IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 17 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 608 OF 2006 JOAO C. PEREIRA ... Petitioner Versus GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, AND OTHERS ... Respondents Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for the Respondents. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Applicant in M.C.A. No.329 of 2008. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 26th June, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. V. Menezes, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the Respondents. This petition is filed for disobedience of the Order of this Court dated 15-1-2007 in Writ Petition No.608 of 2006. It appears that the said Writ Petition was filed against the Order of Respondent No.1 dated 21-8-2006. By the said Order, Respondent No.1 had directed Respondent No.4 in the petition, who has sought intervention in this petition, to remove, inter alia, (1) the construction of two unauthorized structures on the 10 meters wide access shown on the plan, (2) barbed wire fencing poles and piled up wall of rubbles on the 10 meters wide access(on the western side of the property), (3) water logging of the 10 meters access due to improper drainage facility and blocking of the traditional water way and (4) disturbance of sand dune and dumping of the sand on the adjoining field. When the petition was taken up before the learned Division Bench of this Court, the following order was passed:- "The learned Counsel representing respondent no. 4 states that the unauthorized structure has already been removed. That is disputed by the petitioner. The learned Counsel representing respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 acquired with the Order dated 21-8-2006 and states that if the structure is not removed the same will be removed within a period of four weeks from today. With this statement, the learned Counsel withdraws the petition.Petition dismissed as withdrawn". Mr. Rivonkar, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the Respondents states that there is a 10 meter wide road available at site and the two unauthorized structures have been removed since then. Mr. Menezes disputes the existence of clear 10 meters wide road. The Petitioner has filed an affidavit today and has placed certain photographs on record. It may be stated that the Order dated 15-1-2007 contemplated the removal of the structures alone and it was directed that in case they were not removed the same would be removed within a period of four weeks from the date of the Order. It is on that undertaking that the Writ Petition No.608 of 2006 was withdrawn. It is certainly not the case of the Petitioner today that the said structures have not been removed as undertaken before the learned Division Bench by the Respondent No.4, on 15-1-2007. The grievances made by the Petitioner are other than those relating to either the existence of 10 meters wide road or the existence of the two structures thereon. In the light of the above, I am of the prima facie view that no contempt has been committed of the said order of the learned Division Bench. Petition dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.