IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WP NO. 14 OF 2010 GOA FOUNDATION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY , DR. CLAUDE ALVARES ... Petitioner Versus GOA CRICKET ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANR., ... Respondents Mrs. Norma Alvares, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Naik, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. P. Talaulikar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 29th March, 2011 P.C.:- This Public Interest Litigation has been initiated to seek a writ or order directing the respondents to restore the land to its original status and for quashing and setting aside the No Objection Certificates dated 26/11/2010 and 2/12/2010. It is not disputed before us that Writ Petition No.321/2010 was filed by the very petitioner to challenge the approvals granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests for diversion of 44,000 sq. metres of forest land at Tivim Village for construction of commercial facilities connected with the development of the cricket stadium, which is proposed to be constructed by Goa Cricket Association-Respondent No.1, on the ground that the approvals granted for diversion of the forest land to no-forestry purpose are not in consonance with the guidelines laid down while implementing the Environment Protection Act. 2. In that Writ Petition, certain directions were issued and in addition, liberty was granted to the Petitioner to make a representation pertaining to some of the grievances. 3. In all fairness, now our attention is invited to the order passed on 12th August, 2010 and the representation made in pursuance thereof. 4. The Petition was filed in this Court on 23rd December, 2010 and the Petitioner has amended the Petition thereafter by pointing out that a precautionary letter was addressed on 6th December, 2010 to Respondent No.3, drawing his attention to the order of this Court and thereafter Respondent No.3 wrote to respondent No.1 imposing condition that the tree felling is agreed subject to compliance of the order passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition. Further the petitioner has drawn attention of the Authorities to the EIA Notification and the undertaking given by Respondent No.1 and therefore prayed that the approvals ought to have been withdrawn. It is on this basis, it is stated that there is a fresh cause of action. However, it is also mentioned in the Petition that by a letter dated 3rd February, 2011, addressed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, to the Secretary (Forests), Government of Goa, it has been conveyed that the forest clearance earlier granted in favour of the Director of Sports & Youth Affairs is kept in abeyance till a decision is taken on the representation of Goa Foundation. It is the case of the Petitioner that this letter, therefore, puts the clearance on hold. 5. Our attention has also been invited to a letter dated 25th March, 2011, a copy of which is at page 185-Exhibit 24, written by Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority to Respondent No.1-Association and while referring to the application seeking prior environmental clearance for the entire project, the Authority has stated that after appraisal of the project on the basis of the documents and Conceptual Plan, as well as additional clarification furnished, the proposal for grant of environmental clearance for the proposed construction of the International Cricket Stadium has been scrutinised and condition at clause 3 entitled "General Conditions" and clause 4 entitled "Specific Conditions", were imposed. So also it refers to compliance with the approvals/clearance from the Statutory Authority concerned in the Government of Goa, Ministry of Environment and Forests or Government of India. Further it states that the compliance has to be made with the directives in the Order dated 12th August, 2010 in Writ Petition No.321/2010 and the present PIL Writ Petition No.14/2010. 6. It is stated by Ms. Alvares appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that both the communications which are subsequent to the institution of this writ petition sufficiently take care of the grievance of the Petitioner, which is filed in public interest. She states that, in the light of the conditions imposed, presently, there is no development at site. In these, circumstances, she submits that the Petition may be disposed of in the light of these communications/letters from the competent Authorities. 7. Having perused these letters and bearing in mind that there is no challenge thereto raised by Respondent No.1 Association, or that there is any occasion for the Petitioner to impugn them, we are of the opinion that this Petition, filed in public interest, can be disposed of in view of the contents of the letters dated 3rd February, 2011 and 25th March, 2011 (Exhibits 9 and R-25, respectively annexed to this Writ Petition). 8. Accordingly, we dispose of this Writ Petition, as these communications substantially take care of all grievances of the Petitioner and the Authorities have taken note of the Writ Petition filed in December, 2010. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. ssm.