting/breeding. The Hotel business being commercial can be taken elsewhere. The Chief Town Planner had already expressed apprehension at the project's revision to 20 bungalows and 20 swimming pools (now reduced to 14, as stated by the respondent no.7) during the course of the arguments. 132. It is submitted that merely because the project is completed to the extent of 80%, the same cannot have any bearing on the issue under consideration. The petitioners had filed this PIL Writ Petition before commencement of the construction by the respondent no.7. The respondent no.7, however, has gone ahead with construction at its own risk. The petitioners had already challenged GCZMA's approval at the outset. The nesting is part of the breeding process and therefore, is part of the habitat. 133. Learned counsel distinguishes the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goa Foundation, Goa Vs. Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) on the ground that the facts before the Supreme Court were not similar to the facts in this case since it did not involve a turtle nesting site. Diksha Holdings was located in Canacona-a municipal area, very populated, marked as CRZ-III, however, location of the plot of the respondent no.7 is in "pristine" area. (supra) on the ground that the facts before the Supreme Court were not similar to the facts in this case since it did not involve a turtle nesting site. Diksha Holdings was located in Canacona-a municipal area, very populated, marked as CRZ-III, however, location of the plot of the respondent no.7 is in "pristine" area. She submits that MOPA Airport was brought to a halt so that the Ministry could take a fresh look at the project in the light of correct facts. This Court has directed status quo of Mumbai's coastal road recently because the implications of the project are major. 134. It is submitted that the petitioners have prayed for cancellation of all approvals granted by the authority in so far as the respondent no.7 is concerned, including the environment clearance, removal of construction already carried out and restoration of the beach to its original status. She submits that defence raised by the respondents being untenable, reliefs prayed in this PIL Writ Petition be granted in the public interest. REASONS AND CONCLUSION :- 135. The petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside all the approvals granted by the Town Planning Department, Collector (North), Panchayat of Morjim and Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (for short MOEF & CC) granted in favour of the respondent no.7 and also have prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the State of Goa and Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) to take steps to demolish the construction of the project of the respondent no.7 and to restore the beach to its original condition. 136. It is not in dispute that as per 1991 CRZ Notification, the Coastal States were required to prepare a Coastal Zone Management Plan identifying and classifying the CRZ areas within their respective territories. In so far as State of Goa is concerned, Goa Coastal Zone Management Plan for Goa was approved by the respondent no.3 on 27th September 1996. It is the case of the respondent no.7 as well as the GCZMA that as per 1991 CRZ Notification, development of vacant plots between 200-500 meters of the High Tide Line in CRZ-III is permissible for constructions of hotels/beach resorts. It is also the case of the respondent no.7 and the authorities that settlement areas were identified and demarcated by the Regional Plan for Goa-2021. 137. It is also the case of the respondent no.7 and the authorities that settlement areas were identified and demarcated by the Regional Plan for Goa-2021. 137. In so far as the plot of the respondent no.7 is concerned, the said plot is bearing Survey No.123 (Part)/1A. Sometimes in the year 1998, Goa Foundation filed Writ Petitions bearing Nos.422 of 1998 and 99 of 1999 in this Court inter alia praying for a restraint order against the authorities from granting permission for new residential units or development in the CRZ-III zone contrary to the provisions comprised under clause 6(2) CRZ-III (iii) of Annexure-I of the CRZ Notification dated 19th February 1991 as amended. This Court passed an order dated 13th October 2006 in those two writ petitions observing that under the said CRZ Notification dated 19th February 1991, an area between 200 and 500 meters of High Tide Line is earmarked as 'No Development Zone.' This Court held that the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the rules made thereunder had issued the said CRZ Notification classifying the coastal area in four categories for the purpose of regulating and restricting the development in such area as per the said CRZ Notification. 138. CRZ-III zone comprises of areas which are relatively undisturbed and those which do not belong to either category CRZ-I or CRZ-II and they include coastal zones in the rural areas, either developed or undeveloped, and also areas within municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which are not substantially built up. This Court also described the areas in CRZ-III zone which can be developed or where the development was restricted and in what manner. This Court has held that on plain reading of CRZ-III Notification dated 19th February 1991 would undoubtedly disclose that in the area between 200 and 500 meters of High Tide Line, the development has to be regulated and restricted in terms of the clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) thereof. It is held that clause (i) relates to the area upto 200 meters from the High Tide Line. As regards clauses (ii) & (iii) of the said Notification, the said CRZ Notification permits construction of hotels/beach resorts for temporary occupation of tourists/visitors subject to the conditions stipulated in the guidelines at Annexure-II of the said Notification. It is held that clause (i) relates to the area upto 200 meters from the High Tide Line. As regards clauses (ii) & (iii) of the said Notification, the said CRZ Notification permits construction of hotels/beach resorts for temporary occupation of tourists/visitors subject to the conditions stipulated in the guidelines at Annexure-II of the said Notification. The said clause specifically refers to the development of the vacant plots between 200 and 500 meters of High Tide Line. 139. It is held that clause (iii) refers to construction/reconstruction of dwelling units between 200 and 500 meters of High Tide Line. It is further held that while clause (iii) specifically refers to the development area lying between 200 and 500 meters of High Tide Line exclusively for construction or reconstruction of the dwelling units, the open plots in such areas are allowed to be utilised for construction of the hotels in terms of the clause (ii) thereof. The expression "construction/reconstruction of dwelling units" in clause (iii) further refers to "within the ambit of traditional rights and customary uses such as existing fishing villages and gaothans." 140. In paragraph 13 of the said judgment, this Court has held that while on one hand construction of hotels and beach resorts are permissible in the vacant plots in the said area, on the other hand, construction activity which is permissible under the clause (iii) relates to the dwelling units. It is further held by the Division bench of this Court that the framers of the law did not contemplate any construction activity within the area of 200 to 500 mtrs. of High Tide Line otherwise than the one specifically stated in the clauses (ii) and (iii) of the said notification and they are dwelling units, with one exception in favour of hotels and beach resorts but only in vacant plots in the said zone. 141. In the said judgment, this Court held that construction of hotels and beach resorts would not be permissible within the locality wherein there exist the dwelling units. Hotel constructions would be permissible only in the vacant plots situated within the said zone. This Court directed the respondents therein to conduct survey and inquiry as regards the number of dwelling units and all other structures and constructions which were existing in the CRZ-III zone in Goa, village or townwise as on 19th February 1991 and increase in number thereof thereafter, datewise. This Court directed the respondents therein to conduct survey and inquiry as regards the number of dwelling units and all other structures and constructions which were existing in the CRZ-III zone in Goa, village or townwise as on 19th February 1991 and increase in number thereof thereafter, datewise. This Court further directed the respondents therein to identify all types of structures and constructions made in CRZ-III zone, except the dwelling units, after 19th February 1991 in the locality comprised of the dwelling units and to take action against the same for their demolition in accordance with the provisions of law. The respondents were directed to identify the open plot in CRZ-III zone which are available for construction of hotels and to frame appropriate policy/regulation for utilisation thereof before they are being allowed to be utilised for such construction activities. This Court directed not to grant any new license for any type of construction in CRZ-III zone till such inquiry was completed as directed by this Court except repairs and renovation of the existing houses which shall be subject