IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PANAJI APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 414 OF 2007 Shri Lawrence D'souza ] aged 32, Occupation Business ] Resident of House No. 440/1, ] Junaswada, Mandrem, ] Pernaem-Goa ].....Petitioner V e r s u s 1. State of Goa, ] through its Chief Secretary, ] with office at Secretariat, ] Porvorim – Goa ] 2. The Goa Coastal Zone ] Management Authority ] through it's Member Secretary ] with office at Department of ] Science and Technology and ] Environment, Opposite Saligao ] Seminary, P. O. Saligao ] Bardez – Goa ] 3. The Village Panchayat ] through its Sarpanch with office ] at Panchayat Building, Mandrem, ] Taluka Pernem, Goa ].....Respondents Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Respondent No.3. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 3 rd April, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. Unfortunately, the GCZMA has again not applied its mind properly to the question whether the Petitioner's structure is saved under the C.R.Z. or not. Earlier, GCZMA passed an order which was set aside by this court because GCZMA had failed to properly consider the Agreement of Sale, which is of the year 1985, and had made an incorrect observations about the Schedule to the Agreement. The GCZMA had stated that there was no house shown in the Schedule, whereas in fact it turned out that the house is shown in the Schedule. This court therefore set aside that order and remanded the matter back to the GCZMA. 3. After remand, the GCZMA had passed an order in which it has failed to consider an entry from the proceeding book of the Village Panchayat, Mandrem. An entry dated 30th October, 1983 shows that the petitioner's father was granted permission to repair House No. 440/1 on Survey No. 267/24/25. According to the petitioner this permission for repair is in respect of the same house which was obviously in existence at that time. One cannot see reason as to why the GCZMA had failed to consider this entry which is obviously relevant. There is no dispute that this entry was produced before the said Authority. 4. In this view of the matter, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the GCZMA for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. Writ petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Costs to be paid by the GCZMA - Respondent No.2. Rule made absolute accordingly. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) skc