IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 782 OF 2009 SHRI EKNATH SONU KANOLKAR ... Petitioner Versus GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (GCZMA) THROUGH MEMBER SECRETARY AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 20th November, 2009 ORAL ORDER This Petition takes exception to the Order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority in exercise of the powers under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act 1986, by which Order, it has been ordered that the structure admeasuring 76.82 square metres be demolished. 2. The instant Petition has a chequered history since the year 2003 when the first show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner. The said show cause notice resulted in filing of a proceeding by the Petitioner resulting in withdrawal of the first show cause notice and issuance of a second show cause notice which was issued on 24.09.2004, wherein the description of the offending structure has been set out. It has been mentioned in the said show cause notice that the offending structure admeasures 76.82 square metres. Indubitably, the said structure has been constructed within the CRZ-I and within 200 metres of the High Tide Line which is a No Development Zone as per the notification issued by the Government of India. 3. The second show cause notice came to be challenged by the Petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 67/2006, which came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by Order dated 06.07.2006, directing the Authorities to furnish the Petitioner with the documents, namely the report of the Dy. Collector, Bardez, the panchanama and the Resolution no. 9 dated 09.01.2004, which were sought for by the Petitioner. In so far as the present Petition is concerned, what is relevant is that it has been specifically mentioned in the said Order dated 06.07.2006 that the offending structure is 76.82 square metres. By the said Order, the Petitioner was also granted time to file additional reply to the said show cause notice. The Petitioner was accordingly furnished with the documents and the Petitioner filed the additional reply. Thereafter, the matter was kept for hearing before the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority on two occasions on 23.03.2007 and thereafter, on 12.04.2007, notices of which were sent to the Petitioner by registered post AD, which notices were returned with the endorsement "unclaimed". The Petitioner did not remain present and, therefore, did not participate in the said hearing. The Authority, therefore, by Order dated 27.07.2007, directed the Petitioner to demolish the structure. 4. The said Order dated 27.07.2007 was challenged by the Petitioner by filing Writ Petition no. 438/2007 on the ground that the Order passed was without affording him an opportunity of personal hearing in the matter. This Court by Order dated 08.10.2007, was pleased to remand the matter for a fresh hearing. Accordingly, a fresh show cause notice dated 15.10.2007 was issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed an additional reply to the said show cause notice and the matter was kept for hearing on 20.02.2008. Though the Petitioner was served with the notice of the hearing for the said date, he did not choose to remain present for the said hearing. The Authority considered the reply and the documents produced by the Petitioner as also reply of the Gram Panchayat were considered and the Authority reached, a conclusion that the documents produced by the Petitioner were fabricated so as to show the existence of the structures prior to 19.02.1991 i.e. the date on which the CRZ notification came into force. The Authority, therefore, directed the demolition of the Petitioner's structure by the impugned Order dated 15.12.2008 5. Though the said Order was passed on 15.12.2008, the said Order is sought to be implemented almost after a period of one year and by notice dated 05.11.2009, which has been received by the Petitioner, it is intimated to the Petitioner that the demolition is to take place on 20.11.2009 i.e. today. Why the said demolition Order is sought to be implemented after such a delay, is the question which begs an answer. 6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Petitioner has failed to prove that the said offending structure existed prior to the cut-of date i.e. 19.02.1991. Since the said structure is in the CRZ area and in the No Development Zone, which is 200 metres from the High Tide Line, the same cannot be tolerated. 7. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the dimensions mentioned in the said Order do not total to the area of 76.82 square metres mentioned in the Order and the show cause notice and, therefore, the Authorities are not sure as to the area which is to be demolished and, on the said ground, the Order is vitiated. In the teeth of the litigation which has taken place earlier between the parties and in the teeth of the specific recording in the Order dated 15.12.2008, the area of the offending structure is explicitly clear. The said submission on behalf of the Petitioner is nothing but a last ditch attempt to stall the demolition of the unauthorized structure. 8. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*