to the appropriate order on completion and result of the survey and inquiry to be held. 142. A perusal of the record indicates that pursuant to the direction dated 13th October 2006 issued by this Court in the Writ Petitions bearing Nos.422 of 1998 and 99 of 1999, the State of Goa appointed one Remote Sensing Instruments, India to identify the open plots admeasuring 4000 sq.mtrs. and above in CRZ-III for development as hotels/beach resorts. We have perused the report dated 5th April 2011 submitted by Remote Sensing Instruments. A perusal of the said report dated 5th April 2011 along with map showing open area with having area more than 4000 sq.mtrs. in CRZ-III zone at Morjim village would indicate that in so far as the plot bearing Survey No.123 (Part)/1A owned by the respondent no.7 is concerned, the said plot falls in the open plot admeasuring more than 4000 sq.mtrs. in CRZ-III and was beyond 200 mtrs. from High Tide Line. In our view, the said judgment of this Court dated 13th October 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petitions bearing Nos.422 of 1998 and 99 of 1999 would apply to the facts of this case. According to the said judgment, hotel construction would be permissible in the vacant plot situated within CRZ-III zone in open area admeasuing 4000 sq.mtrs. In our view, the said judgment of this Court dated 13th October 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petitions bearing Nos.422 of 1998 and 99 of 1999 would apply to the facts of this case. According to the said judgment, hotel construction would be permissible in the vacant plot situated within CRZ-III zone in open area admeasuing 4000 sq.mtrs. or above. 143. We have perused the Policy for utilization of available open plots in CRZ-III zone for the purpose of establishing hotels/beach resorts published in official gazette dated 16th June 2011. The said Policy prescribed the guidelines for considering project proposals for Hotels/Beach Resorts in CRZ-III areas. Under the said Policy, every proposal received by the GCZMA has to be forwarded for examination and assessment by the Goa State Expert Appraisal Committee in the first instance. The said authority has to follow the guidelines given in the said Policy. It is provided under the said guidelines that only those land areas, which are classified as "Settlement" in terms of RPG-2021 will be considered for the purpose concerned. It is thus clear that plot of the respondent no.7 having been identified as open/vacant plot in CRZ-III, construction of Hotels/Beach Resorts on the said plot is clearly permitted under the said CRZ Notification read with Hotel Policy framed by the State Government pursuant to the judgment dated 13th October 2006 passed by this Court. 144. A perusal of the record further indicates that State of Goa under enabling powers conferred upon it under 1991 CRZ Notification prepared Goa CZMP thereby identifying and classifying various CRZ areas. The plot of the respondent no.7 was classified in CRZ-III under the 1991 CRZ Notification read with the Goa CZMP and RPG-2021. The said classification, in our view, by the State of Goa is binding on all the authorities. Under 2011 CRZ Notification with regard to CRZ of Goa, special provision is made. Regulation 8(V) 3(vii) clearly provides that management plan has to be prepared for protection of the turtle nesting sites at Mandrem, Morjim, Galgibag and Agonda. It is not in dispute that provisional turtle plan for Galgibag is already prepared. The said turtle plan for Galgibag provides for short term and long term recommendations for the conservation and protection of turtle nesting sites. 145. Regulation 8(V) 3(viii) clearly provides that no development activities shall be permitted in the said turtle nesting sites. It is not in dispute that provisional turtle plan for Galgibag is already prepared. The said turtle plan for Galgibag provides for short term and long term recommendations for the conservation and protection of turtle nesting sites. 145. Regulation 8(V) 3(viii) clearly provides that no development activities shall be permitted in the said turtle nesting sites. The purpose of preparing Turtle Management Plan is that the turtle nesting sites are fully protected and remain undisturbed and accessible to turtles. Such sites area to be protected from intrusions and obstructions affecting turtle nesting. The respondent no.7 does not dispute that the purpose of Turtle Management Plan has to include the restrictions regarding human access to such areas as well as regulating sound and light. In our view, the plot of the respondent no.7 does not fall in CRZ-I areas. Mr Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent no.7 is right in his submission that by preparing a Turtle Management Plan for protection of the turtle nesting sites, the said plan cannot alter/amend/override/abrogate the provisions of the CRZ Notification or the CZMP. 146. A perusal of Regulation 8(V) 3(viii) clearly indicates that the said provision does not apply to the lands falling in CRZ-III areas. Under the said Regulation, development activities in CRZ-I areas and more particularly on turtle nesting sites are prohibited. The said turtle management plan is required to be prepared by the Forest Department under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. We have perused the report dated 26th September 2018 annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.8 on 1st October 2018. A perusal of the said affidavit clearly indicates that a new Goa Coastal Zone Management Plan is proposed to be prepared by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Zone Management, Chennai. A perusal of the said report indicates that the designated turtle nesting site is only the limited stretch of area of CRZ-IA at the mouth of the river. The draft map attached to the said report does not indicate this demarcation. We do not find any Notification or order issued by any of the authorities designating the entire Morjim beach as a turtle nesting site. 147. The said report is submitted by the respondent no.8 pursuant to the directions issued by this Court by an order dated 3rd September 2018 in this PIL writ petition. We do not find any Notification or order issued by any of the authorities designating the entire Morjim beach as a turtle nesting site. 147. The said report is submitted by the respondent no.8 pursuant to the directions issued by this Court by an order dated 3rd September 2018 in this PIL writ petition. A perusal of the said report indicates that communication was sent to Member Secretary, GCZMA, Goa, India vide letter dated 13th July 2018 to seek clarification sought about CRZ clearance for the proposed resort on the land owned by the respondent no.7. The Assistant Conservator of Forests along with other Coastal Zone Management Authorities had carried out assessment of the project site of the respondent no.7 and submitted a report to GCZMA. The said communication of the Assistant Conservator of Forests was approved by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest/Chief Wildlife Warden. In the said report, it was clearly brought on record that the protection is already accorded to the marine turtle nesting site at Morjim beach by the Forest Department in last over two decades and has been already documented. 148. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest/Chief Wildlife Warden had carried out inspection of the said marine turtle nesting site at Morjim beach after joining in April 2015 and also in earlier years during his official and personal visits to Goa on many occasions. He was involved in marine turtle conservation since 1986 when he was first posted in Andaman and Nicobar Islands with over 17 years of experience over there during three tenures. In the said report, he has placed on record that in last few years, protection and conservation of marine turtles has been given special focus by the Goa Forest Department. Many experts, NGOs and organisations who are working in the field of marine animals conservation including turtles, have been engaged/consulted by the Department which include WWF-Goa, Terra Conscious and Drishti Life Savings Pvt. Ltd. engaged by the Tourism Department and deputes life guards on the beaches of Goa. Those life guards have been trained in last two years as a first responder in case of stranding of marine animals and their rescue. 149. Those life guards have been trained in last two years as a first responder in case of stranding of marine animals and their rescue. 149. It is also placed on record in the said report that Dakshin Foundation, a Bangalore based NGO has been involved in marine turtle conservation in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Karnataka and elsewhere under a Centrally Sponsored Scheme to prepare a conservation plan of Galgibagh beach where Forest Department has acquired land along the beach so as to develop it as a Conservation Reserve for nesting marine turtles. 