JUDGMENT :

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. :— Four persons, who are the petitioners here, bought a piece of land and wanted to raise structures on it. They approached the Goa State Committee on Coastal Environment (GSCCE) for approval because the property is adjacent to the seacoast. Then, on 29-11-1996, GSCEE met and decided to approve. That approval was actually granted in February, 1997, though. On the same day, the Town and Country Planning Department (TCP) also issued a No-Objection Certificate. Next year, in September, 1998, the W. P. No. 184 of 2018 decided on 29-1-2021. (Panaji-Goa) Village Panchayat, too, granted the licence. Based on these permissions and licences, the petitioners secured conversion sanad and commenced the construction. It was in March 1998.

2. In 2000, when the construction was in progress, the villagers of Velsao filed Writ Petition No.154 of 2000. They wanted the Court to direct the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (“GCZMA”), the successor to GSCEE, to consider their grievance about the construction. The villagers’ complaint concerns whether the petitioners’ construction is within 200 mts from the High Tide Line (HTL). Through its judgment dated 10-7-2000, this Court directed the GCZMA to consider the villagers’ objections.

3. After considering the villagers’ objection, in October, 2000 GCZMA issued a stop-work order, pending the determination of HTL. Though a decade elapsed, the GCZMA kept the issue on the back burner. Then the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 473 of 2013; they wanted a direction to the GCZMA on the stop-work order issued about 13 years ago. The Court ordered accordingly.

4. In September, 2014, after hearing all the stakeholders, the GCZMA withdrew the stop-work order. It has held that the construction is beyond the nodevelopment zone, that is beyond 200 mts. But the village panchayat, in January 2015, wrote to the GCZMA for a plan of demarcation, besides insisting that they should hold a joint site inspection. The GCZMA did not respond, however.

5. In February, 2016, the Town and Country Planning Department granted technical clearance. The next year, in the same month, the GCZMA endorsed the construction plans. Meanwhile, the licence village panchayat initially gave expired; it was because of the stop-work order the GCZMA had issued earlier. No other reason. So, in April, 2017, the petitioners applied to the Village Panchayat for its renewal. Faced with the petitioners’ application for the licence renewal, the Village Panchayat wanted the GCZMA and TCP to be part of joint site inspection it had proposed. Neither turned up. But the Village Panchayat went ahead and had an inspection in the petitioners’ presence. On 16-5-2017, it rejected the petitioners’ application for renewal.

6. The Village Panchayat’s action prompted the petitioners to file Writ Petition No. 521/2017. Eventually, on 8-9-2017, based on the petitioners’ plea and the Panchayat’s defence, this Court set aside the Village Panchayat’s order, dated 16-5-2017; it ordered a joint site inspection. Besides, this Court wanted the Village Panchayat to consider the petitioners’ application for renewal “in accordance with the law in the context of NOC/permissions/clearance granted.”

7. On parallel lines there took place another development. In November, 2017, one Shri Max D’Souza, a villager, complained to the TCP that there was a discrepancy in the road alignment in the petitioners’ construction. Then, when put on notice, the petitioners submitted a letter of clarification to the TCP. After some more correspondence between the TCP and the petitioners, in January, 2018 TCP kept the technical clearance in abeyance and directed the petitioners to submit a revised plan.

8. In December, 2017, the Village Panchayat issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners. It was based on the joint inspection report it had secured. Immediately, the petitioners replied. Eventually, on 10-1-2018, the Village Panchayat passed the impugned order refusin