IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 26 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 698 OF 2009 SHRI SACHIN SATARDEKAR ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. MICHAEL D'SOUZA AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. S. Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent no.1. Shri Y.V. Nadkarni, Advocate for Respondents nos.2 & 3. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 28th September, 2011 P.C.: Heard Shri H.D. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. S. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1 and Shri Y.V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for respondents nos.2 & 3. 2. The above contempt petition is filed on the ground that the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition bearing no.698/2009, wherein in view of a statement recorded on behalf of the respondents namely the Village Panchayat of Reis Magos as well as the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, both the Authorities were directed to dispose of the proceedings initiated by them within a period of eight weeks after giving M/s. High Street Cruises and Entertainment Private Limited as well as the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. But however, it is the contention of the petitioner that the Authorities failed to comply with the said directions for more than a year and, as such, the petitioner was forced to address letters to both such authorities pointing out about the directions issued by this Court and that they had violated such directions. As the respondents had not complied with the said directions within a period as recorded by this Court whilst disposing of the said petition, the petitioner has filed the above Contempt Petition. 3. In the affidavit filed by respondent no.2, who is the Sarpanch of the said Village Panchayat of Reis Magos she has tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology at para 12 for the lapse of the Panchayat not disposing of the proceedings within the stipulated period mentioned in the said order by this Court. The said respondent has further stated that final demolition order was issued on 21/07/2010. The reasons for the delay have also been explained. 4. The respondent no.3 has also filed an affidavit and at para 12 thereof has tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology for the delay in complying with the directions of this Court. The affidavit also gives reasons for the delay. The respondent no.1 has also tendered an affidavit and at para 3 thereof has stated that the lapse on his part was not intentional and accordingly tendered an unconditional apology to this Court. 5. There is no dispute that the said show cause notice came to be disposed of belatedly and not within the time as mentioned in the said order passed by this Court. 6. Considering the affidavits of the respondents who have given an unconditional apology and have further stated that they have no intentions of disobeying the orders passed by this Court, I find that the said apologies can be accepted and the above proceedings can, as such, be disposed of. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, upon instructions, have further stated that the respondents shall not commit such lapses in the future. 8. In the circumstances, accepting the apologies given by the respective respondents and accepting the said statements of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, the above Contempt Petition stands disposed of. Notice, if any, stands discharged. F. M. REIS, J. NH