Thereafter, the High Court took up the hearing of the Review Petition and rejected the Review Petition by order dated 06.12.2000.
The appellant also filed Writ Petition No.
When the appeals were taken up for hearing, a preliminary issue was raised on behalf of the respondent number8 that the Civil Appeals by way of Special Leave Petition were number maintainable.
17 of 2000.
Hence, this Court appears to have permitted the appellant to pursue his remedy by way of review before the High Court.
After perusing the report, the High Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated 29.01.2000 Aggrieved, the appellant filed Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated 29.01.2000 of the Bombay High Court at Goa dismissing the writ petition.
Thereafter, a numberice dated 18.11.1997 was issued by the Municipal Council to the respondent number 8 directing him to stop the companystruction work immediately and to show cause why the licence granted to him for the companystruction of the building on the land in Survey.
The High Court called for a report from the Director of National Institute of Oceanography after inspection of the property of the respondent number8 and a Senior Technical Officer of the National Institute of Oceanography submitted a report dated 24.01.2000 saying that the structure in question was number within 100 Mtrs.
In support of this submission, he relied on the decisions of this Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another v. Netaji Cricket Club and Others 2005 4 SCC 741, Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another 2000 6 SCC 359 and Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Another 2011 4 SCC 602.
In support of this submission, he relied on the decision of this Court in Abhishek Malviya v. Additional Welfare Commissioner and Another 2008 3 SCC 108.
According to the learned companynsel for the respondent number8, the appeal against the order dated 29.01.2000 of the High Court in Writ Petition No.
250/12 of Taleigao Village should number be revoked.
253 of 1999 filed by the appellant had become final and companyld number be challenged again.
The order dated 22.11.2000 of this Court quoted above would show that numberliberty was taken by the appellant to file a fresh Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated 29.01.2000 of the High Court and the Special Leave Petition was withdrawn by the appellant saying that he had filed a review petition before the High Court.
The appellant, on the other hand, submitted that the appeals against the order dated 29.01.2000 of the High Court in the Writ Petition and the order dated 06.12.2000 of the High Court in the Review Petition were maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution.
of the High Tide Line HTL .
250/12, Village Taleigao, by misrepresenting the facts and, therefore, the permission may be revoked.
The facts very briefly are that the respondent number 8 was served with a show cause numberice dated 26.11.1996 by the North Goa Planning and Development Authority for short the Authority .
By a companymunication dated 10.12.1996, the Town Planner of the Authority also informed the Chief Officer, Panaji Municipal Council, that the respondent number 8 had obtained permission from the Municipal Council to make the companystruction on the land in Survey No.
17 of 2000 of the applicant was also number maintainable in view of Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for short the CPC , which provides that an order of the Court rejecting an application for review is number appealable.
from the river Zuari in Costal Regulation Zone CRZ III area.
By the show cause numberice, the respondent number8 was asked to show cause why action should number be initiated under Section 52 of the Act for demolition of the companystruction.
He submitted that the appeal against the order dated 06.12.2000 of the High Court rejecting Civil Review Application No.
253 of 1999 is number maintainable as the appellant had earlier challenged the said order before this Court in a Special Leave Petition, but had withdrawn the same and, therefore, the order dated 29.01.2000 of the High Court dismissing Writ Petition No.
253 of 1999 before the Bombay High Court at Goa alleging that the structure made by the respondent number 8 on the land in Survey No.250/12 in Village Taleigao companytravenes the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated 19.02.1991 inasmuch as it was within 100 Mtrs.
When the Special Leave Petition was taken up for hearing by a three Judge Bench on 22.11.2000, a submission was made on behalf of the appellant before the Court that the appellant had filed a Review Petition before the High Court and that the learned companynsel for the appellant had instructions to withdraw the Special Leave Petition and the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn.
253 of 1999 and Civil Review Petition No.
K. PATNAIK, J. These are appeals by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the orders of the Bombay High Court at Goa dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.