150. In so far as the Morjim beach is concerned, the said report states that the southern part of this beach has a well developed sand dune system behind High Tide Line which is between 100 to 200 meters wide. Sand dunes are covered by Ipomoea and other coastal vegetation and the beach itself is jutting out in the form of a lip into the river Chapora mouth. Behind the sand dunes, there is a coastal belt plantation of Casuarina which was raised in 2012-13 and has now formed a shelter belt of thick vegetation, starting from the southern tip of Morjim beach for almost 500 meters towards north. It acts as a buffer zone behind the sand dunes till an existing road and the village behind. It is mentioned in the said report that the main turtle nesting part of the beach is in front of this sand dune, stretching from the tip of the beach on the south for about 700 meters towards north which is preferred for nesting by the endangered marine turtle Olive Ridley's. The Goa Forest Department is protecting this stretch of Morjim along with parts of Ashwem and Mandrem beaches further north of Morjim Since 1997-98. 151. The said report further states that the area under its management as Turtle Nesting Site on the Morjim beach admeasuring about 40,000 sq.mtrs. has been treated as 'No Development Zone' where sea turtles visit for nesting during their breeding season between October to March/April. The sand dunes along with the coastal belt plantation play a crucial role in reducing direct disturbances caused by noise and lights to the turtles coming to the beach at night for laying eggs. It also helps hatchlings in orienting towards the sea once they come out of nests, which normally happens at night or just before day break. 152. The sand dunes along with the coastal belt plantation play a crucial role in reducing direct disturbances caused by noise and lights to the turtles coming to the beach at night for laying eggs. It also helps hatchlings in orienting towards the sea once they come out of nests, which normally happens at night or just before day break. 152. The said report further provides that during the nesting season, 24x7 protection is provided to the nests and those nests which are sometimes laid outside this protected zone, are brought in here and kept in a makeshift hatchery/nests. The Forest Department personnel also sensitise the beach shacks owners for managing tourism activity properly such as not allowing overcrowding, strong illumination and generation of loud sound that may disturb the marine turtles and thereby adversely affect the nesting activity. In addition to that, protection to nesting turtles coming on to the beach and the nests through regular patrolling. Along with the said report, a map of turtle nesting site at Morjim beach is annexed. 153. It is mentioned in the said report that area mentioned in the said map annexed to the said report has been included as CRZ-IA along with sand dune areas in Coastal Zone Management Plan of Goa which is being prepared by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Zone Management, Chennai. In the said report, the data of turtle nesting at Morjim beach during the period from 2008-09 to 2017-18 is set out which indicates number of nests, number of eggs laid, number of hachlings released and egg spoiled/hachlings dead during the said period of 10 years. A perusal of the said data mentioned in the said report indicates that number of eggs laid during last 10 years were 1695 whereas number of hatchlings released were 1050. 645 eggs were either spoiled or hachlings dead. 154. A perusal of the said report indicates that even though number of tourists is increased to more than double in Goa, there is no direct co-relation or impact of number of tourists coming to Goa and the nesting of turtles, specifically at the Morjim beach nesting site. Considering that existing development behind the turtle nesting site beyond the existing road has no perceptible impact on the nesting. Considering that existing development behind the turtle nesting site beyond the existing road has no perceptible impact on the nesting. The said report further provides that in so far as the project site at Survey No.123/1 owned by the respondent no.7 is concerned, considering the existing development behind turtles nesting site beyond the existing road has no perceptible impact on the nesting, the said project site is further more than 700 meters away from the northern tip of main nesting zone and where development has to be taken up 200 m beyond the High Tide Line as per CRZ Notification. There would be no impact of the said development being carried out by the respondent no.7 on the nesting zone. The said report further provides that the Forest Department in collaboration with local villagers and Panchayat is taking all possible steps in according protection to nesting marine turtles and their overall conservation, not only at Morjim but at other important beaches of Goa as well. 155. Mr Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent no.7 invited our attention to 2019 CRZ Notification dated 18th January 2019 which notification sub-divides the CRZ-I and CRZ-III areas into CRZ-IA, CRZ-IB, CRZ-IIIA and CRZ-IIIB areas. The CRZ-IIIA and CRZ-IIIB are sub-divided on the basis of the population density. It is the case of the respondent no.7 that the plot of the respondent no.7 falls within CRZ-IIIA area. The permissible development in CRZ-IIIA area is similar to that permissible under the earlier CRZ Notification in CRZ-III areas. In our view, Mr Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent no.7 is right in his submission that distance of plot of the respondent no.7 from either the turtle nesting site or the beach is wholly irrelevant. Once the conditions prescribed by the applicable CRZ Notification, Goa CZMP, the RPG 2021 and the Hotel Policy are fulfilled, the respondent no.7 is entitled to develop Hotels/Beach Resorts on the said plot bearing Survey No.123 (Part)/1A. 156. The report submitted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest/Chief Wildlife Warden on various specific issues on which this Court requires response by an order dated 3rd September 2018 throws light on those various factual issues raised by the petitioners and more particularly by the Officer having vast experience in this field cannot be overlooked and is accepted. 157. 156. The report submitted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest/Chief Wildlife Warden on various specific issues on which this Court requires response by an order dated 3rd September 2018 throws light on those various factual issues raised by the petitioners and more particularly by the Officer having vast experience in this field cannot be overlooked and is accepted. 157. During the course of arguments in this writ petition by the learned counsel for the parties on suggestion made by this Court, a site visit to these two beaches was held by this Court. This Court had apprised of factual position at site and was also shown the hatchery area where the eggs laid by the turtles were shifted and were being protected. This Court was informed by the concerned Department about the manner in which the eggs were shifted from various portions of two beaches and the manner in which those eggs were protected, how the said hatchery site was safeguarded and after what period and how the baby turtles crawled to the sea without any parenting. The project site of the respondent no.7 were not even visible from turtle nesting site during the course of our visit. This Court found that substantial steps have already been taken by the authorities for protecting the eggs and in releasing the baby turtles in sea. 158. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the respondent no.3 has also filed an affidavit-in-reply in this PIL writ petition on 16th November 2018. In the said affidavit, the respondent no.3 had highlighted the areas falling in CRZ under the said 2011 CRZ Notification, restrictions imposed on the setting up and expansion of industries, operations or processes etc. It is submitted in the said affidavit that the said authority has followed the due procedure prescribed in CRZ Regulations while granting clearance of construction of beach resort in Morjim village in Goa. 159. After receipt of the recommendation of the concerned Coastal Management Zone Authority under the relevant provisions of the CRZ Notification 2011 and requisite documents prescribed in paragraph 4.2 of the CRZ Notification 2011, applications for CRZ clearance were acknowledged by the respondent no.3 and thereafter forwarded the said proposal for appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee in its meeting held on 7th September 2017. The respondent no.3 granted CRZ clearance to the proposal for construction of beach resort by the respondent no.7 in acceptance of recommendation of the Expert Appraisal Committee. CRZ clearance is granted to the respondent no.7 on various conditions set out in the said order granting clearance. 160. We have perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Senior Town Planner (North) on behalf of the respondent no.5 dated 3rd May 2018. It is stated in the said affidavit that plot of the respondent no.7 was admeasuring 21,241 sq.mtrs. and was earmarked as Orchard Zone in RPG-2021. As per RPG-2021, the said plot was earmarked as "partly Settlement Zone and partly Orchard Zone." The Goa Investment Promotion and Facilitation Board has granted in principle approval to the proposal of the respondent no.7 on 24th February 2015. The respondent no.7 thereafter filed an application on 1st April 2015 for conversion of land in respect of the property under reference for commercial purposes. It is stated in the said affidavit that since the proposal of the respondent no.7 was recommended by the Goa Investment Promotion and Facilitation Board under the provisions of Goa Investment Promotion Board Act, 2014, the respondent no.5 deliberated on the issue as to whether relaxation be granted to the circular dated 4th June 2012 to the extent the area is earmarked as Settlement Zone in RPG 2021 beyond 200 mtrs. of CRZ Line or not. 161. Decision of the Government for grant of relaxation of order dated 4th June 2012 for proposal cleared by GIPFB for areas falling in Settlement zone/Industrial zone as per RPG-2021 was obtained accordingly. The respondent no.5 accordingly issued a Technical Clearance Order on 9th July 2015 by granting relaxation to Circular dated 4th June 2012 on the basis of in principle clearance accorded by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority and Conversion Sanad issued by the Additional Collector in respect of the said property of the respondent no.7. The respondent no.5 thereafter inspected site and issued a revised Technical Clearance to the respondent no.7 and filed an application dated 13th January 2016 for revised permissions. 