The authority must follow procedural fairness in adjudicating environmental compliance cases, and mere mention of evidence does not signify its consideration.

ORDER

1. We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier orders dated 02.02.2024, 26.02.2024, 19.04.2024, 07.08.2024, 29.11.2024, 22.01.2025 and 10.06.2025.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant in this matter. He has drawn our attention to page no.22 of the paper book, wherein in para no.5, it is recorded that during 343^rd Meeting held on 11.05.2023, Advocate G. Naik appearing of the Complainant (Respondent No.3 herein) and Respondent (appellant herein) were present and sought time. Hence, the Authority granted time and posted the matter on 29.06.2023. As 29^th June was declared as a Holiday of Eid, the matter was posted on 06.07.2023, and a direction was issued to the parties. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant submits that no such notice was issued to the appellant and in absence of the appellant, during 348^th Meeting held on 06.07.2023, a decision was taken and impugned order was passed. So, it is urged by him that impugned order should be treated to have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

3. Thereafter, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to page no.30 of the paper book, which is a Show Cause Notice dated 08.04.2021 issued by Respondent No.1- GCZMA to the appellant, wherein it is recorded “as per the CRZ Notification, 2011, the entire belt of 100 mtrs. from the High Tide Line (HTL) of river and 200 mtrs. from the HTL from the sea is designated as the No Development Zone (NDZ) and hence no construction/development whatsoever are permissible in the said belt”. Having pointed out this, it is urged by him that this shows presumption on the part of the Authority that the construction in question, which has been ordered to be demolished, would lie in NDZ, while the fact is that the said construction was lying within 200 to 500 mtrs. from the HTL.

4. Thereafter, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to page no.23 of the paper book, which is a part of the impugned order, wherein it is recorded that the Authority perused the site inspection report (annexed as Annexure A-6 at page nos.48 to 49 of the paper book) prepared by officials of the GCZMA and the photographs on record and it was observed that there are two structures on site, structure B with manglore tiles roofing and structure A with RCC slab. The Authority also noted that the appellant herein has not produced any documents with regard to structure A and no justification has been given by him for the same. Therefore, it is clear that structure A is a new structure and hence the same requires to be demolished.

5. Thereafter, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to page no.50 of the paper book, which is a scale map, in which the structure, which has been ordered to be demolished, has been shown and it is urged by him that this finding is absolutely erroneous because the Certificate dated 11.05.2018, which was issued by the Village Panchayat of Arambol, Pernem, Goa, which is annexed at page no.41 of the paper book, was placed before the Authority at the time of consideration, which establishes that the House No.34/1 was registered in the name of father of the appellant namely Mr. Sonu Vishnu Virnodkar and in that Certificate, the house assessment with respect to House No.377 for the period of 1988- 1989 to 1999-2000 was done and for the period of from 2000-2001 to till date, the assessment is made with respect to House No.34/1, hence this document would suggest that these two houses were in existence on 11.05.2018 even prior to that i.e. 11.05.2018 and that there is no finding given by Respondent No.1- GCZMA on this document in the impugned order.

6. Thereafter, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to A