KASHINATH JAIRAM SHETYEversusTHE GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY THR. MEMBER SECRETARY AND ANR

                               (1)                    WP-799-2023.odt



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
               WRIT PETITION NO.799 OF 2023

Kashinath Jairam Shetye,
Son of Mr. Jairam Shetye,
Major of age, Indian National,
Having Permanent residence
at A-102, Raj Excellency,
Patto, Ribandar, Goa.
Mobile No.9420689997.
Email: [email protected].                    ..Petitioner

            Versus

1.    The Goa Coastal Zone
      Management Authority,
      Through its Member Secretary,
      Having office at
      C/o Department of Science, Technology
      and Environment, Government of Goa,
      1st Floor, Pt. Deendayal Upadyay Bhawan
      Pundalik Nagar, Alto Porvorim,
      Bardez, Goa. 403 521.
      Email: [email protected]
      Cont No.0832-2951089.

2.    Mrs. Sheila Dhody,
      W/o late Ranjit Dhody,
      R/o Casa Britona,
      Britona, Bardez, Goa,
      Cont No.                                  ..Respondents
                                    …
Mr. Kashinath Shetye, Petitioner in Person.
Mr. Neehal Verneka, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Shivan Dessai with Ms. Maria Veigas, Advocate for Respondent
No.2.
                                   …
                           CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                           DATED : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
FINAL ORDER:-

1.    The petitioner impugns order dated 02.12.2022 passed by

National Green Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune (hereinafter
                               (2)                       WP-799-2023.odt



referred as ‘NGT’) in Appeal No.33/2022 (WZ) in I.A. No.117/2022,

whereby petitioner’s Appeal has been dismissed being time barred. By

way of amendment, petitioner has also challenged order dated

19.03.2026 passed in M.A. No.9/2026 (WZ), thereby rejecting his

prayer to recall order dated 02.12.2022.


2.      On 07.03.2016, petitioner had filed complaint before Goa Coastal

Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) contending that respondent

no.1 has carried illegal construction in CRZ area in Survey Nos.62/2 to

62/6 of village Salvador-da-Mundo by constructing hotel known as

Casa Britona on banks of river Mandovi within 100 meters of high tide

line.


2.1     On 12.01.2017, petitioner had filed OA No.170/2016 under

Section 14 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred as

‘Act of 2010’) seeking direction against GCZMA to hear parties and

decide his complaint, which was allowed by NGT and directions were

given to decide complaint within period of five weeks.


2.2     On 11.02.2019, GCZMA issued order to respondent no.1 to

demolish all extensions done to existing structures on property Survey

No.62/6 and restore land to its original condition. The said order was

subjected to challenge by respondent no.1 in Appeal No.20/2019 before

NGT, which was allowed and remitted back for reconsideration to
                                (3)                    WP-799-2023.odt



GCZMA, who on further inspection, issued directions to remove

offending structures.


2.3   On 23.06.2021, respondent no.1 filed compliance report.

However, on inspection, it was found that demolition was partly carried

out. Again on 23.09.2021, compliance report was filed, which was

accepted in 289th meeting of GCZMA. Accordingly, direction was

issued to discharge proceeding against respondent no.1 vide order dated

07.03.2022. The petitioner filed Appeal before NGT raising challenge

to order dated 07.03.2022. However, NGT rejected Appeal vide order

dated 02.12.2022 holding that Appeal is barred by limitation. Aggrieved

petitioner filed present Writ Petition.


2.4   On 12.02.2026, petitioner had submitted before this Court that

impugned order is passed without hearing him, as he could not login to

internet portal of NGT at the time of hearing of Appeal due to technical

glitch. In wake of aforesaid submission, petitioner was given liberty to

make an application for recall of order passed by NGT. However, by

second impugned order, petitioner’s M.A. No.9/2026 came to be

rejected holding that in light of Rule 20 of NGT Rules, Tribunal has

discretion to dismiss Appeal for want of prosecution or hear and decide

it on merit. In present case, petitioner’s Appeal has been rejected on

merit. As such, his application for recall cannot be entertained. The
                             (4)                       WP-799-2023.odt



petitioner has, therefore, amended Writ Petition raising challenge to

order dated 19.03.2026 passed in M.A. No.9/2026.


3.    Mr. Kashinath Shetye, petitioner in person submitted that

impugned order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural

justice. The petitioner was not heard before passing order. Even after

direction of this Court under order dated 12.02.2026, petitioner’s M.A.

No.9/2026 for recall of order has been rejected observing that Appeal

itself was presented beyond limitation, same was barred under Section

16 of Act of 2010.


