IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 595 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 403 OF 2007 PEOPLE'S MOVEMENT FOR CIVIC ACTION THROUGH GENERAL SECRETARY AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus GOA COSTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND 6 ORS., ... Respondents Ms. Norma Alvares, Advocate for the applicants. Ms. R. Chodankar, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents no.1, 3 and 4. Mr. J. Vaz, Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent no.5. Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the respondents no.6 and 7. Coram:- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 5th August, 2008 P.C. Perused the Misc. application and the annexures thereto including the order dated 10.07.2008. In our view the amendment application deserves to be granted in as much as the challenge to the further orders passed on 30.10.2007, even if permitted to be made subject matter of independent proceedings would only add to multiplicity. Earlier writ petition is in public interest and the petitioners have raised the issues with regard to Coastal Zone Management in Goa. Interest of justice would be served if the petitioners are permitted to amend the petition in terms of the schedule annexed to the Misc. Application. Mr. Sonak appearing on behalf of the respondents no.6 and 7 has opposed the application for amendment. In his submission the order passed in this writ petition at the earlier stage is subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition is likely to be taken up for admission/ hearing. In such circumstances, the amendment application should not be entertained and granted. Second reason is that the matter was fixed on 07.08.2008, yet, the Misc. Application is mentioned and the date is preponed although there is no urgency. We are unable to see any substance in this submission. The cause of action in the petition which is already filed, is not being altered. In this case for effective and complete adjudication of the controversy, it is necessary and in the interest of justice that the amendment is permitted. The Court has already noted the controversy in the order passed on 10.07.2008. In such circumstances, we see no prejudice to the respondents no.6 and 7 if the amendment be permitted. Misc. Application is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). Amendment to be carried out within one week. Copy of the amended petition be given to the respondents within two weeks. Affidavit-in-reply to the amendment be filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the amended copy. Liberty to apply after the amended petition is served on the respondents. In addition to the amendment in the schedule, the petitioners are at liberty to add the National Coastal Zone Management Authority as party respondent. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. R.C. CHAVAN, J. lh/.