1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 762 OF 2009. 1. Chicalim Villagers Action Committee through its Secretary, Rui M Costa Araujo, 118, Gina Chicalim, Goa 403 711 2. Goa Foundation, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, through its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares, and having its registered office at Room 7, Above Mapusa Clinic, Mapusa, Goa .. Petitioners Versus 1. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, through its Member Secretary, Saligao, Bardez, Goa 2. Mormugao Planning and Development Authority through its Member- Secretary, Commerce Centre, IInd Floor, Vasco da Gama. 3. State of Goa through its Chief Secretary Government of Goa, Secretariat, Porvorim,Goa 4. Chief Town Planner, Panaji, Goa. 5. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Forest Department, Gomantak Maratha Mandir, Panaji, Goa 6. Goa State Pollution Control Board through its Member Secretary, Dempo Towers, Patto, Panaji, Goa 7. Ministry of Environment & Forests, through its Secretary, 2 Paryavaan Bhavan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110 003. 8. M/s. Pinky Shipyard through its Director, Zorinto, Sancoale, Goa 403 510. 9. Sarpanch, V.P. Chicalim, Chicalim, Goa. 10. Chairman, Mormugao Port Trust, Mormugao, Goa. 11. Captain of Ports, Panaji, Goa .. Respondents. Mrs. Norma Alvares, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. P Talaulikar, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5 and 11. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the respondent No.6. Ms. A. Fernandes holing for Mr. V. Jaz, Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent No.7. Mr. H. Jagtiani, Senior advocate with Mr. E. O Mendes with Mr. S. Bhole, Advocates for the respondent No.8. Mr. Z. D'Souza, Advocate for the respondent No.9. Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, Advocate for the respondent No.10. CORAM :- S. J. VAZIFDAR & U. D. SALVI, JJ. DATE :- 29 th March, 2010. 3 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per S. J. Vazifdar, J.) Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. This is a public interest litigation. The petitioners have challenged the order quashing and setting aside clearance dated 3rd March, 2008 issued by the respondent No.1; the O.D.P. change to 'industrial' in respect of Survey No.153/1 and the N.O.C. granted by the Panchayat dated 23.09.2006. The petitioners have also sought an order for restoration of the mangrove area mentioned therein. 3. The main grievance of the petitioners does not survive in view of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.1 and particular para No.12 thereof, which reads as under : “12. I say that the, GCZMA deliberated on the findings of the NIO and discussed the likely impact of such shipyard activity on the coastal ecosystem of the area. It was decided that pending the clarifications/ reply from the NIO on the protective conservation measures/ restrictive 4 practices to be adopted, the approval granted by the GCZMA for construction of the shipyard and training institute in Survey No.153/1 of Chicalim Village dated 03/03/2008 shall be held in abeyance and the matter decided thereafter.” 4. Mr. Jagatiani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.8 raised various grievances. He submitted that this was not the bona-fide PIL and that it had been filed at the instance and at the behest of respondent No.6 – Goa State Pollution Control Board. He also stated that as a result of this petition, the adverse action referred to in the above affidavit has been taken. He stated that respondent No.8 desires to file a detailed affidavit to deal with the allegedly false and unfounded allegations against it. 5. We do not consider it necessary to permit the respondent No.8 to file an affidavit. The petition having been disposed of by us in view of the affidavit of the respondent No.1, it is not necessary for respondent No.8 to deal with the allegations. In such circumstances, the allegations made by any of the parties against each other per se can have no effect whatsoever on the other parties. Nor do they per se entitle any party to consider the same as a ground for either 5 granting or rejecting any permission. The validity of the allegations would have to be considered by the concerned authorities. We make it expressly clear that we have expressed no views on the merits of the contentions between the parties. 6. Respondent No.1 shall upon taking the decision, furnish a copy thereof to all the parties including the petitioners and respondent No.8 forthwith. The learned Advocate General states that the decision shall be taken only after affording respondent No.8 an opportunity of being heard. 7. In the circumstances, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the parties to adopt proceedings in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly. S. J. VAZIFDAR, J U. D. SALVI, J. SMA