162. The respondent no.5 thereafter inspected site and issued a revised Technical Clearance to the respondent no.7 and filed an application dated 13th January 2016 for revised permissions. 162. In the said affidavit, it is further stated that the respondent no.5 was in receipt of the order dated 9th January 2018 wherein the Goa Investment Promotion and Facilitation Board has withdrawn inprinciple approval granted in favour of the respondent no.7 on the ground that the project proposed in CRZ areas do not fall under the purview of Goa Investment Promotion and Facilitation Board in terms of the restrictions imposed under Section 8 of the Goa Investment Promotion Act, 2014. It is stated in the said affidavit that all recommendations/permissions accorded to the respondent no.7 will stand revoked if there is any deviation from the terms and conditions attached to such recommendations/permissions. In view of the order dated 28th March 2018, the permission granted by the respondent no.5 does not get vitiated. 163. The respondent no.6 i.e. Goa State Pollution Control Board has filed an affidavit dated 2nd May 2018. A perusal of the said affidavit indicates that the respondent no.6 has granted Consent to establish (CTE) on 11th December 2015 to the respondent no.7 and had granted a revised Consent to establish on 10th November 2016 in terms of Air and Water Act. It is stated that the Consent granted under the Air and Water Act is independent of the IPB "in principle approval" and does not get vitiated on the withdrawal of the said approval. It is stated in the affidavit that there is specific condition in the Consent and states "Units to whom Consent to Establish is granted should obtain necessary permission/approvals under the relevant Act/Rules in force." 164. We have perused the additional affidavit filed by Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority dated 27th July 2018. The said affidavit is filed pursuant to the order dated 10th July 2018 passed by this Court in this PIL Writ Petition. In the said affidavit, the respondent no.2 brought on record that the matter was placed in the 175th GCZMA meeting held on 22nd May 2018. In the said meeting, it was decided that NOC issued by the said authority is independent of NOC issued under any other statute of the government. In the said affidavit, the respondent no.2 brought on record that the matter was placed in the 175th GCZMA meeting held on 22nd May 2018. In the said meeting, it was decided that NOC issued by the said authority is independent of NOC issued under any other statute of the government. The location of the area with respect to High Tide Line is to be ascertained through DSLR survey plan with High Tide Line 200 mtr. and 500 mtr. superimposed. The applicant was directed to approach the office of DSLR to get a copy of survey plan and submit to GCZMA at the earliest. A joint site inspection thereafter was held on 15th June 2018 through expert members of GCZMA and officials of Department of Forest, DSLR. 165. The Deputy Conservator of Forest vide letter dated 20th June 2018 forwarded a report stating that the protected turtle nesting site is about 700 mtrs. away at south side, however if turtle nesting takes place anywhere outside protected area then Forest Department is shifting the nest to protected area for nesting. The construction of the respondent no.7 was in progress from about 200 mtrs. from high tide & there are hardly any vegetation in the said plot. The expert Member GCZMA also submitted report stating that the project is neither affecting NDZ nor turtle nesting site. 166. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest/Chief Wildlife Warden also informed vide letter dated 13th July 2018 that the project site is around 700 metres away North of the Turtle Nesting site at Morjim beach. It is stated in the said letter that in case where sporadic turtle nesting happens outside the identified turtle nesting part of the beach, the eggs are shifted and placed in a nursery for safety for hatching located in the turtle nesting part of Morjim beach on the southern end. The matter was thereafter placed in the 179th GCZMA meeting held on 19th July 2018 for discussion and deliberation. It was noted by the authority that the construction of the proposed beach resort is being carried out beyond 200 mtrs. NDZ High Tide Line as per the clearance granted by Ministry of Environment of Forests and Climate Change. 167. The matter was thereafter placed in the 179th GCZMA meeting held on 19th July 2018 for discussion and deliberation. It was noted by the authority that the construction of the proposed beach resort is being carried out beyond 200 mtrs. NDZ High Tide Line as per the clearance granted by Ministry of Environment of Forests and Climate Change. 167. The respondent no.2 accordingly decided to uphold its recommendation to the project of the respondent no.7 to the Ministry of Environment of Forests & Climate Change in terms of earlier minutes of 116th GCZMA meeting held on 26th May 2015 and also to convey this decision/clarification in response to the letter received from Ministry of Environment of Forests and Climate Change dated 31st January 2018. 168. We have perused the relevant minutes of meeting annexed to the said affidavit. It is also decided by the respondent no.2 that in cases where sporadic turtle nesting happens outside the identified turtle nesting part of the beach, the eggs are shifted and placed in a nursery for safety for hatching located in the turtle nesting part of Morjim Beach on its southern end. In our view, there are safeguards provided by various authorities to turtle nesting site even for hatching in the turtle nesting part of beach. Eggs are shifted and placed in a nursery for safety for hatching located in the turtle nesting part of beach on its southern end and in other area. We are inclined to accept the correctness of the contents of the affidavits filed by the authorities and the reports submitted by them. Statements made in various affidavits filed by the authorities are accepted as undertakings to this Court. 169. We have perused additional affidavit filed by the respondent no.7 on 9th August 2018. By the said affidavit, the respondent no.7 has placed on record a Technical Clearance Order dated 27th July 2018 issued by the Deputy Town Planner i.e. the respondent no.5 for carrying out the subject Hotel Project as per revised plans on the basis that the said project is situated on the property which falls within the zone marked as "settlement" as per the Regional Plan for Goa, 2021. The respondent no.7 also placed on record the letter dated 1st August 2018 addressed by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.3 conveying its decision to uphold its recommendation for the said project of the respondent no.7. The respondent no.7 also placed on record the letter dated 1st August 2018 addressed by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.3 conveying its decision to uphold its recommendation for the said project of the respondent no.7. It is thus clear that the property of the respondent no.7 is marked as "settlement" as per the Regional Plan for Goa, 2021 in which zone, construction of hotel resort is permissible. The 'report of joint site inspection to verify that the constructions done by the respondent no.7 was falling beyond No Development Zone of CRZ-III area' indicates that no constructions within 0.200 meters of CRZ-III was seen at site. Construction of Villas done by the respondent no.7 on the land bearing Survey No.123/1-A of Morjim Village is lying within 200-500 meters, just beyond 200 m of CRZ line. We are thus not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the project site of the respondent no.7 fell in CRZ-I and not CRZ-III or settlement area. 170. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have also perused the additional affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.2 i.e. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority dated 11th April 2019 pursuant to the order dated 14th March 2019 passed by this Court to disclose status as regards to the provisions of CRZ notification for the beaches such as Mandrem, Morjim, Galgibag and Agonda which has been designated as "Turtle Nesting Sites" and has been protected under Wild Life Protection Act,1972. In the said affidavit, the respondent no.2 annexed a copy of the report prepared by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Zone Management pursuant to the order dated 17th December 2014 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Pune in Original Application No.3 of 2014. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent no.2 submitted Beach Carrying Capacity Report qua shacks allotted on a beach by the Government of Goa and shacks/temporary seasonal structures in private properties. The said report has been approved and adopted by the respondent no.2 and has been submitted before National Green Tribunal, Pune in the matter in Execution Application No.21 of 2016 in Original Application No.3 of 2014. It is stated in the said affidavit that the project of the respondent no.7 is around 700 mtr. away from north of the "Turtle Nesting Site" at Morjim beach. 171. It is stated in the said affidavit that the project of the respondent no.7 is around 700 mtr. away from north of the "Turtle Nesting Site" at Morjim beach. 171. It is further stated that the whole stretch of beach is not a "Turtle Nesting Site" under CRZ Notification. As far as Morjim village is concerned, it is notified as CRZ-III area in CZMP-1996 for the State of Goa. It is further stated that only what is notified by the Forest Department is "Turtle Nesting Site" and therefore only the area so notified by the Forest Department is CRZ-I area and rest of the stretch of Morjim village is CRZ-III area. 172. A perusal of the said Carrying Capacity of Beaches of Goa Report indicates that Goa Forest Department has appointed local volunteers to patrol the beaches from September to May. The nests are guarded with the net till the hatchlings are released safe into the water. Number of eggs and hatchlings released is reflected in the report. It is stated that in Morjim, Temvaddo beach area has seen high frequency of nestings. It is stated that the data and monitoring indicate that the Anthropogenic activities have not had any major impact on the nesting's and hatchlings due to effort of the Goa Forest Department and the local volunteers. The Forest Department has recommended the specific conditions for allotment for shacks at Morjim which prohibits setting above deck beds/beach beds in inter tidal zones, installation of outdoor illumination, playing of loud music beyond 6 p.m., holding beach parties and movement of Automobile on the beach. It is further recommended that the indoor illumination should be muted and provided with opaque shields on seaward side. 173. The said report clearly indicates the yearwise break up of Sea Turtle Nesting at Morjim furnished details of data of laying eggs, hatching date, number of eggs laid, young one release, young ones dead, eggs not hatched, nesting period and name of the beach from 1997-98 to 2015-16. We are inclined to accept the said "Carrying Capacity of Beaches of Goa for Providing Shacks & Other Temporary Seasonal Structures in Private Areas" report and the details furnished therein in so far as the records of turtle nesting is concerned. 174. We are inclined to accept the said "Carrying Capacity of Beaches of Goa for Providing Shacks & Other Temporary Seasonal Structures in Private Areas" report and the details furnished therein in so far as the records of turtle nesting is concerned. 174. Mr Mehta, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.7 invited our attention to various photographs placed on record showing various temporary structures permitted by the authority on two beaches i.e. Mandrem and Morjim as per the Policy approved by the Government and this Court. He invited our attention to the notification published in the official gazette dated 27th January 2017 regarding "Tourism Policy for erection of Temporary Seasonal Structures, Beach Shacks/huts and others 2016-19." He submits that under the said Tourism Policy framed by the Government of Goa, erection of temporary seasonal structures, beach shacks, huts and others 2016-19 were provided by granting license however only for the period from 1st September to 31st May. He submits that in so far as the Mandrem and Morjim beach is concerned, under the said Policy,10 and 11 numbers of shacks 18m x 8m have been permitted. In respect of several other beaches, different number of shacks are permitted subject to various conditions. Under the said Policy, terms and conditions are to be satisfied for permitting such temporary shacks on Mandrem and Morjim beaches. It is provided that the precise location of the shacks on Morjim and Mandrem beaches shall be fixed in consultation with Forest Department who may identify the turtle nesting sites. The shack allottee shall inform any incidents of nesting and shall actively co-operate with the protection staff, in protection of turtle, turtle nesting site, turtle eggs hatching etc. He submits that sufficient safeguards are already provided while granting permission for erection of temporary seasonal structures, beach shacks, huts and others. 175. The said Policy clearly indicates that various restrictions are imposed for permitting shacks at Mandrem and Morjim beaches and more particularly regarding operation of those beach shacks, artificial lighting, playing of loud music, display of fireworks etc. Similar restrictions can be imposed by the Government of Goa by framing appropriate Policy in so far as Hotel activities or any other activities are concerned. Similar restrictions can be imposed by the Government of Goa by framing appropriate Policy in so far as Hotel activities or any other activities are concerned. It is not the case of the petitioners that the shacks permitted under the said Policy formulated by the State of Goa on some of the beaches including Mandrem and Morjim creates any disturbances to the activities of Turtle Nesting. Most of the shacks permitted by the authority are within 500 m from High Tide Line and mostly inside the sea. Photographs produced by the learned counsel for the respondent no.7 shows natural buffer zone. 176. It is not in dispute that the said Policy permitting temporary structures on some of the beaches had been approved by this Court in Writ Petition No.9 of 2011 and Writ Petition No.167 of 2007 by an order and judgment dated 10th December 2013 including the permissions granted for erecting such temporary structures on the turtle nesting sites. In the Marine Turtle Newsletter issued by author Mohammad Zahirul Islam from Bangladesh shows that nesting season runs from July until April but regular nesting occurs largely from October through November. Turtles usually emerge to nest between 1900-0300, 3-4 hrs before and at high tide. Turtles emerged in a variety of weather conditions viz.cloudy, clear, slight to heavy wind and nested on dunes, open sandy beach. The said author had referred to various problems faced at Bangladesh due to fishing nets and other activities in turtle nesting areas. 177. In the said order and judgment dated 10th December 2013 passed by this Court while dealing with Government Policy for permitting temporary shacks and deck-beds, this Court held that the said Policy had earmarked number of shacks that will be permitted to be erected on each of the beaches and number of deck beds to be permitted in each of the shack. It was further held that Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority which is consisting of 11 experts in the field and also eminent citizen and appointed under Section 3 of the Environmental Protection Act by Central Government has already accepted the said policy. This Court found that the said authority must have applied its mind to the aspect as to how many number of shacks could be permitted on the particular beach so as to avoid over exploitation of the beaches. 178. This Court found that the said authority must have applied its mind to the aspect as to how many number of shacks could be permitted on the particular beach so as to avoid over exploitation of the beaches. 178. A perusal of the provisional Management Plan for Conservation and Protection of Turtle Nesting Sites at Galgibag Village Beach area in Canacona Taluka, South Goa District, Goa clearly suggests protective measures to be adopted and are concurrently being undertaken at Galigbag beach area by the State Forest Department. The said report for provisional Management Plan also envisaged initiatives for conservation and protection of turtle nesting sites at Galgibag village beach area, methodology and approach in order to initiate the envisaged "Management Plan for Conservation and Protection of Turtle Nesting Sites at Galgibag Village Beach Area. The said provisional management plan prescribed Long Term Prescriptions. State of Goa has not prepared any such provisional management plan in respect of Mandrem and Morjim beaches till date. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority is accordingly directed to prepare such Management Plan for Conservation and Protection of Turtle Nesting Sites at Mandrem and Morjim beaches within three months from the date of this judgment. 179. Supreme Court in the case of Goa Foundation, Goa Vs. Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.