(1) WP-799-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.799 OF 2023 Kashinath Jairam Shetye, Son of Mr. Jairam Shetye, Major of age, Indian National, Having Permanent residence at A-102, Raj Excellency, Patto, Ribandar, Goa. Mobile No.9420689997. Email: shetyebabu@yahoo.com. ..Petitioner Versus 1. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, Through its Member Secretary, Having office at C/o Department of Science, Technology and Environment, Government of Goa, 1st Floor, Pt. Deendayal Upadyay Bhawan Pundalik Nagar, Alto Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. 403 521. Email: goacoastalzone@gmail.com Cont No.0832-2951089. 2. Mrs. Sheila Dhody, W/o late Ranjit Dhody, R/o Casa Britona, Britona, Bardez, Goa, Cont No. ..Respondents … Mr. Kashinath Shetye, Petitioner in Person. Mr. Neehal Verneka, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1. Mr. Shivan Dessai with Ms. Maria Veigas, Advocate for Respondent No.2. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER:- 1. The petitioner impugns order dated 02.12.2022 passed by National Green Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune (hereinafter (2) WP-799-2023.odt referred as ‘NGT’) in Appeal No.33/2022 (WZ) in I.A. No.117/2022, whereby petitioner’s Appeal has been dismissed being time barred. By way of amendment, petitioner has also challenged order dated 19.03.2026 passed in M.A. No.9/2026 (WZ), thereby rejecting his prayer to recall order dated 02.12.2022. 2. On 07.03.2016, petitioner had filed complaint before Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) contending that respondent no.1 has carried illegal construction in CRZ area in Survey Nos.62/2 to 62/6 of village Salvador-da-Mundo by constructing hotel known as Casa Britona on banks of river Mandovi within 100 meters of high tide line. 2.1 On 12.01.2017, petitioner had filed OA No.170/2016 under Section 14 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 2010’) seeking direction against GCZMA to hear parties and decide his complaint, which was allowed by NGT and directions were given to decide complaint within period of five weeks. 2.2 On 11.02.2019, GCZMA issued order to respondent no.1 to demolish all extensions done to existing structures on property Survey No.62/6 and restore land to its original condition. The said order was subjected to challenge by respondent no.1 in Appeal No.20/2019 before NGT, which was allowed and remitted back for reconsideration to (3) WP-799-2023.odt GCZMA, who on further inspection, issued directions to remove offending structures. 2.3 On 23.06.2021, respondent no.1 filed compliance report. However, on inspection, it was found that demolition was partly carried out. Again on 23.09.2021, compliance report was filed, which was accepted in 289th meeting of GCZMA. Accordingly, direction was issued to discharge proceeding against respondent no.1 vide order dated 07.03.2022. The petitioner filed Appeal before NGT raising challenge to order dated 07.03.2022. However, NGT rejected Appeal vide order dated 02.12.2022 holding that Appeal is barred by limitation. Aggrieved petitioner filed present Writ Petition. 2.4 On 12.02.2026, petitioner had submitted before this Court that impugned order is passed without hearing him, as he could not login to internet portal of NGT at the time of hearing of Appeal due to technical glitch. In wake of aforesaid submission, petitioner was given liberty to make an application for recall of order passed by NGT. However, by second impugned order, petitioner’s M.A. No.9/2026 came to be rejected holding that in light of Rule 20 of NGT Rules, Tribunal has discretion to dismiss Appeal for want of prosecution or hear and decide it on merit. In present case, petitioner’s Appeal has been rejected on merit. As such, his application for recall cannot be entertained. The (4) WP-799-2023.odt petitioner has, therefore, amended Writ Petition raising challenge to order dated 19.03.2026 passed in M.A. No.9/2026. 3. Mr. Kashinath Shetye, petitioner in person submitted that impugned order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not heard before passing order. Even after direction of this Court under order dated 12.02.2026, petitioner’s M.A. No.9/2026 for recall of order has been rejected observing that Appeal itself was presented beyond limitation, same was barred under Section 16 of Act of 2010. 