7th October, 2025 Suzana IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WRIT PETITION NO.12 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.175 OF 2018 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WRIT PETITION NO.12 OF 2018 Pamela Rodrigues … Petitioner Versus The Executive Engineer, Works Division XIV (NH), PWD, Govt. of Goa And 5 Ors. … Respondents. WITH STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO.3692 OF 2018 (FILING) IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WRIT PETITION NO.12 OF 2018 Mateus Pedro Romano Dias … Applicant Versus Pamela Rodrigues … Respondent. WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.9 OF 2019 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WRIT PETITION NO.12 OF 2028 Pamela Rodrigues … Petitioner Versus Vijaykumar Vernekar And 2 Ors … Respondents. 2025:BHC-GOA:1962-DB 7th October, 2025 Mr Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate with Ms Maria Fernandes, Advocate for the Petitioner in PILWP/12/2018, CP/175/2018 and CP/9/2019. Ms Sulekha Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : 7th OCTOBER, 2025. ORAL ORDER: 1. The PIL Writ Petition involving the concern expressed in regards to the Village Mashem and involving the entrance to the Mashem Creek which was alleged to have been partly filled for construction of new alignment of the NH-17 despite the local residents strongly objecting to the same which compelled them to stop the filling and it was assured that the mud/stones shall be removed and the creek shall be restored to its original status. The Petitioner alleges that the creek is blocked by the formation of a sandbar across its mouth due to filling of mud and the Loliem Village is subjected to annual floods during high intensity monsoon rains due to the surrounding areas. It is in this background, the Petition specifically pray for restoration of the creek and removal of the reclamation and embankment constructed on the southern side and also sought quashing of the permissions granted by GCZMA for the said activity which was proposed. Page 3 of 6 7th October, 2025 2. On 04.09.2018, referring to the NOC granted by the Captain of Ports, this Court referred to the particular clauses to the effect that PWD (NH, R&B) shall ensure that no waste material is thrown in the river resulting into pollution in and around the vicinity of both sides of the proposed construction of the new bridges and reclamation of the rivers in Goa was totally banned and earth-filling in the river being totally prohibited. Referring to the report of the Committee directed to inspect the site in the wake of the order of this Court, the Court took note of the following aspects in the report: “x) Thus, the full stretch of earlier reverine low lying marshy area has been converted into a land area filled with earth for providing working space for the movement of construction material. xi) The PWD Engineer Mr Laxmikant Naik as well as the contractor Mr. Ashok Yadav told at site that the said land filling done is not required presently and they can remove it any time, if told to do so.” Recording that the activities undertaken being contrary to the conditions of the NOC, granted by Captain of Ports and the contractor making a statement that the land filling is not required, the necessary steps were expected to be taken by the Captain of Ports regarding the compliance. 3. The PIL Petition was thereafter heard from time to time and as this statement was not abided, it resulted in filing of Contempt 7th October, 2025 Petition No.9 of 2019, alleging that there is wilful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 04.09.2018. In the wake of the aforesaid, we directed a fresh inspection to be carried out and the said Inspection Report of Mashem Bridge on Canacona Bypass NH-17, with regard to the removal of soil/earth filling laid as an embankment carried out on 08.09.2025, was placed before us. The Report being filed by the key Surveyor of the GCZMA and the Engineer of GCZMA, included the observations as the inspection was carried out in the presence of the Petitioner as well as the concerned Officer from GCZMA. On the last date of hearing, the Report is placed before us and we permitted Mr Frias, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, to make his comments on the said Report. 4. On perusal of the said Report, Mr Frias had referred to the observations and findings and, in specific, the observation that the full stretch of the earlier riverine, low lying marshy area was converted into a land filling area with earth for providing space for the movement of construction machinery and the conclusion recommendation being, the filling done should be totally removed from the site so as to restore it to its original. Apart from this, he also expresses his concern over the earth filling that is found to be on the spot with variation in its height. The said Report is accompanied with 7th October, 2025 certain photographs and it gave a clear picture to us about the boulders being stacked at places and definitely resulting into disturbing the natural flow of the river and since the mud-filling was found around the periphery of the bridge piers with the varying lengths of 3 to 4 mtrs. Similarly, the Report itself inform that on site large stone boulders were found stacked at several places, though it was found that mango saplings were also found to be planted. 5. Ms Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the Government has also placed before us certain photographs taken on 06.10.2025 which we have taken on record and collectively marked as ‘X’ for identification, the copies of which are served upon Mr Frias and on perusal of the photographs, even the learned Counsel, Mr Frias, expresses his satisfaction as we find that the boulders which were stacked under the bridge piers have now been cleared of any obstruction and to some extent we find levelling of the earth under the bridge. The only anxiety expressed by Mr Frias that there should be no further stacking of boulders or mud, thereby obstructing the flow of water in the creek and upon such concerns being expressed, we direct the Authorities to ensure that there shall be no further land filling on the site or reclamation of the river and in no case there shall be any earth filling for any purpose whatsoever as that would obstruct the flow of the river. Since the concern expressed by 7th October, 2025 the Petitioner has now been taken care of, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the PIL Writ Petition 12 of 2018 along with Contempt Petition 9 of 2019 as well as the pending Civil Applications, with the assurance being accepted on behalf of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Division that the approach as well as the area underlying the Mashem Bridge shall be kept clear of any earth fillings, stacking of boulders, etc., and keep the riverine area free of any land filling. Needless to state that if at all the Petitioner has any grievance about the project of embankment being revived, we grant liberty to approach this Court. ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 08/10/2025 15:45:16