(supra) has held that under the CRZ Notification dated 19th February 1991, under CRZ-III, an area upto 200 meters from High Tide Line is to be earmarked as No Development Zone. But development of vacant plots between 200 meters and 500 meters of high tide line in designated areas of CRZ-III with the prior approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests is permitted for construction of hotels/beach resorts, subject to the conditions stipulated in the guidelines at Annexure-II. Annexure-II to the notification provides detailed guidelines for development of beach resorts and hotels in the areas of CRZ-III. Supreme Court considered the challenge to the permission accorded for construction of hotel situated in Canacona Taluka which was classified as CRZ-I, except the settlement area which is classified as CRZ-III. It is held by the Supreme Court that where the permission has been accorded for construction of Hotel, lot of settlement and built-up structures are available like temples, schools etc. and that the plot of land is located beyond 200 meters of the High Tide Line. 180. It is held by the Supreme Court that where the permission has been accorded for construction of Hotel, lot of settlement and built-up structures are available like temples, schools etc. and that the plot of land is located beyond 200 meters of the High Tide Line. 180. On going through the aforesaid CRZ Notification issued by the Government of India as well as the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of the State of Goa, Supreme Court did not agree with the submission of the petitioners therein that there has been an infraction of any provisions by allowing construction of Hotel on the land or that the authorities had allowed any prohibited activities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the affidavits filed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India indicating that the area of the proposed construction is designated as settlement area and the same had been categorised as CRZ-III in the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of Goa. Supreme Court considered that the proposal for construction of Hotel was thoroughly examined by the Ministry including a visit to the site where the construction of Hotel was proposed and only after satisfying that the construction of the project was not on the sand dunes, the approval for the project was given by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. 181. Supreme Court held that as the said property was earmarked as a settlement/Beach Resort area, Supreme Court was of the considered opinion that the disputed plot situate in Category CRZ-III was available for development by way of construction of Hotels/Beach Resorts in the development plan of Goa which was duly approved by the Central Government and the activities in question could not be held to be prohibited activity under the initial notification of the Government of India. In our view, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goa Foundation, Goa Vs. Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) clearly applies to the facts of this case. In this case also, all the authorities have filed various affidavits and have granted various approvals in favour of the respondent no.7 after considering the provisions of law and also having been satisfied after visiting the site that no breach of any provision of law was committed by the respondent no.7. 182. In this case also, all the authorities have filed various affidavits and have granted various approvals in favour of the respondent no.7 after considering the provisions of law and also having been satisfied after visiting the site that no breach of any provision of law was committed by the respondent no.7. 182. Be that as it may, it is clearly provided in all such approvals granted by the authority that in the event of there being any breach of any of the conditions prescribed therein, the approvals would be withdrawn. In our view, the petitioners have totally failed to demonstrate with any authentic material before this Court that any of the authorities have committed any violation of CRZ Notification or any provision of law while granting approval to the respondent no.7 for carrying out construction on the project site of the respondent no.7. In our view, the documents along with maps produced on record by the respondents would clearly indicate that plot of the respondent no.7 fell in Settlement area, part of CRZ-III on which the construction of Hotels/Beach Resorts is clearly permissible. 183. A perusal of the notification dated 18th January 2019 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 clearly indicates that by the said notification, Central Government has made classification of CRZ. The Turtle nesting grounds are classified in CRZ-I A. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the authorities indicates that plot of the respondent no.7 falls under CRZ-III A under the said notification. The said notification also provides for activities permitted in CRZ-III. Clause 1.5 of Annexure-I provides that Turtle nesting grounds shall be protected and conserved in the manner prescribed therein. It is provided that turtle nesting grounds identified by the concerned State Governments or Union Territory administrations shall be protected as per Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972. No activities shall be permitted in and around the turtle nesting ground including those causing light and sound pollution except for those required for conservation and protection of those sites. Coastal Zone Management Plans for protecting the turtle nesting grounds shall be undertaken and implemented by the concerned State or Union territory Authorities. 184. No activities shall be permitted in and around the turtle nesting ground including those causing light and sound pollution except for those required for conservation and protection of those sites. Coastal Zone Management Plans for protecting the turtle nesting grounds shall be undertaken and implemented by the concerned State or Union territory Authorities. 184. The Government of Goa is bound to implement the conditions prescribed in the Notification dated 18th January 2019 and is under an obligation to prepare Strict Management Plan for protecting turtle nesting grounds and is required to implement such Strict Management Plan for protecting turtle nesting grounds. The said notification clearly provides for guidelines for Development of Beach Resorts, Hotels and Tourism Development Projects in the Designated CRZ Areas and further provides for guidelines for Preparation of Coastal Zone Management Plans. We direct the Government of Goa to comply with various directions issued by the Central Government in the notification dated 18th January 2019 and to prepare Coastal Zone Management Plan for various beaches in Goa expeditiously and not later than months from the date of this judgment. 185. Learned Advocate General pointed out from the record produced before this Court that land of the respondent no.7 was not in gaothan area. He also strongly placed reliance on various paragraphs of the judgment of this Court in the case of Goa Foundation Vs. The Panchayat of Calangute (supra) in Writ Petition Nos.422 of 1998 and 99 of 1999 in support of his submission that construction of Hotels/Beach Resorts is permissible on vacant plot of area. He submits that authorities have already complied with various directions issued by this Court in the said judgment. He also strongly placed reliance on the Hotel Policy framed by the State of Goa. In our view, learned Advocate General is right in his submission that the Hotel Policy did not approve permission merely on the basis of open plot declared by the Government but various terms and conditions are already imposed by the authorities for granting approval which are required to be complied with. 186. In the facts of this case, the respondent no.7 was required to obtain several permissions after the plot of the respondent no.7 was identified as open area/vacant land having area more than 4000 sq.mtrs. 186. In the facts of this case, the respondent no.7 was required to obtain several permissions after the plot of the respondent no.7 was identified as open area/vacant land having area more than 4000 sq.mtrs. Such permission could be applied only after all other statutory requirements including the condition that the plot of the respondent no.7 was identified as open area/vacant land having area more than 4000 sq.mtrs. was satisfied. The petitioners could not point out any breaches of any of the conditions of approvals granted by any of the authorities in favour of the respondent no.7 or that any of the approvals granted in favour of the respondent no.7 is in violation of any of the provisions of law. 187. A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioners have not demonstrated before this Court that the plot of the respondent no.7 is not vacant plot of land having area more than 4000 sq.mtrs. In our view, since the plan of the respondent no.7 was sanctioned in this case after 2011, CRZ Notification issued in the year 2011 would apply. 188. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Goa Foundation Vs. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority in PIL Writ Petition No.29 of 2011 indicates that this Court considered the report submitted by M/s Remote Sensing Instruments, Hyderabad who had carried out identification and delineation of contiguous open plots above 4000 sq.mtrs. in CRZ-III areas. This Court rejected the submission that all vacant plots have been identified as available for construction of Hotels/Beach Resorts irrespective of they being in CRZ-I area having sand dunes, forest areas, cultivated areas and also located within dwelling locality areas. 