1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT EPTITION NO. 294 OF 2010 Mrs. Lucilee D'Souza, House no.7/5, Sauntavaddo, Calangute, Bardez, Goa. … Petitioner V e r s u s 1. Union of India, through the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Department of Environment, Forests and Wildlife, Government of India, having its registered office at Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003, INDIA. 2. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority through its Member Secretary C/o Department of Science, Technology and Environment, Government of Goa, Opp. Saligao Seminary, P.O. Saligao, Bardez, Goa – 403 511. … Respondents And Mr. Ravindra Jana, Mainam Bhatti, Arpora, Bardez-Goa. …. Intervenor 2 Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. Lawande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.C. Ferriera, Assitant Solicitor General for respondent no.1. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent no.2. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 27th January,2011. JUDGMENT: By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 25/3/2010 passed by respondent no.2 dismissing the review application dated 20/11/2009 filed by the petitioner. Several contentions which have been urged in the petition need not be dealt with since the petition can be disposed of on a short point. 2. According to Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 25/3/2010, respondent no.2 did not give any hearing to the petitioner. 3 3. According to Mr. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.2 and Mr. Dessai, learned advocate for the intervenor it was not necessary for the respondent no.2 to give personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 25/3/2011. 4. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 25/3/2010 deserves to be quashed and set aside on the short ground that the petitioner who was entitled to be heard before disposing of the review application dated 20/11/2009 by respondent no.2 was not heard in the matter. Since civil rights of the petitioner were affected by the order dated 3/11/2009, it was necessary for respondent no.2 to give a hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. On this ground alone the impugned order deserves to be quashed 4 and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. 5. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. 6. In the result, therefore, the impugned order dated 25/3/2010 passed by the respondent no.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondent no.2 is directed to give hearing to the petitioner either personally or through her advocate and thereafter pass order on the application dated 20/11/2009 in accordance with law. 7. The petitioner to appear before respondent no.2 on 11/2/2011 at 11 a.m. for directions. The Respondent no.2 shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously and any case on or before 30th March, 2011. All the objections of the petitioner including the intervention of the intervenor in this petition are kept open. 5 Certified copy expedited. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-