4.    The petitioner contends that on 18.04.2022, he collected copy of

order dated 07.03.2022 and presented Appeal on 11.05.2022 vide Filing

No.270413700227/2022. Since there were some objections, Appeal was

re-uploaded on 16.07.2022 vide Filing No.270413700336/2022. On

18.07.2022 I.A. was uploaded for condonation of 42 days delay caused

in filing Appeal as instructed by Registry. On same day, corrected

Appeal was uploaded under Filing No.227. On 26.07.2022, Registry

notified defects. Therefore, Appeal No.29/2022 was withdrawn with

liberty to file fresh with appropriate documents. On 10.08.2022, Appeal

was re-filed under Filing No.270413700388/2022, which was registered

as Appeal No.33/2022. Thereafter, I.A. No.117/2022 filed in Appeal

No.33/2022 for condoning delay, which came to be dismissed vide order

dated 02.12.2022. In light of aforesaid sequence of events, there was
                               (5)                       WP-799-2023.odt



delay of hardly 42 days in filing Appeal and it was within powers of

NGT to condone same. He would, therefore, urge to allow Writ Petition

and remit matter back to Tribunal.


5.    Per contra, Mr. Neehal Verneka, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr. Shivan Dessai,

learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 vehemently opposes

application. According to them, NGT has passed order on merit. The

Appeal presented by petitioner was hopelessly time barred. The

Tribunal cannot condone delay beyond 60 days. In present case, delay

was more than 120 days. As such, petitioner has lost remedy of Appeal.

If he is aggrieved by order of Tribunal, his remedy is to approach

Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner cannot invoke Writ jurisdiction

of this Court in facts and circumstances of case.


6.    Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates

appearing for respective parties, it is necessary to deal with first

objection raised on behalf of respondents as to maintainability of

present Writ Petition. It is trite that, exhaustion of alternate remedy is

Rule of convenience, and self-imposed restriction on Court rather than

Rule of law. Once it is found that petitioner is having efficacious

alternate remedy provided under statute, Writ Court would decide

whether to entertain Writ Petition and exercise discretion in facts and

circumstances of particular case and nature of order under challenge.
                               (6)                       WP-799-2023.odt



The Court would also examine whether alternate remedy is efficacious

in nature and some exception can be carved out to invoke extraordinary

Writ jurisdiction.


7.       This Court is not oblivious of law espoused in cases of Bhopal

Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Others Vs. Union of India

and Others1 and CICILY Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory2, wherein

direction of caution for exercise of Writ jurisdiction by High Court

against order of National Commission has been laid down. However, in

facts of present case, this Court finds that petitioner’s Appeal has been

dismissed without hearing him that too on point of limitation and prima

facie on incorrect appreciation of facts. In this backdrop, this Court had

directed petitioner to approach NGT for recall of order. Accordingly,

petitioner had moved M.A. No.9/2026 for recall of order, which has

been dismissed reiterating observations made in original order dated

02.12.2022.


8.       Normally this Court relegated petitioner to approach Supreme

Court under Section 22 of Act of 2010.         However, Appeal before

Supreme Court is permissible only on ground specified under Section

100 of Code of Civil Procedure. In present case, petitioner’s Appeal has

been rejected being barred by limitation prescribed under Section 16 of

Act of 2010. The impugned order pre-supposes that petitioner has

1    (2012) 8 SCC 326.
2    (2012) 8 SCC 524.
                              (7)                        WP-799-2023.odt



presented his Appeal with delay of more than 114 days ignoring fact

that petitioner had presented his Appeal on 13.05.2022 vide Filing

No.227/2022, which was registered as Appeal No.29/2022 with

application to condone delay of 42 days, but on 12.08.2022 it was

withdrawn with liberty to file fresh Appeal alongwith documents and

again re-filed within two days thereafter. Therefore, assumption that

Appeal was delayed by 114 days, beyond scope of entertaining Appeal

under Section 16 of Act of 2010, prima facie appears to be fallacious.

Although petitioner had moved application for recall of order giving

necessary particulars to demonstrate delay in filing Appeal is less than

60 days, which can be condoned by Tribunal has been ignored. In

peculiar facts of this case when first order was passed in gross violation

of principles of natural justice and second order is passed under

incorrect presumption of facts, this Court finds that petitioner has made

out case to entertain Writ Petition. Hence, following order:

                                ORDER
a.    Writ Petition is partly allowed.


b.    The impugned order dated 02.12.2022 passed by National Green

Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune in Appeal No.33/2022 (WZ) I.A.

No.117/2022 as well as order dated 19.03.2026 passed in M.A.

No.9/2026, are quashed and set aside.
                                (8)                       WP-799-2023.odt



c.       The I.A. No.117/2022 is relegated back to Tribunal for

reconsideration on merit in light of observations made hereinabove.


d.       Parties shall appear before Tribunal on 16.10.2026.



                                          (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                   JUDGE
Devendra/September-2026