IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 711 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 245 OF 2007 MR. COLLIN CURRY AND 8 ORS., ... Applicants Versus GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, THROUGH ITS MEMBER SECRETARY AND 6 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate with Mr. P. S. Rao, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent nos. 1, 4 & 7. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 and 3. Mr. M. S. Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati Kamat, Advocate for Respondent no.5. Coram:- P. B. MAJMUDAR & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 19th January, 2009 P.C. By filing this application, the applicants, who are the original Petitioners in the Writ Petition, have prayed that in view of the subsequent events, it is necessary to amend the Writ Petition by adding certain grounds in the original Writ Petition as well as in the prayer clause. This Writ Petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation wherein the Petitioners challenge the non-action on the part of various authorities in not taking action against Respondent no.5 for removing illegal construction of a large dimension, including construction of the Jetty. It is pointed out that subsequently show cause notice was issued by the Panchayat and the Panchayat passed an Order of demolition, which Order is challenged before Director of Panchayat. It is submitted that the Director of Panchayat granted six months time to the Respondent no.5 to obtain permission to regularize the illegal construction. It is, therefore, submitted that as the Writ Petition is filed on the ground of encroachment, necessary amendment as sought for may be granted. 2. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, except for Respondent no.5, have no objection if the amendment is granted. However, learned Counsel for Respondent no.5 submitted that Respondent no.5 has already moved the Single Judge challenging the decision of the Panchayat by way of filing a Writ Petition. 3. In our view, since the principal grievance is regarding illegal construction carried out by respondent no.5 and as the Public Interest Litigation is filed challenging the same, the subsequent Order of the Panchayat has some relevance so far as the Writ Petition is concerned. It is not necessary to go into details regarding the facts of the case, but, suffice it to say that the entire controversy is required to be examined in this Public Interest Litigation regarding illegal construction and whether the same is in violation of the Coastal Regulations. In our view, the amendment prayed for by the Petitioner is required to be granted. This Misc. Civil Application is accordingly allowed and the Petitioner is permitted to add the grounds sought for in the amendment application as well as the prayer clause. The amendment to be carried out within a period of one week from today and the amended copy to be handed over to the Respondents. In the meanwhile, reply to the amended Petition may be submitted before this Court. 4. Misc. Civil Application is disposed off. Writ Petition no. 245/07 be placed for admission on 04.02.2009. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. arp/*