AUGUSTO RODRIGUES
Car rick Bend LLP and Ajay Vaghani, the two propo nents on whose land Bas tian Riveira — operated by actor Shilpa Shetty and Ranjit Bindra — is func tioning, approached the Goa Coastal Zone Man agement Authority (GCZ MA) on Tuesday seeking a review of the demolition notice. This comes a day after O Heraldo highlight ed how the restaurant con tinued to operate despite a demolition order. The move is at odds with the Goa Bench of the Bom bay High Court’s ruling in Writ Petition No 702 of 2018, which held that the GCZMA has no power to re view its orders on merits. The court had categorical ly stated that, “it (GCZMA) did not fulfill the parame ters of a review on merit.” “It has no such power of review on merits, which is made clear even as per its own subsequent res olution,” reads the order pronounced by Justice N M Jamdar and Prithviraj K Chavan.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Locals in Morjim view the review plea as an attempt by the proponents to cover their tracks, particularly in the backdrop of the suomotu action taken by the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court, where authorities were rapped for inaction following the man-made disaster at Burch by Romeo Lane that claimed 25 innocent lives. The decision to seek a relook by the GCZMA has shocked not only complainant fishermen AjitVolvoikar and Dik shayPhadte, but also residents and environmentalists. “This is nothing but a plan to buy time and keep the place operating till the end of the season. It now seems that Goa is a hotspot for people to come and make a fast buck, irre spective of the health and safety of its guests. But we will not allow Morjim to be the second Arpora,” warned local Alex Fernandes. “We unexpectedly did receive a letter from the project owners in Morjim asking for a review of our decision, and we have been directed to list it on the board for the meeting tomorrow evening,” a GCZMA source said on condition of anonymity. Claiming that they ‘accidentally’ became aware of the agenda, the complainants wrote to the GCZMA express ing shock at not being informed. They stated they had not been, “informed about the present review hearing before the learned authority which is in direct violation of the principles of natural justice.” “On one side, the government is trying to show that it is going all out to ensure the safety of tourists and on the other hand it is trying to stall demolition orders issued by its own agency by quietly allowing such reviews,” said an upset AjitVolvoikar on learning that the review may be tak en up at Thursday’s meeting. “While they keep announcing that clubs have been sealed and establishments are being checked for violations, here a place that was ordered to be demolished months back is be ing allowed to slyly continue functioning,” Volvoikar alleged. In a letter to the GCZMA, Volvoikar has requested that he be, “served with a copy of the entire application, including annexure filed by the alleged violators,” and that the hear ing allegedly scheduled on 18-12-2025 be postponed by a week to allow time to study the documents. “Reject the application seeking review of the demolition order,” is the other prayer made by the complainant. According to the judgment in Writ Petition No 702 of 2018 accessed by O Heraldo, the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court, while dealing with the GCZMA’s powers of re view, observed: “Reverting back to the present case during the pendency of this Petition, by order dated July 10, 2018, the review filed by the private respondents has been rejected. There fore, there is no impediment for the authority as on date to proceed with further legal process. This would ordinarily have put an end to the matter, but we have to take note that the review was rejected on the ground that it did not fulfill the parameters of a review on merits. Indicating thereby, that, the GCZMA was of the impression that if the parame ters were present, it could review the order on merits. This view is entirely incorrect. It has no such power of review on merits which is made clear even as per its own subse quent Resolution.” When contacted, NarendraMurkumbi, one of the desig nated partners of Carrick Bend LLP, said, “I did read the O Heraldoarticle this morning but am unable to comment at the moment as the matter is sub judice.” “I dispute your story but I am willing to meet you and dis cuss the same,” Murkumbi added when pressed on why the demolition had not been carried out despite an existing order. Documents accessed indicate that the first show-cause notice issued to Carrick Bend LLP was discharged by the GCZMA during its 379th meeting after illegal structures were demolished. However, during the 464th GCZMA meet ing, demolition orders were issued again for “rebuilding il legal structures again along with an illegal swimming pool.”
