IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 898 OF 2011 IN SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2007 SHRI VIKRANT PUNDALIK MALVANKAR ... Applicant Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 44 ORS., ... Respondents Mrs. N. Alvares, Amicus Curiae in SMWP No.2/2007. Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. M. Salkar, Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1, 3 to 6. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr.D. Lawande, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. D. Shirodkar, Advocate for respondent no. 25. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE & U. V. BAKRE, JJ. Date:- 15th November, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1, 3 to 6, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Advocate for respondent no. 2, Mr. D. Shirodkar, Advocate for respondent no. 25 and Mrs. N. Alvares, Amicus Curiae. 2. Applicant desires to construct a single dwelling unit i.e house for residential purpose. The applicant was not given construction licence by respondent no. 25 because of the orders passed by this Court and the directions given to several village panchayats and that is the reason why respondent no. 25 has refused to consider the application seeking permission to construct a dwelling house filed by the applicant. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 18.10.2011, the applicant has approached respondent no.2. According to Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 2, the site has been inspected by respondent no.2 and it has been found that composting unit at plot no. 28 in survey no. 206/part 1 wherein the applicant wants to construct a dwelling house is as per prevalent norms and having adequate capacity for treatment of Biodegradable waste for the proposed residential establishment. However, the applicant has been directed to ensure that necessary measures are implemented so as to prevent leachate from the composting unit from flowing beyond the premises of his establishment. According to Mr. Nadkarni, NOC is subject to an order that may be passed by this Court. 3. Mr. Mulgaokar, learned Advocate has placed on record copy of the communication dated 10.11.2011 issued by respondent no.2 granting conditional NOC. The same is taken on record. 4. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the application made by the applicant seeking permission to grant construction licence deserves to be considered by respondent no. 25 subject to the compliance of directions given by respondent no. 2 provided that all other permissions and NOCs are obtained by the applicant. Therefore, respondent no. 25 to consider the application made by the applicant in terms of the plan and applicable Rules within a period of three weeks. 5. The application stands disposed of. A. P. LAVANDE, J. U. V. BAKRE, J. vn