IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 504 OF 2008 COMMUNIDADE OF BOA ESPERANCA DE ALDONA THROUGH ATTORNEY AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 7 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. P. A. Kamat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Mr. S. G. Bhobe, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for respondent No.8. Coram:- P. B. MAJMUDAR & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 10th February, 2009 P.C. By filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed for various reliefs. So far as the prayer in connecting with taking appropriate action against illegal construction in survey No.185/5, 184/1, 186/1, 3 which, according to the petitioners, falls within 100 metres of river in Coastal Regulation Zone Aldona, Goa is concerned, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Goa submitted that a reply has been already filed on behalf of the Water Resources Department wherein a stand has been taken that the permission is granted for construction of flood protection walls and bund to protect the saline water entering the fields thereby causing damage to the crops, and rendering the lands infertile, which is in public interest. He, however, submitted that a show cause notice under Section 5 of the Environment (Protect) Act, 1986 dated 22.1.2009 has been issued by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority. Since, the show cause notice has already been issued, nothing survives in the prayer (a), and the Authority to take action in accordance with law. 2. So far as prayer (b) regarding taking action against the illegal construction of Sulabh toilet and shops in survey No.1/3 at Aldona is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are claiming ownership right over the said property and since they have claimed ownership right over the said survey No.1/3, the petitioners would like to assert their rights over the said property by filing appropriate proceedings before appropriate Court. Therefore, keeping the said option open, the petitioners are not pressing for the said prayer. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the Dy. Collector has also passed an order. 3. In view of what is stated hereinabove, the petition is disposed off as the petitioners are not pressing prayer (a) and as regards prayer (b), the petitioners want to take action in accordance with law. In view of the said statement, nothing survives in this petition. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Notices discharged. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. ssm.