Panjim: The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Friday dismissed the contempt petition filed by NGO Goa Foundation against the State government, GCZMA and a starred hotel for failing to comply with the Court’s previous order to demolish a certain portion of the hotel, and levied exemplary cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner for gross abuse of the process of court.
The hotel had earlier demolished portions of the swimming pool and a hut as determined by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) but regarding the demolition of a retaining wall, the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) through the Water Resource Department (WRD) obtained an expert report from the Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS), Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India, Pune.
The report based on the scientific study and technical assessment said that the entire stretch, especially near Hotel Marriott, is prone to soil erosion due to the peak currents and tidal effects. Shifting of the left bank would increase the curvature of the river resulting in more erosion. It concluded that in case of the demolition of the retaining wall, the whole force would be borne by the bank, which would
result in shifting of channel towards the left river
bank that may further worsen the erosion.
The GCZMA considered the report of CWPRS and heard the WRD officials and the parties including Goa Foundation on the matter. It took note of the anti-erosion measures put up by the WRD along the coastline from Campal to Miramar since 1978 till date as the coastline had been prone to erosion. The GCZMA considering the directions of the High Court judgment dated June 29, 2015 directing the government to take all measures to prevent erosion along the bank of the river along the concerned land of the hotel came to a conclusion that the retaining wall should be left in the present condition and should be maintained properly by the hotel and accordingly discharged proceeding against the retaining wall.
But the Goa Foundation argued that the retaining wall has to be demolished in compliance with the High Court’s directions and by doing so even if it resulted in environmental damage, a new retaining wall may be constructed by the government in the same place. However, the division bench comprising Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice B P Deshpande found such submissions to be a gross abuse of the process of court as it did not appear to be in the interest of the environment or the public.
