IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WP NO. 19 OF 2011 MR. ROQUE PINTO AND 2 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 7 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3, 6 to 8. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for respondent No.4. Ms. Armin Wandrewala with Mr. A. Vani and Ms. A. Pereira, Advocates for respondent No.5. Coram:- D. G. KARNIK & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 24th August, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioners raise two grievances. The first grievance raised in the petition is that respondent No.5 is carrying out construction contrary to the provisions of Section 17A of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act 1974 (for short "the Town Planning Act") inasmuch as respondent No.5 is doing hill cutting for the purpose of construction. The Counsel for respondent No.5 pointed out that earlier a writ petition being Public Interest Litigation WP No.10 of 2011 was filed by the very petitioners making the very grievance and the same has been disposed of by an order dated 24th March, 2011. The Counsel submitted that in view thereof, the second petition raising the very same grievance at the instance of the very same parties is not maintainable. We find considerable force in the contention of the learned Counsel for respondent No.5. 2. In addition thereto, respondent No.5 has made a statement before this Court on the very first day when this petition was called out i.e. on 5th May, 2011, that respondent No.5 is not undertaking any hill cutting work presently at the site. The statement was accepted. Since the statement used the word "presently", we direct respondent No.5 not to carry out any hill cutting, without prior permission, if required by law. 3. The second contention of the petitioners is that the permission has been granted by the G.I.D.C.-respondent No.4 in violation of the provisions of Clause 14.3.2 as contained in the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010 (for short "Building Regulations"). Clause 14.3.2 of the Building Regulations provides that roof top rain water harvesting for storage and reuse shall be mandatory for all public buildings with built up area of more than 1,000 sq. metres, institutional building complexes with total built up area of more than 1,000 sq. metres, and also in private buildings of more than 20 dwelling units. Sarmistha De, authorised signatory of respondent No.5, in affidavit-in-reply dated 4th August, 2011, in this regard has stated : " The file was placed before the High Power Co-ordination Committee (HPCC) and the HPCC approved the scheme prepared by the Comprehensive Water Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd.(CWMS) which report is in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the Central Ground Water Board, Ministry of Water Resources. It is clear from the Minutes of the meeting of the HPCC dated 1 December, 2010 that the scheme submitted has been and is being widely practiced in the neighbouring States of Gujarat & Maharashtra and recognized by the Central Water Board and International Water Management Institute. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit '1' is a copy of the said scheme. On 2 November, 2010, the authorised signatory of these Respondents on behalf of the Respondents also gave an Affidavit cum Undertaking that they would refrain from drawing water from the ground water recharge area; would arrange for water from other sources and that they would implement rain water harvesting and ground water recharging at the said plot. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit '2' is a copy of the said Affidavit cum Undertaking dated 2 November, 2010." Respondent No.5 has also annexed to the affidavit a copy of the report regarding rain water harvesting prepared by CWMS. 4. In the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioners they have only stated that there is nothing on record to show that the rain water harvesting project of respondent No.5 was approved by the Water Resources Department, Government of Goa. No provision, however, is cited before us to show that the report is required to be approved by the Water Resources Department, Government of Goa. Indeed, the Rules do not make it mandatory that the provisions regarding rain water harvesting must be approved by the Water Resources Department, Government of Goa. In any event, whether the provision for rain water harvesting made by respondent No.5 is inadequate and not in accordance with Clause 14.3.2 of the Building Regulations, is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are at liberty to file a suit to prove their contention. 5. No other point was urged. There is no merit in the writ petition which is, hereby, rejected. D. G. KARNIK, J. F. M. REIS, J. ssm.