The amendment of pleadings to incorporate subsequent events pending litigation is permissible to avoid multiplicity of suits and seek appropriate relief.

JUDGMENT

1. In 2007, the petitioners filed WP No.403 of 2007 with the principal allegation that the 8th respondent had constructed a hotel in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). The petitioners later noticed that the 8th respondent had not secured any approval from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF); thus, the construction was in 'No Development Zone'. Besides, the 8th eight respondent is said to have started a wholly new project based on the revised plans. That prompted the petitioners to file another writ petition: WP No.659 of 2010. They wanted the Court to quash all permissions the civic authorities had granted to the 8th respondent and, consequently, order demolition of the hotel, too.

2. A Division Bench of this Court, through its Judgment, dated 26 February 2014, rendered a split verdict. One learned Judge declared the construction illegal and ordered demolition; the other learned Judge directed Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), Town & Country Planning, and Village Panchayat authorities to "consider the legality of the construction put up by the private respondents in the said area between 50 to 100 meters from the High Tide Line in the light of observations made herein above in accordance with law".

3. On reference, through judgment, dated 20 January 2015, a third learned Judge endorsed the latter view: the GCZMA, Town & Country Planning, and Village Panchayat authorities must consider the legality of the construction put up by the private respondents.

The Deliberations:

4. Gczma, in August 2015, communicated the judgment to the Town Planning Authority and Village Panchayat. After deliberating on the issue in the light of the judicial directive, a subcommittee of the Town Planning Department submitted a report, in March 2017, to the GCZMA. That report, according to the petitioners, concluded that the structures could not be saved. In the last week of May 2019, the petitioners secured a copy of Town Planning Subcommittee's report but felt that the authorities had not acted on it. So, in June 2019, the petitioners filed PIL Writ Petition No. 40 of 2019.

Later Developments:

5. In PIL WP. No. 40 of 2019, all the respondents, including the GCZMA, were put on notice before admission. But, pending further consideration of the case, a particular development took place: on 13th December 2019, the Town & Country Planning Department granted technical clearance to the 8th respondent's project. Therefore, the petitioners have come up with this amendment petition "to update the petition and to challenge the wholly unsound, unwarranted, and unsustainable technical clearance" issued by the Town & Country Planning Department. This amendment is being very stiffly resisted by the eight respondent, who has pleaded every conceivable ground against the amendment and has cited every decided case on this point, almost.

The Contentions:

The Petitioners :

6. Ms Norma Alvares, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that this Court earlier directed the Town & Country Planning Department to examine the constructions raised by the 8th respondent "in terms of the 1989 Development Regulations or any other laws in force". So, the authority ought to have decided the structure's legality strictly in tune with the judicial directive.

7. According to Ms Alavers, though the judgment was passed in 2015, the authorities dragged the matter endlessly. It was despite the petitioners' diligent pursuit. Then, they were compelled to file another writ petition: PIL WP 40 of 2019. That writ petition sought the demolition of structures. In this context, she stresses that GCZMA granted the "technical clearance" only on 13.12.2019 pending the writ petition. And that prompted the petitioners to seek the Court's leave to amend the writ petition. Ms Alvares argues that the amendment is only to bring on record the later developments, which also require the petitioners to seek consequential reliefs. She stoutly denies that the amendment changes the