1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2011 Mr. Agnelo Fernandes …. Appellant. V/s Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority and another. …. Respondents. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. A. Kakodkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. A. Agni, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : MOHIT SHAH, CJ & F.M. REIS, J. Date : 8th September, 2011. P.C. :- This appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the Order dated 6th April, 2011 of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant principally on the ground that the writ petition was filed beyond the period of six weeks within which the petitioner was required to file the writ petition, as per order of 2 another Division Bench of this Court dated 5th July, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No.313 of 2009 and also on the ground of delay in filing the petition, because the impugned order was passed on 25/11/2008, but the Writ Petition was filed on 24/8/2010. 2. Respondent No.1 herein passed the order dated 25.11.2008 requiring the petitioner to demolish certain structures, on the ground of violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991. Respondent No.2 herein filed Writ Petition No.313 of 2009 on 6th March, 2009, praying for enforcement and implementation of the said order dated 25.11.2008. The present appellant is joined as the sixth respondent in the said writ petition which is in the nature of a public interest litigation. In the course of hearing of that writ petition, by an order dated 5th July, 2010, the Division Bench of this Court made the following observations : “ We find that the sixth respondent has not challenged the order dated 25th November, 2008 passed by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA). By way of an interim relief, we direct the 3 sixth respondent to comply with the order dated 25th November, 2008 within a period of six weeks from today. This interim relief is without prejudice to the right of the sixth respondent of challenging the order dated 25th November, 2008, in accordance with law. The GCZMA will verify whether the compliance has been made with the order dated 25th November, 2008 within a period of six weeks from today and will place a report on record to that effect.” 3. The petition giving rise to the present appeal came to be filed on 24.08.2010. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner filed the writ petition beyond the period of six weeks stipulated in the order dated 5th July, 2010 of this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the time limit stipulated in the aforesaid order of this Court could not be treated as the period of limitation prescribed by the statute and, therefore, merely because there was a delay of one week beyond the six weeks period granted by the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed 4 the writ petition on that ground. 5. As regards the finding of delay in filing the writ petition after the impugned order was passed on 25.11.2008, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that since, according to the petitioner (appellant herein) some of the directions given in the said order dated 25.11.2008 were complied with and the other structures, according to the petitioner were regularized, the petitioner was not required to challenge the said order dated 25.11.2008. However, the controversy was raised in Writ Petition No. 313/2009 about the correct interpretation of the said order dated 25.11.2008, and it became necessary for the petitioner to file the writ petition, giving rise to the present appeal. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no delay in filing the writ petition. 6. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 have supported the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that we find that there is substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner (appellant herein) that the writ petition was not required to be 5 dismissed on the ground of delay i.e. either for the delay of one week beyond the period indicated in the order dated 25.11.2008 or for the delay in filing the writ petition. The explanation given by the appellant/petitioner is quite plausible and ought to have been accepted. The impugned order under appeal deserves to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be heard on merits. We, however, make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the controversy between the parties and the learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition will hear and decide all the contentions, in accordance with law, without being influenced by this order. All contentions are kept open. Subject to the above clarification, the the Order dated 6th April, 2011 of the learned Single Judge is set aside and Writ Petition No. 630 of 2010 is remitted to the learned Single Judge for deciding it in accordance with law. CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE ssm.