4. The petitioner contends that on 18.04.2022, he collected copy of order dated 07.03.2022 and presented Appeal on 11.05.2022 vide Filing No.270413700227/2022. Since there were some objections, Appeal was re-uploaded on 16.07.2022 vide Filing No.270413700336/2022. On 18.07.2022 I.A. was uploaded for condonation of 42 days delay caused in filing Appeal as instructed by Registry. On same day, corrected Appeal was uploaded under Filing No.227. On 26.07.2022, Registry notified defects. Therefore, Appeal No.29/2022 was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh with appropriate documents. On 10.08.2022, Appeal was re-filed under Filing No.270413700388/2022, which was registered as Appeal No.33/2022. Thereafter, I.A. No.117/2022 filed in Appeal No.33/2022 for condoning delay, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2022. In light of aforesaid sequence of events, there was (5) WP-799-2023.odt delay of hardly 42 days in filing Appeal and it was within powers of NGT to condone same. He would, therefore, urge to allow Writ Petition and remit matter back to Tribunal. 5. Per contra, Mr. Neehal Verneka, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr. Shivan Dessai, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 vehemently opposes application. According to them, NGT has passed order on merit. The Appeal presented by petitioner was hopelessly time barred. The Tribunal cannot condone delay beyond 60 days. In present case, delay was more than 120 days. As such, petitioner has lost remedy of Appeal. If he is aggrieved by order of Tribunal, his remedy is to approach Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner cannot invoke Writ jurisdiction of this Court in facts and circumstances of case. 6. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it is necessary to deal with first objection raised on behalf of respondents as to maintainability of present Writ Petition. It is trite that, exhaustion of alternate remedy is Rule of convenience, and self-imposed restriction on Court rather than Rule of law. Once it is found that petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy provided under statute, Writ Court would decide whether to entertain Writ Petition and exercise discretion in facts and circumstances of particular case and nature of order under challenge. (6) WP-799-2023.odt The Court would also examine whether alternate remedy is efficacious in nature and some exception can be carved out to invoke extraordinary Writ jurisdiction. 7. This Court is not oblivious of law espoused in cases of Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others1 and CICILY Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory2, wherein direction of caution for exercise of Writ jurisdiction by High Court against order of National Commission has been laid down. However, in facts of present case, this Court finds that petitioner’s Appeal has been dismissed without hearing him that too on point of limitation and prima facie on incorrect appreciation of facts. In this backdrop, this Court had directed petitioner to approach NGT for recall of order. Accordingly, petitioner had moved M.A. No.9/2026 for recall of order, which has been dismissed reiterating observations made in original order dated 02.12.2022. 8. Normally this Court relegated petitioner to approach Supreme Court under Section 22 of Act of 2010. However, Appeal before Supreme Court is permissible only on ground specified under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. In present case, petitioner’s Appeal has been rejected being barred by limitation prescribed under Section 16 of Act of 2010. The impugned order pre-supposes that petitioner has 1 (2012) 8 SCC 326. 2 (2012) 8 SCC 524. (7) WP-799-2023.odt presented his Appeal with delay of more than 114 days ignoring fact that petitioner had presented his Appeal on 13.05.2022 vide Filing No.227/2022, which was registered as Appeal No.29/2022 with application to condone delay of 42 days, but on 12.08.2022 it was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh Appeal alongwith documents and again re-filed within two days thereafter. Therefore, assumption that Appeal was delayed by 114 days, beyond scope of entertaining Appeal under Section 16 of Act of 2010, prima facie appears to be fallacious. Although petitioner had moved application for recall of order giving necessary particulars to demonstrate delay in filing Appeal is less than 60 days, which can be condoned by Tribunal has been ignored. In peculiar facts of this case when first order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and second order is passed under incorrect presumption of facts, this Court finds that petitioner has made out case to entertain Writ Petition. Hence, following order: ORDER a. Writ Petition is partly allowed. b. The impugned order dated 02.12.2022 passed by National Green Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune in Appeal No.33/2022 (WZ) I.A. No.117/2022 as well as order dated 19.03.2026 passed in M.A. No.9/2026, are quashed and set aside. (8) WP-799-2023.odt c. The I.A. No.117/2022 is relegated back to Tribunal for reconsideration on merit in light of observations made hereinabove. d. Parties shall appear before Tribunal on 16.10.2026. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/September-2026