909 WP 1334 2026 vinita IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.1334 OF 2026 LENIN ANSELMO FERNANDES (THR HIS ATTORNEY) ... PETITIONER Versus THE GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY AND 3 ORS., ... RESPONDENTS Mr A. F. Diniz, Senior Advocate with Mr Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr Shubham Priolkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. Mr Nikhil Pai, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr Nigel Costa Frias, Mr K. Panchal and Ms M. Fernandes, Advocates for the Respondent No.4. CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATED :- 30th September, 2026 P.C. We have heard the petition at length. 2. The petition has been filed principally on the ground that the Petitioner was never aware of the proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 4 (Complainant) before the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), which ultimately culminated in the impugned order dated 3.3.2022. 3. The Petitioner claims that he is a resident of the United Kingdom and that he visited Goa on 6.5.2023, 27.6.2023, 22.7.2024 and 27.10.2025. He states that, upon being informed by 30th September, 2026 2026:BHC-GOA:1959-DB 909 WP 1334 2026 the villagers that an order of demolition had been passed in respect of the structure which is the subject matter of the present petition, he immediately came down to Goa on 29.7.2026. 4. The Petitioner further claims that he filed an intervention application in the mundkarial proceedings instituted by his brother, Respondent No. 2 herein. According to the Petitioner, he is on inimical terms with Respondent No. 2 and was throughout kept in the dark about the mundkarial proceedings as well as the proceedings before the GCZMA. 5. The Petitioner also states that he submitted a representation before the GCZMA on 4.8.2026 through his attorney, whom he had appointed on 30.7.2026, and thereafter returned to the United Kingdom. 6. On the aforesaid facts, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.3.2022 passed by the GCZMA and, consequently, the appellate order dated 16.1.2023 passed by the National Green Tribunal. 7. Without entering into the merits of the petition and without expressing any opinion on the legality or otherwise of the order of the GCZMA under challenge, we find that the Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. We, therefore, decline to entertain the present petition. 8. It is made clear that the petition is being rejected purely on the ground of availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy of 30th September, 2026 909 WP 1334 2026 appeal. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petition or on the legality of the impugned order passed by the GCZMA. 9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 10. We further make it clear that the demolition to be undertaken by Respondent No. 2, as undertaken in Writ Petition No.266/2026 filed by the said Respondent, which petition came to be dismissed by order dated 7.7.2026, shall continue to remain in operation and shall be implemented. AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. 30th September, 2026 Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK Designation: Private Secretary Date: 01/10/2026 18:03:17