1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Writ Petition No. 390 of 2010 1. M/s Sardessai Engineering Works, a registered partnership firm through its managing partner Shri Prakash Balkrishna Sardessai, with office at Madant Cortalim, Mormugao Goa 2. Shri Prakash Balkrishna Sardessai son of late Balkrishna V. Sardessai 69 years old, businessman, residing at Naguesh Prasad, Madant, Cortalim Mormugao Goa. ... Petitioners V e r s u s 1. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, through its Member Secretary, with his office at Opposite Saligao Seminary, Post Office Saligao Bardez Goa. ... Respondent 2 Mr. V.P. Thali, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. M. Salkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 19th October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. Thali, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Salkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent. 2. Rule. By consent of the learned Counsel, rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners challenge orders dated 27th February, 2009 and 25th March, 2010 by which petitioners have been directed to remove the illegal reclamation and mud filling over an area of 3155 square metres carried out in River Zuari adjacent to property 3 bearing survey No. 30/1 of Cortalim village. 4. The petitioners were issued show cause notice dated 9th May, 2007 by the respondent alleging that the petitioners had carried out reclamation of land of 10 metres by dumping clay in the River Zuari adjacent to property under survey No. 30/1 of Cortalim village within 100 metres from the High Tide Line. The petitioners showed cause by filing reply. 5. The respondent by order dated 27th February, 2009 directed the petitioners to remove illegal reclamation and mud filling in survey No. 30/1, over an area of 3150 square metres within 20 days. The petitioners sought review of said order. The petitioners also filed Writ Petition No. 101/10 which was disposed of with direction to the respondent to pass order after hearing the petitioners. Thereafter the respondent passed order dated 4 25th March, 2010 virtually maintaining the earlier order. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for parties, I am of considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed on a short ground. The show cause notice issued by the respondent alleged that the petitioners had illegally reclaimed of land to the extent of 10 metres, whereas in the final order passed, excess area which are reclaimed are 3150 and 3155 square metres respectively. The respondent ought to have given proper show cause notice to the petitioners and the petitioners ought to have been informed that they had reclaimed area to the extent of 3150 and 3155 square metres respectively. Therefore, impugned orders are liable and set aside. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 27th February, 2009 and 25th March, 2010 passed by respondent are quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Salkar, learned Additional Government 5 Advocate states that the respondent shall give proper show cause notice for carrying out reclamation in River Zuari within a period of one month. The statement is accepted. The respondent shall issue proper show cause notice as stated and shall proceed to pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioners within a period of three months from today. 8. Writ Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. Lavande, J. Ev