1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9183 OF 2009 Armand N. Aga & Anr. ....Petitioners v. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Alibag & Ors. ....Respondents Ms. Gauri Godse, adv. for the Petitioners. Mr. V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the State. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 05, 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. Heard forthwith. 2 A show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioners on 26th August, 2009 contending that constructions put up by the petitioners on the land bearing survey nos.135/1, 140/2A, 140/3 admeasuring 798 sq.mtrs. situated at Village: Mauje Thal, Taluka: Alibag, District:Raigad was in violation of the provisions of Coastal Regulation Zone Regulations, Section 45 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and also the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (In short ‘M.R.T.P. Act’). This show-cause notice was issued by the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Show-cause notice also recites that the order was passed on the basis of the order passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 2 107/09 on August 20, 2009. 3 On behalf of the respondents, the learned counsel contends that the petitioner replied to show-cause notice, subsequent to which impugned order dated 28th October, 2009 came to be passed directing demolition of the construction under the provisions of the Environment Act, M.R.T.P. Act and the Land Revenue Code. 4 At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has effective and efficacious remedy available on this ground and this Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. 5 The first issue that we have to consider is whether the respondents/Sub-Divisional Officer is the authority, who can exercise jurisdiction under the provisions of M.R.T.P. Act and the Environment Act, Rules and Notifications issued thereunder. If he has no jurisdiction, the question of the said officer exercising jurisdiction under those Acts would not arise. The only issue would be the the provisions of the Land Revenue Code. According to the petitioner, they have deemed permission and that the issue has not been considered in the impugned order. 6 In the light of that following order: 3 i Impugned order dated 28th October, 2009 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.1 for re-consideration. ii Respondent no.1 to first consider whether he has jurisdiction under the provisions of the Environment Act, Rules and Notifications issued thereunder as also under the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act and decide the same as preliminary issues. If the answer is in the affirmative then decide the issue on merits. iii Respondent no.1 shall also independently decide the issue under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code and the contention raised by the petitioner that they have deemed permission. iv Entire action to be completed within three months from today after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of hearing. 7 Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)