1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Writ Petition No. 500 of 2009 1. M/S Total Composite Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, through its Director Shri K.V.S. Krishna Kumar, residing at Alto-Betim, Bardez,Goa. 2. Shri K.V.S. Krishna Kumar, son of late K. Venkata Raju, major of age, residing at Alto-Betim, Bardez, Goa. … Petitioners V e r s u s 1. State of Goa, Through the Secretary Environment, Secretariat, Panaji-Goa. 2. Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India, Paryavaran Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, through its Member Secretary, Department of Science, Technology & Environment, Opp. Saligao Seminary, Saligao, Bardez, Goa. 2 4. The Chief Town Planner, with office at Dempo Towers, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa. 5. V.P. of Varca, through its Sarpanch, with office at Varca, Salcete, Goa. 6. Goa Foundation, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, through its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares, and having its registered office at Room 7, Above Mapusa Clinic, Mapusa, Goa …Respondents Mr. J. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Braganza, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. S. Mordekar, Addln. Govt. Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4. Ms. Norma Alvares, Advocate for Respondent No. 6. Coram: S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. Date: 20 th June, 2011. 3 ORAL JUDGMENT (per S.A. BOBDE, J): Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. After hearing the matter for sometime, we find that the State of Goa in its affidavit dated 20-06-2011 has stated that the GCZMA can consider the petitioner's application in accordance with law and in accordance with identification of open plots made and also as per the policy framed by GCZMA/Government. 3. Mr. Kantak, learned Advocate General for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4, states that the Authority will also hear respondent no. 6 in the present case. 4. We make it clear that the process of granting or refusing the petitioner's application shall not be delayed at the instance of respondent no. 6. Hence, by consent of the 4 parties, it is directed that the respondents shall consider the petitioner's application for permission and decide it within a period of eight weeks from today, in accordance with law. 5. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. S. A. BOBDE, J. F. M. REIS, J. Ev