SMT. K. K. BAAM, J. :- The petitioners, Goa Foundation, a Non Government organization has filed this petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation seeking to challenge the permission granted to respondent No. 1 for construction of a Company Guest House under Survey No. 112/19 at Candolim. The petitioners have also sought in the nature of writ directions to respondent No. 1 to demolish the construction erected on Survey No. 112/19 at Candolim and to restore the ecological balance and further pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition respondent No. 1 be restrained from proceeding with its construction under Survey No. 112/19 of village Candolim and to maintain status quo.

2. As regards the cause of action in this petition, on 24th December, 1988, the petitioners made an application for grant of ad-interim relief restraining the construction of respondent No.1. After hearing the parties an order of injunction was passed by which the suit construction was stayed and status quo was directed to be maintained. An application was made subsequently on behalf of the respondent No.1 seeking variation of the order. This application was rejected but hearing of the petition was expedited. The petition is heard by us. On behalf of the petitioners, the challenge to the petition is on the ground that the construction of the Company Guest House which is being carried out by respondent No. 1 in the CRZ-III Zone is not permissible in terms of the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification as amended by the Notification dated 16th August, 1994. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 has indulged in massive destruction of sandy stretch and sand dunes which is prohibited under the Zonal Regulation, further, it is the case of the petitioners that in the area where respondent No. 1 is carrying on the construction, the restriction relating to doubling of units had already been achieved by the end of 1995 and no fresh permission for construction could be granted under CRZ-III and (iii) Regulation.

3. In the course of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents, it has been brought to our notice that so far as the contention that in carrying the construction of the Company Guest House, respondent No. 1 has indulged in massive destruction of sandy stretch and sand dunes which is prohibited, an enquiry was directed to be carried out by respondent No.5 and they have withdrawn the show cause notice that was issued in this respect. Hence, the petitioners have not canvassed any arguments on this issue. As regards the question of doubling of units, the same is a matter pending consideration in respect of the entire coastal region of the State of Goa and is the subject matter in Writ Petition No. 422/98 which is pending adjudication before this Court and, therefore, it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the said contention substantially being the subject matter of Writ Petition which is pending, the same is not pressed for at this stage as it is a matter pending adjudication in Writ Petition No. 422/1998.

4. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether the construction of respondent No.1 which has been sanctioned by the respondents is in compliance with the Regulations as set out in the Coastal Area Classification and Development Regulations CRZ-III (iii). It is vehemently urged on behalf of the petitioners that the construction of the Company Guest House is not permissible under the CRZ- III (iii) Regulation and, therefore, on that count the permission given by the authorities is in violation of the Rules and Regulations. The point that requires consideration is "Can a Company Guest House be approved by the concerned authorities i.e. G.S.C.C.E. which is the Goa State Committee on Coastal Environment, the Town Planner and the Sarpanch when the construction is under CRZ-III (iii)."

5. Miss Norma Alvares, learned Advocate who appears on