IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 327 OF 2008 MR. FRANCIS BRITTO ... Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Salkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Coram:- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 23rd July, 2008 P.C. The only contesting respondent is the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA). The petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2 have been heard through their Counsel. Presence of respondent No.3 is not necessary for disposal of this petition. This position is not disputed by the Counsel appearing for the parties. With their consent, the petition is taken up and disposed of finally. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the GCZMA has not granted permission to the petitioner to reconstruct Houses No.922 and 923 situate on Survey No. 124/1 of the subject Village. The case of the petitioner is that house No.923 is about 100 years old and is in dilapidated condition. It is beyond repairs and requires reconstruction/remodelling. The necessary application, along with required documents were forwarded to both, the GCZMA and the Panchayat, but the grievance is that both the authorities have not taken cognizance of this application. On the other hand, the GCZMA has informed the petitioner that in the light of certain directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 422/98 and Writ Petition No.99/99, which have been decided on 13.10.2006, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. 3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for both sides, we have perused the petition and annexures thereto, including the letter of the GCZMA dated 7.1.2008 (Annexure 'C'). The letter does not refuse the permission as sought, but points out to the petitioner that the request for repair/renovation of the existing house subject to the plinth size remaining the same can be considered and site inspection would be carried out by the Authority's Members and thereafter, the matter can be put up for approval in the meeting of the Authority. The petitioner was directed to contact the Office of the Authority in the event he desires to undertake repairs/renovations, for clarification/amendment, if necessary, to his application. 4. After the matter was argued for sometime, the petitioner's Counsel agreed that the petitioner would have to approach the GCZMA and he would do so with a proper application, seeking necessary approvals/permissions for reconstruction/repairs to the existing house and such an application would be made within a period of two weeks from today. The application would be accompanied by necessary and relevant documents, including reports of the surveyor and architect. Upon such an application being received, the GCZMA states that it would process the same and pass necessary orders within a period of two months from the date of its receipt. 5. While disposing of this petition on the basis of statements, we express no opinion on the merits of the request or the interpretation as placed by the petitioner and the Authority. All aspects, as far as these matters are concerned, are kept open. Petition is disposed of. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. R.C. CHAVAN, J. ssm.