Bombay High Court

LENIN ANSELMO FERNANDES (THR HIS ATTORNEY)versusTHE GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY AND 3 ORS.,

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The petition is dismissed as an alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, is available.

Summary

Petitioner Lenin Anselmo Fernandes, a UK resident, filed a writ petition challenging a demolition order dated 3 March 2022 passed by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) and the subsequent appellate order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). He claimed he was unaware of the GCZMA proceedings and had filed an intervention in related litigation initiated by his brother, Respondent No.2, while also submitting a representation to the GCZMA. The High Court, without addressing the merits, held that the petitioner had an alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and therefore dismissed the writ petition. The Court clarified that the demolition ordered in a separate writ petition (No.266/2026) remains in force. No opinion was expressed on the legality of the GCZMA order.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Legislation cited

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — s. 16

Subjects

writ petition
alternative remedy
National Green Tribunal Act
Section 16
jurisdiction
demolition order
coastal zone management
procedural default

Judgment

2026:BHC-GOA:1959-DB
                                             909 WP 1334 2026

                vinita

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                               WRIT PETITION NO.1334 OF 2026

           LENIN ANSELMO FERNANDES (THR HIS
           ATTORNEY)                                                ... PETITIONER
             Versus
           THE GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
           AUTHORITY REP BY ITS MEMBER
           SECRETARY AND 3 ORS.,                                    ... RESPONDENTS


           Mr A. F. Diniz, Senior Advocate with Mr Ryan Menezes,
           Advocate for the Petitioner.
           Mr Shubham Priolkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.
           Mr Nikhil Pai, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
           Mr Nigel Costa Frias, Mr K. Panchal and Ms M. Fernandes,
           Advocates for the Respondent No.4.


                                 CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES &
                                         AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
                                 DATED :- 30th September, 2026

           P.C.
                  We have heard the petition at length.
           2.     The petition has been filed principally on the ground that the
           Petitioner was never aware of the proceedings initiated by
           Respondent No. 4 (Complainant) before the Goa Coastal Zone
           Management Authority (GCZMA), which ultimately culminated in
           the impugned order dated 3.3.2022.
           3.        The Petitioner claims that he is a resident of the United
           Kingdom and that he visited Goa on 6.5.2023, 27.6.2023,
           22.7.2024 and 27.10.2025. He states that, upon being informed by

                                                 Page 1 of 3
                                             30th September, 2026
                                  909 WP 1334 2026


the villagers that an order of demolition had been passed in respect
of the structure which is the subject matter of the present petition,
he immediately came down to Goa on 29.7.2026.
4.    The Petitioner further claims that he filed an intervention
application in the mundkarial proceedings instituted by his brother,
Respondent No. 2 herein. According to the Petitioner, he is on
inimical terms with Respondent No. 2 and was throughout kept in
the dark about the mundkarial proceedings as well as the
proceedings before the GCZMA.
5.    The Petitioner also states that he submitted a representation
before the GCZMA on 4.8.2026 through his attorney, whom he had
appointed on 30.7.2026, and thereafter returned to the United
Kingdom.
6.   On the aforesaid facts, the Petitioner has challenged the order
dated 3.3.2022 passed by the GCZMA and, consequently, the
appellate order dated 16.1.2023 passed by the National Green
Tribunal.
7.    Without entering into the merits of the petition and without
expressing any opinion on the legality or otherwise of the order of
the GCZMA under challenge, we find that the Petitioner has an
alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. We, therefore, decline to
entertain the present petition.
8. It is made clear that the petition is being rejected purely on the
ground of availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy of

                                      Page 2 of 3
                                  30th September, 2026
                                                      909 WP 1334 2026


                       appeal. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
                       petition or on the legality of the impugned order passed by the
                       GCZMA.
                       9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
                       10. We further make it clear that the demolition to be undertaken
                       by Respondent No. 2, as undertaken in Writ Petition No.266/2026
                       filed by the said Respondent, which petition came to be dismissed
                       by order dated 7.7.2026, shall continue to remain in operation and
                       shall be implemented.



                         AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.                  VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK
Designation: Private Secretary
                                                          Page 3 of 3
Date: 01/10/2026 18:03:17
                                                      30th September, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…