189. This Court in the said judgment held that 1991 CRZ Notification permits construction of Hotels/Beach Resorts for temporary occupation of tourists/visitors subject to the conditions stipulated in the guidelines at Annexure-II of the said notification. This Court held that the framers of the law did not contemplate any construction activity within the area of 200 to 500 mtrs. of High Tide Line otherwise than the one specifically stated in the clauses (ii) and (iii) of the said notification and they are dwelling units, with one exception in favour of Hotels and Beach Resorts but only in vacant plots in the said zone. of High Tide Line otherwise than the one specifically stated in the clauses (ii) and (iii) of the said notification and they are dwelling units, with one exception in favour of Hotels and Beach Resorts but only in vacant plots in the said zone. This Court held that Hotel construction would be permissible only in vacant plot of CRZ-III. This Court in the said judgment considered affidavit-in-reply filed by the Member Secretary, GCZMA stating that as per CRZ Notification 2011, State Government has to identify and map sand dunes, mangroves, Khazan Lands and prepare Management Plans for turtle nesting sites at Mandrem, Morjim, Galgibag and Agonda. 190. This Court in paragraph 20 of the said judgment held that this Court would accept the statement made by the Member Secretary, GCZMA as undertaking to this Court and find that they indicate that detailed site inspection and verification as required in the Hotel Policy, was yet not carried out and that exercise has been completed only for a particular period, then there is no question of any proposal or project being approved and permitted unless these steps and measures had been undertaken and completed. Division Bench of this Court accordingly disposed of the said writ petition by holding that it was premature and particularly when specific instances and specific projects which had allegedly been approved and permitted on account of the new policy, being not brought to the notice of this Court. This Court accordingly disposed of that petition as premature. In our view, Mr Mehta, learned senior counsel for the respondents is right in his submission that the said judgment delivered by the Division bench did not grant any liberty to challenge sanctioned plan of every matter as sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 191. In so far as the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.Maha Seer Hotel and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India through Secretary & Ors. delivered on 6th July 2009 in Writ Petition No.292 of 2009 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, this Court had refused to interfere in that writ petition on the ground that there was no dispute that open plots in CRZ-III zones available for construction of Hotels were not yet identified and the appropriate policy or regulation for utilization thereof had also not been formulated. This Court had directed in the earlier order dated 13th October 2006 passed in Writ Petitions bearing Nos.422 of 1998 and 99 of 1999 that till such exercise of identification of open plots in CRZ-III zone was carried out, no new license for any type of construction in CRZ-III zone shall be issued or granted and no new structure of whatsoever nature shall be allowed to be constructed in CRZ-III zone. In our view, the said judgment is not at all applicable to the facts of this case. After 2009, pursuant to the subsequent orders already referred to aforesaid passed by this Court, the authority has already identified the open plots in CRZ-III zones available for construction of Hotels having admeasuring area more than 4000 sq.mtrs. In our view, the said judgment of the Division Bench thus would not assist the case of the petitioners. 192. The petitioners have not disputed in this case that the respondent no.7 was granted NOC for the project by the respondent no.2 on 29th May 2015. The Additional Collector-I issued Conversion Sanad in favour of the respondent no.7 on 11th June 2015. The Deputy Town Planner issued a Technical Clearance Order dated 16th June 2015. The Health Officer, Community Health Centre, Pernem Goa granted NOC in favour of the respondent no.7 on 14th July 2015. The construction license/permission for the project was granted in favour of the respondent no.7 on 6th August 2015. The Executive Engineer, Work Division-I issued NOC in favour of the respondent no.7 on 7th September 2015. Various authorities granted other permissions from 11th December 2015 onwards from time to time. 193. On 25th October 2017, the respondent no.7 commenced construction of the project at the subject property. On 9th July 2018, the respondent no.7 revised the plans for the project by reducing the number of villas from 20 to 14 villas. The Deputy Town Planner issued a Technical Clearance Order dated 27th July 2018 for the Hotel Project subject to compliance of various conditions. On the date of hearing of this PIL writ petition by this Court, the respondent no.7 had claimed to have completed more than 80% of the construction of project site which fact was not disputed by the petitioners. It is not in dispute that PIL writ petition was filed only on 3rd April 2018. On the date of hearing of this PIL writ petition by this Court, the respondent no.7 had claimed to have completed more than 80% of the construction of project site which fact was not disputed by the petitioners. It is not in dispute that PIL writ petition was filed only on 3rd April 2018. There is gross delay on the part of the petitioners in filing this PIL writ petition. The petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs also on the ground of gross delay and latches on the part of the petitioners. 194. In so far as reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on Paragraphs (a) to (f) of CRZ Notification 2011 in support of her submission that no new construction shall be permitted except for the areas specified in Paragraphs (a) to (f) is concerned, in view of various provisions of the said CRZ Notification 2011 already having been interpreted by this Court in number of judgments and directing the authorities to identify the open plots admeasuring more than 4000 sq.mtrs. on which Hotels/Beach Resorts could be constructed and those authorities already having submitted a report before this Court identifying the plot of the respondent no.7 falling under that category and also falling in that settlement area, in our view, there is no substance in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 195. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no Management Plan has been prepared for protection of beach at Mandrem and Morjim is concerned, there is no dispute about this factual position. The Central Government in the Notification dated 18th January 2019 has already directed the concerned State or Union Territory Authority to prepare Coastal Zone Management Plan for protecting turtle nesting grounds. We are inclined to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that appropriate directions in this regard shall be issued to the State of Goa and the respondent no.2 to prepare such Coastal Zone Management Plan expeditiously. 196. We are inclined to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that appropriate directions in this regard shall be issued to the State of Goa and the respondent no.2 to prepare such Coastal Zone Management Plan expeditiously. 196. In our view, there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that without independently verifying the data or enquiring with the GCZMA and in the absence of information on this vital eco-sensitive aspect in its approval letter, MOEF & CC has simply presumed the information of the respondent no.7 to be correct and has granted CRZ Clearance for construction of the Hotel without application of mind. All the authorities have filed affidavits stating the distance of project site from turtle nesting site which is beyond the area on which no such Hotels/Beach Resorts are permitted. There is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that if any such recommendation is made by GCZMA, the project has to be re-examined by the EAC of the MOEF & CC as sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate with any document on record that the Hotel property of the respondent no.7 commenced approximately at High Tide Line and shared a boundary with Morjim beach. 197. In so far as the apprehension of the petitioners that once the Hotel Project is commenced at Morjim beach, the respondent no.7 will carry out prohibited activities within the area between 200-500 meters from High Tide Line is concerned, various terms and conditions are already imposed by the authorities while granting permission to carry out construction. If any breaches of any terms and conditions are committed by the respondent no.7, the authorities are empowered to take appropriate action against the respondent no.7 for such breaches. This Court cannot direct the authorities to take any action in anticipation on the premise that breaches may be committed in future. 198. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of breeding season or that turtles mate in the shallow waters and when the female is ready to lay her eggs, she crawls high up to the soft dry sands, digs a hole, lays her eggs etc. is concerned, there is no dispute about this factual aspect. 199. is concerned, there is no dispute about this factual aspect. 199. In so far as the apprehension of the petitioners that there are number of predators (humans and animals) who may destroy the eggs is concerned, a perusal of the record clearly indicates that the Forest Department as well as the concerned staff deployed by the respondent no.2 have already set up a hatchery duly fenced for protection of the eggs laid by Olive Ridley's Turtles. The entire area is already patrolled by the staff and also the locals. Be that as it may, the State Government while preparing Coastal Zone Management Plan for these beaches can provide additional number of staffs to be deployed for protecting the turtle nesting sites and for protection of eggs laid by Olive Ridley's Turtles, if required. 200. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that till the Management Plan is prepared by the authority, the question of granting any permission to the respondent no.7 for commencing of construction of Hotel Project is concerned, in our view, there is no substance in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Authorities having been satisfied with the existing conditions prescribed under various provisions of law including CRZ Notification have rightly granted various approvals to the respondent no.7. As and when any such Coastal Zone Management Plan is prepared by the respondent no.2, the same would apply to the construction to be carried out in future. There is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that measurement was not properly taken by the authority while submitting a report indicating the distance of the project site from Turtle nesting area or that method of the measurement was not correct. 201. In so far as the illustration in case of M/s.Club fresh relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the fact situation in the case of respondent no.7 is totally different. Be that as it may, sufficient safeguards for enforcement of various provisions of law are already provided in various approvals granted by the authorities in favour of the respondent no.7. 202. Be that as it may, sufficient safeguards for enforcement of various provisions of law are already provided in various approvals granted by the authorities in favour of the respondent no.7. 202. In so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hanuman Laxman Aroskar (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, a perusal of the said judgment indicates that Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines which shall be considered by the State of Goa and the authorities while providing various information and disclosure in all aspects. The said judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not apply to the facts of this case even remotedly. 203. In so far as the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Khedut Samaj (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, Gujarat High Court has set aside the impugned environmental clearance and CRZ clearance and remanded the matter back to the authority on the ground that the Forest Department itself had filed a complaint against the applicant and had issued the so called notice. The facts before the Gujarat High Court in that matter were totally different and are clearly distinguishable in the facts of this case. 204. In so far as the order passed by the National Green Tribunal in the case of Sreeranganathan K.P. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the said order of National Green Tribunal is not binding on this Court. Even otherwise paragraphs 153, 154 and 187 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not assist the case of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever. 205. In so far as the issue as to whether the settlement area is defined or not, this Court has already dealt with this issue in great detail in the judgment of this Court referred to aforesaid. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is contrary to the view already taken in the said judgment. 206. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners tendered a copy of the Newsletter in Goa Times with heading "Rescue Team on Vigil in Hatching Season." Even the said news item with photograph clearly indicates that hatchery at Morjim beach is well guarded. 206. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners tendered a copy of the Newsletter in Goa Times with heading "Rescue Team on Vigil in Hatching Season." Even the said news item with photograph clearly indicates that hatchery at Morjim beach is well guarded. Various contact numbers are provided to report a live stranded marine animal or carcass. The locals and tourists are not allowed to get close or touch the nests, lest they disturb the process. There are various guards deployed by the Forest Department to regularly patrol the area around Morjim until Mandrem. The entire beach stretch is monitored for 24 hours. The learned counsel for the petitioners herself has relied upon the said report appeared in Goa Times. 207. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that recently, the National Green Tribunal imposed penalty of Rs.One crore on the GCZMA for its lackadaisical attitude towards illegal constructions in the No Development Zone of the turtle nesting beaches is concerned, since the said matter is subjudice before the National Green Tribunal, we do not propose to make any comment on the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, if any, at this stage. 208. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that only four forest guards patrol the full stretches (4 ½ km) of the two beaches to monitor the turtle nesting is concerned, GCZMA shall consider this aspect while preparing Coastal Zone Management Plan for Mandrem and Morjim beaches. In so far as the issue as to whether Morjim beach is designated as CRZ-I except for the settlement which is CRZ-III is concerned, this issue is already concluded in the orders passed by this Court which are referred to aforesaid. The report submitted by the authorities pursuant to the orders passed by this Court clearly indicates that the plot of the respondent no.7 falls in the settlement area. 209. In so far as the apprehension of the petitioners that the respondent no.7 may apply for change in the plan by invoking Section 16B of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act,1974 is concerned, that apprehension is without any basis. If any application for any such change is made, the authority would decide such application on its own merit. 209. In so far as the apprehension of the petitioners that the respondent no.7 may apply for change in the plan by invoking Section 16B of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act,1974 is concerned, that apprehension is without any basis. If any application for any such change is made, the authority would decide such application on its own merit. There is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Beach Carrying Capacity Report cannot be considered as an independent assessment on the ground that the said report is based on the data provided to it by the Forest Department. The appeal filed by the Hotel owner in the case of the Hotel Marbela is admittedly pending. Since the facts of that case are not brought to the notice of this Court, this Court cannot take cognizance of the said order passed by the authority directing the authority to demolish the said structure. In this case, there was no ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioners since the date of filing of the petition. The gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in filing the petition and the fact that in view of there being no injunction, the respondent no.7 has completed substantial part of the construction, this Court is not inclined to revoke any of the permissions granted to the respondent no.7 at this stage. Be that as it may, no case is made out by the petitioners for revocation of any such approval granted in favour of the respondent no.7 as prayed. 210. We appreciate the assistance provided by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of hearing of this PIL Writ Petition to enable us to determine the issue of public importance in this matter. 211. We therefore pass the following order :- (i) Prayer clauses (a) and (b) are rejected. 210. We appreciate the assistance provided by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of hearing of this PIL Writ Petition to enable us to determine the issue of public importance in this matter. 211. We therefore pass the following order :- (i) Prayer clauses (a) and (b) are rejected. (ii) PIL Writ Petition No.4 of 2018 is dismissed subject to the following directions to the respondent nos.2 and 4 :- (A) to prepare Coastal Zone Management Plan for protecting turtle nesting ground in compliance with the Notification dated 18th January 2019 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act,1986 in respect of the Mandrem and Morjim beaches within three months from the date of this judgment; (B) to consider various restrictions already imposed in the Notification published in the Official Gazette dated 27th January 2017 regarding "Tourism Policy for erection of Temporary Seasonal Structures, Beach Shacks/huts and others 2016-19" and conditions prescribed in the provisional Management Plan already prepared for Conservation and Protection of Turtle Nesting Sites at Galgibag Village Beach area in Canacona Taluka, South Goa District, Goa while preparing Coastal Zone Management Plan ; (C) to consider deployment of additional Forest Guards or adequate and suitable number of staff for patrolling the full stretches of Mandrem and Morjim beaches and; (D) also to consider the observations made by this Court in this judgment. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs.