MINUTES FOR THE 67TH MEETING OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY HELD ON 02 / 04 / 2012 (Monday) and on 10 / 04 / 2012 (Tuesday) (Sub-Committee) in the Conference Hall, 2nd Floor, Secretariat, Porvorim.

67.1 Minutes of the 60th, 61st, 62nd, 63rd, 64th, 65th & 66th Sub Committee meeting held on 14/07/2011, 21/07/2011, 03/08/2011 & 10/08/2011, 20/09/2011, 04/10/2011, 21/10/2011, 22/11/2011 respectively are hereby confirmed.

67.2 Personal Hearing in cases referred by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa

67.2.1 Ms. Sudarshan Dry Docks v/s GCZMA ……………… W.P. No. 761 of 2011 and MCA No. 192 of 2012 [Annexed, (i) Order of High Court in W.P. 761 of 2011 dated 15th December, 2011, (ii) Order of High Court in MCA 192 of 2012 dated 16th February 2012.]

Proceedings: The matter was taken up by the Authority; for discussion in the 67th Meeting of the GCZMA held on 02/04/2012. Adv. R. Tamba was present on behalf of M/s Sudarshan Dry docks. Shri. Rudresh Naik, was also present, Adv. Tamba raised preliminary objection that the Notice for the personal hearing by the GCZMA was in respect of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 05/08/2011 and not for the SCN dated 09/07/2010. He was asked, whether he would like to defend his stand against the SCN dated 09/07/2010 also he responded that he is not prepared for the same and will defend his stand in SCN dated 05/08/2011 as and when notice is issued to him separately Adv. Tamba pointed out to the provision of Clause (8) of the CRZ Notification, 2011, which states that under CRZ-III, in notified port limits there is no NDZ. He relied on the notification of the CoP of the year 1967, which declares the river portion of the tributary of the Mandovi as part of port limits. As such the riverside portion would not come under the purview of NDZ as defined under CRZ Notification. Therefore he held that the GCZMA has no authority to decide in the matter and that to construct and develop jetties; he is well within his rights. He stated that he has been granted approval by the CoP and that SCN issued by the CoP has been decided in his favour. GCZMA pointed out the judgment in the matter of PIL W.P. No. 3 of 2011, Franky Monteiro v/s GCZMA, where the similar land was used by a barge repair unit at Rassaim. The Hon’ble High Court took the stand that even though the area may be within notified port limits, and even if NDZ is not applicable, any development would require the prior approval of the GCZMA under CRZ regulation. This was disputed by Adv. Tamba, by stating that the facts and circumstances of the case are different and this order cannot be made applicable here. The Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF), one of the Members of the GCZMA, sought to know the details about the trees and other type of vegetative cover cut at the site and whether there was any approval was taken for the same. Adv. Tamba replied that the area is pristine and that there is no record of the number of coconut trees existing in the said plot. Adv. Tamba, stated that he has nothing more to add and all questions have been answered in the reply to the SCN. Hearing concluded, with instructions that the petitioner would be informed about the next date of hearing to consider the SCN dated 09/07/2010 would be in the next week. Both Adv. Tamba along with Shri Rudresh Naik acknowledged the same.

Decision: The GCZMA Members perused the details of the case, documentary evidence, the site inspection reports, the site photographs and the replies given by the petitioner. Members perused the CRZ Notification in detail vis-à-vis the contention of the petitioner that the CRZ rules do not apply to him. It is seen that, as per Clause (3), all types of industrial activity is prohibited, except that which requires foreshore or water front facility. Further according to Clause (4), the scope of permissible activities is defined. The petitioner’s activity is covered as peripheral activity to a harbour, jetty, ship repair yards etc.. For this activity one requires prior approval for development from the GCZMA.

Page 1 of 11

Clause (8), under CRZ-III indicates that the NDZ is not applicable in notified port limits. That means the area can be developed as per the permissible activity allowed under the regulations. However since it is permissible activity, prior approval of the GCZMA is a must. The stand taken by the petitioner, that no approval is required from the GCZMA is untenable. The Members relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Franky Monterio v/s GCZMA, wherein the submissions made by the GCZMA in affidavit, that although the area concerned falls under notified Port Limits, prior approvals from authorities concerned including GCZMA has to be obtained and that the CRZ Notification is applicable; has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. As such, it is very much required that the prior approval of the GCZMA is essential under the law. The petitioner very well knows this fact; otherwise he need not have filed an application for dry dock / slipway /floating pontoon etc. before the authority. Hence, the petitioner ought to have taken prior approval of the authority. But he has proceeded to construct the dry dock without obtaining the permissions covered by law. Members took exception to the fact that the petitioner has misused the permission granted by the authority for temporary floating pontoon and has falsely used the same for cutting the land mass to suitable gradient to facilitate construction of a dry dock. This has caused, irreversible damage to the geological features at the site, thus affecting and damaging the coastal and riverine ecosystem. Thus the petitioner has violated the provisions of the CRZ regulation and in doing so has violated the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act (EPA), 1986. The petitioner is thus liable for issue of such direction under section 5 of the EPA, 1986; to make good the geological and ecological loss at site, by back filling the cut portion and the cavity formed in the property and restore the area back to its original status. The permission granted for floating pontoon and barge repair facility /activity should also be revoked. The matter also needs to be referred to the appropriate authority for inquiry under section 15 read with section 19 of the EPA, 1986. The GCZMA Members, decided that the aforesaid directions be issued and action taken against the petitioner as per the provisions of the EPA, 1986. Members further observed that the matter pertaining to the cutting of land mass and the hill beyond the permissible gradient be referred to the Town and Country Planning Department for action under the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and that pertaining to the destruction of vegetative cover be referred to the Forest Department.

67.3 Site inspections for repairs / renovations/ other GCZMA matters, new projects and minor developmental works.

Item No. 1 (Construction/Reconstruction/Development in CRZ-II Area).

Case No. 1.1 Proposed NOC construction of Staff Quarters/Vaccination/Quarantine Centre in Chalta No. 8 of P.T. sheet No. 7 of Vasco city, Taluka, by Directorate General of Health Services Port Health organization. (GCZMA/S/11-12/). DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines.

Case No. 1.2 Proposed NOC construction of G+2 residential building in Chalta No. 6 of P.T. sheet No. 105 of Vasco city, Mormugao Taluka, by Mr. Mohammad Rafiq Katalsab Patwekar (GCZMA/S/11-12/). DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines

Case No. 1.3 Proposed NOC construction of fellow Lab Chalta No. 02 of P.T. sheet No. 25 of Vasco city, Mormugao Taluka, by National Centre for Antarctic & Ocean Research (GCZMA/S/11- 12/).

Page 2 of 11

DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines

Case No. 1.4 Proposed NOC construction of residential house Chalta No. 71 of P.T. sheet No. 175 of Vasco city, Mormugao Taluka, by Mr. Jogi Thomas (GCZMA/S/11-12/). DECISION: Deferred, the GCZMA Members decided that the Show Cause Notice issued to the Party should be decided first, subsequently, based on the decision of the Show Cause Notice this request may be considered.

Item No. 2 (Repair & Renovation/Development in CRZ-III Area).

Case No. 2.1 Proposed NOC reconstruction to the existing house in Survey No. 17/1 of Village Velsao, Mormugao Taluka by Mr. Gospar Fernandes & Assiz Fernandes. (GCZMA/S/11-12/) DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use. This reconstructed structure should under no condition whatsoever, be used for any commercial activity.

Case No. 2.2 Proposed NOC repair and renovation to the existing house in Survey No. 193/1 of Village Poinguinim, Canacona Taluka by Mr. Pradeep Gokuldas Mokhardkar. (GCZMA/S/11-12/ 69) DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for repairs and renovation is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use. This reconstructed structure should under no condition whatsoever, be used for any commercial activity.

Case No. 2.3 Proposed NOC repairs to the existing house in Survey No. 12/1 of Village Pale, Mormugao Taluka by Mrs. Ursula M. Aguiar. (GCZMA/S/11-12/) DECISION: This matter has been erroneously placed in the present agenda. However, this proposal has already been approved in the 66th Meeting of the GCZMA dated 22/11/2011.

Case No. 2.4 Proposed NOC repair to the existing house bearing No. 5/46-A in Survey No. 174/4 of Village Calangute, Taluka by Mrs. Maria A. Fernandes. (GCZMA/N/11-12/) DECISION: Deferred, the documents submitted does not comply with the provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of CRZ Notification 2011. However, the Project proponent is directed to submit fresh plansand relevant documents. Ownership details are required to be verified.

Case No. 2.5 Proposed NOC repair and renovation to the existing house in Survey No. 248/20-B of Village Calangute, Bardez Taluka by Smt. Hiravati H. Nagvekar. (GCZMA/N/11-12/) DECISION: Deferred, the documents submitted does not comply with the provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of CRZ Notification 2011. However, the Project proponent is directed to submit fresh plans and relevant documents. The current plan is for a G+1 structure, while at site there is aground floor structure. Details need veriufication.

Case No. 2.6 Proposed NOC repair and renovation to the existing house in Survey No. 148/3 of Village Calangute, Bardez Taluka by Mrs. Rosalina D’Souza. (GCZMA/N/11-12/ ) DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for repairs and renovation is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use. This reconstructed structure should under no condition whatsoever, be used for any commercial activity.

Page 3 of 11

Case No. 2.7 Proposed NOC repair and renovation to the existing house in Survey No. 203/1 of Village Calangute, Bardez Taluka by Mrs. Ana Rosa Sylvia Freddie Fernandes. (GCZMA/N/11- 12/) DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for repairs and renovation is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use. This reconstructed structure should under no condition whatsoever, be used for any commercial activity.

Case No. 2.8 Proposed NOC reconstruction to the existing house in Survey No. 159/17 of Village , Bardez Taluka by Sr. Lily Joseph. (GCZMA/N/11-12/) DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for repairs and renovation is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use. This reconstructed structure should under no condition whatsoever, be used for any commercial activity.

Case No. 2.9 Proposed NOC repair and renovation to the existing house in Survey No. 360/12 of Village Anjuna, Bardez Taluka by Mr. Madan alias Madhu G. Parab. (GCZMA/N/11-12/) DECISION: Deferred, the documents submitted does not comply with the provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of CRZ Notification 2011. However, the Project proponent is directed to submit fresh plans and relevant documents.

Case No. 2.10 Proposed NOC for reconstruction to the existing house in Survey No. 95/3 of Village Reis- Magos, Bardez Taluka by Mr. Ranjit Narang. (GCZMA/N/11-12/ ) DECISION: Deferred, the project proponent is not covered under the provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of CRZ Notification 2011.

Case No. 2.11 Proposed NOC for reconstruction to the existing house in survey No. 71/1-A of Village Reis-Magos, Bardez Taluka by Anthony F.D. Souza(GCZMA/N/11-12/ ) DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use. This reconstructed structure should under no condition whatsoever, be used for any commercial activity.

Case No. 2.12 Proposed NOC for reconstruction to the existing house in Survey No. 95/1A of Village Reis- Magos, Bardez Taluka by Mr. Jose Maria Rodrigues. (GCZMA/N/11-12/ ) DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use. This reconstructed structure should under no condition whatsoever, be used for any commercial activity.

Case No. 2.13 Proposed NOC for reconstruction to the existing house in Survey No. 165/1 of Village Siolim, Bardez Taluka by Shri Premnath A. Narvekar. (GCZMA/N/11-12/) DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use. This reconstructed structure should under no condition whatsoever, be used for any commercial activity.

Case No. 2.14 Proposed NOC for reconstruction to the existing house in Survey No. 82/0 of Village Candolim, Bardez Taluka, by Mr. Xavier F. Gomes. (GCZMA/N/11-12/ )

Page 4 of 11

DECISION: Deferred, the documents submitted does not comply with the provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of CRZ Notification 2011. However, the Project proponent is directed to submit fresh plans and relevant documents. There is an existing ground floor structure and the proponent has shown G+1 structure. This aspect needs verification.

Case No. 2.15 Proposed NOC for reconstruction to the existing house in Survey No. 155/3 of Village Candolim, Bardez Taluka by Mr. Joaquim Pedro D’Souza. (GCZMA/N/11-12/ ) DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use. This reconstructed structure should under no condition whatsoever, be used for any commercial activity.

Case No. 2.16 Proposed NOC for repairs to the existing house bearing. No. 5/36 in Survey No. 172/5 of Village Calangute, Bardez Taluka by Mr. Rosaria Cardozo. (GCZMA/N/11-12/) DECISION: Deferred, the documents submitted does not comply with the provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of CRZ Notification 2011. However, the project proponent is directed to submit fresh plans and relevant documents.

Case No. 2.17 Proposed NOC for repair and renovation to the existing house in Survey No. 148/20 of Village Calangute, Bardez Taluka by Mr. Francis De Conceicao Mascarenhas. (GCZMA/N/11-12/) DECISION: Deferred, the documents submitted does not comply with the provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of CRZ Notification 2011. However, the project proponent is directed to submit fresh plans and relevant documents.

Case No. 2.18 Proposed NOC for reconstruction to the existing house in Survey No. 17/1 of Village Pale, Mormugao Taluka by Mrs. Nandita L.R. Pereira & Mr. Royston J.C. Costa (GCZMA/S/11-12/) DECISION: Deferred, the documents submitted does not comply with the provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of CRZ Notification 2011. However, the Project proponent is directed to submit fresh plans and relevant documents. Re-verification of the plans and site requires to be carried out.

Case No. 2.19 Proposed NOC for repair and renovation to the existing house bearing No. 5/92A in Survey No. 178/25 of Village Calangute, Bardez Taluka by Mr. Johny Fernandes. (GCZMA/N/11- 12/ ) DECISION: Deferred, the documents submitted does not comply with the provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of CRZ Notification 2011. However, the project proponent is directed to submit fresh plans and relevant documents. Re-verification of the plans and site requires to be carried out.

Case No. 2.20 Proposed NOC for repair and renovation to the existing house bearing No. 5/37B in Survey No. 173/1-G of Village Calangute, Bardez Taluka by Mrs. Pascoala Fernandes. (GCZMA/N/11-12/) DECISION: Deferred, the documents submitted does not comply with the provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of CRZ Notification 2011. However, the project proponent is directed to submit fresh plans and relevant documents. The plans are not attested by the Architect concerned. These details need verification.

Case No. 2.21 Proposed NOC for repair and renovation to the existing house bearing No. 187/A in Survey No. 148/20 of Village Calangute, Bardez Taluka by Mr. Jose L. Mascarenhas, Mr. Peter P. Mascarenhas, Mr. Antonio A. Mascarenhas. (GCZMA/N/11-12/) DECISION: Deferred, the documents submitted does not comply with the provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of CRZ Notification 2011. However, the project proponent is directed to submit fresh plans and relevant documents.

Page 5 of 11

Case No. 2.22 Proposed NOC for reconstruction to the existing house and wire fencing in Chalta No. 5 & 1(Part) of PTS 170 & 184 city Tiswadi Taluka, by Smt. Aida De Souza Vaz and others. (GCZMA/N/11-12/) DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use. This reconstructed structure should under no condition whatsoever, be used for any commercial activity.

Case No. 2.23 Proposed NOC for reconstruction to the existing house in Survey No. 120/2 of Village Arrosim, Mormugao Taluka by Mr. Rosario S. Fernandes (GCZMA/S/11-12/) DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use. This reconstructed structure should under no condition whatsoever, be used for any commercial activity.

Item No. 3 (Wire fencing/biofencing)

Case No. 3.1 Proposed NOC for wire fencing in Sy. No. 132/2 of Candolim Village, Bardez Taluka by Mr.Shakeel A. Ladak(GCZMA/N/11-12/) DECISION: Deferred, the documents submitted does not comply with the provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of CRZ Notification 2011.

Case No. 3.2 Proposed NOC for wire fencing in Sy. No. 384/6 of Anjuna Village, Bardez Taluka by Smt. Sudhabai M. Phadte (GCZMA/N/11-12/) DECISION: Approved, subject to the condition that any traditional access should not be blocked and also subject to the condition that the wire fencing should be in accordance with the local building bye laws. Biofencing with pioneer vegetative cover is recommended.

Case No. 3.3 Proposed NOC for mesh fencing in Sy. No. 129/15 of Arrosim Village, Mormugao Taluka by Gulzar Khan (GCZMA/S/11-12/) DECISION: Deferred, the documents submitted does not comply with the provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of CRZ Notification 2011.

Case No. 3.4 Proposed NOC for compound wall in Sy. No. 138/1-D(Part) of Varca Village, Salcete Taluka by M/s. Total Composites Pvt. Ltd. (GCZMA/S/08-09/66). DECISION: Approved from CRZ angle for hedge vegetation or bio fencing and not for compound wall, subject to the condition that any traditional access should not be blocked and also subject to the condition that hedge vegetation or bio fencing should be in accordance with the guidelines of the local authorities.

Item No. 4 (Other development / construction of jetty / Repair of barges / Dry-Docks / Regularisation etc.)

Case No. 4.1 Proposed construction of wooden jetty with floating pontoon to berth small vessels in abutting property Survey No. 49/3 of Penha de Franca Village, Bardez Taluka. DECISION: Deferred. The Authority decided that all such developments in the Mandovi river need to be studied at macro as well as micro level considering the proposed and future developments both from Government and private side. It was decided to constitute a committee under the Chairmanship of Engr. Sandip Nadkarni, Chief Engineer (WRD) and comprising shri Sanjit Rodrigues, Director (DITC) and MD, GSIDC; Engr. Pascoal Noronha and Dr. A. G. Untawale, both Members GCZMA; Shri. Swapnil Naik, Director (Tourism); CoP, Director (RND), Director (Fisheries), Dy. SP (Coastal Security), CCF (wildlife and sanctuaries). The committee will study all issues and recommended to the GCZMA and Government on all the

Page 6 of 11 developments to be undertaken and identify sites for future expansion in the area. The Committee will submit its report within 30 days to GCZMA. A report prepared by Dr. Untawale on the St. Inez nullah will also be studied by this committee.

Case No. 4.2 Proposed NOC for floating pontoon to berth small vessels in abutting property Survey No. 43/5 of Penh de Franca Village, Bardez Taluka. (GCZMA/N/11-12/ ) DECISION: Deferred. The matter to be discussed in the committee as constituted above at 4.4.1

Case No. 4.3 Proposed NOC for dry-dock shed with overhead crane and extension & modification of existing machine shop by M/s. Dempo Shipbuilding and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.(GCZMA/N/11-12/47/ ) DECISION: Approved.

Case No. 4.4 Proposed NOC to carry-out workshop to repair barges in abutting Survey No. 123/0 in Cundai Village, Ponda Taluka. DECISION: Deferred. This a potential mangrove zone and the area needs protectio. The committee constituted as at 4.4.1 above is requested to examine the matter.

Case No. 4.5 Proposed NOC for strengthening of existing jetty and installation of Mobile conveyor system in Sy. No. 48/0 at Village Curchorem, QuepemTaluka, by M/s. Sesa Resources Limited (GCZMA/S/11-12 /52). DECISION: Approved

Case No. 4.6 Proposed NOC for Construction of road/access and biofencing/wire fencing in Survey Nos. 235/31 and 235/32-A of Mandrem village, Pernem Taluka by Mr. Vikram Sandhu(GCZMA/N/11-12/) DECISION: Deferred, the documents submitted does not comply with the provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of CRZ Notification 2011.

Case No.4.7 Proposed NOC for construction of barge loading jetty facility in bearing survey No. 17/4 of Kottombi village, Bicholim Taluka, by Ms. Bandekar Brothers Ltd. (GCZMA/N/11-12) DECISION: The GCZMA Members have decided to refer the matter to SEAC/ GSPCB for a report. The matter to be placed for the next meeting along with the report.

Case No. 4.8 Proposed NOC for Construction of concrete jetty for Coastal Security Police at Ribandar by O/o the Superintendent of Police, Coastal Security, Panaji- (GCZMA/N/10-11/40) DECISION: Deferred, the Coastal Security Police to make their presentation before the committee as constituted at 4.4.1 above and the Authority thereafter.

Case No. 4.9 Proposed dredging by M/s. Sesa Resources Ltd.(Vedanta) & M/s. Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (a) Dredging/desiltation work near existing jetty and near abutting Sy. No. 17/4 of Kottombi village, Bicholim Taluka, by M/s. Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (GCZMA/N/11- 12/) DECISION: The proposal may be considered subject to the project proponent considering granting of this task to the WRD as deposit work and that the dredged material is deposited with the Government (WRD).

(b) Dredging work near existing jetty at Sirsaim village, Bicholim Taluka by M/s. Sesa Resources Ltd.,(Vedanta). (GCZMA/N/11-12/ ) DECISION: The proposal may be considered subject to the project proponent considering granting of this task to the WRD as deposit work and that the dredged material is deposited with the Government (WRD).

Page 7 of 11

Case No. 4.10 Proposed NOC to carry-out workshop to repair barges in abutting Survey No. 123/0 in Cundai Village, Ponda Taluka. DECISION: The proposal should be deleted as the same is being mentioned at 4.4.4 above. Same decision as above. . Item No. 5: Matters placed for discussion

Case No. 5.1 (Reconstruction instead of repair and renovation of existing house) 1. Mr. Nicolav Rodrigues, H. No. 468/1, 4th ward Colva, Salcete-Goa, 2. Mr. Roque F. Fernandes, POA holder Caetana Rosalina Rodrigues, H. No. 288, Bagdem, 3rd ward, Colva, Salcete-Goa. 3. Mr. Mario Walter Fernandes, Quegdivelim, Reis-Magos, Bardez-Goa. 4. Mr. Minino D’Souza, Vithaldaswadda-Morjim, Pernem-Goa. Proceeding: All above proposals from 1 to 4 is already approved by the GCZMA for “repairs and renovation”. The proponents again approached the GCZMA for grant of approval for “reconstruction” instead of “repair and renovation”. This is permissible activity as per CRZ Notification, 2011. Decision: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for re-construction granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines.

Case No. 5.2 NOC for strengthening / repair of existing two jetties and installation of two new stationary/ mobile conveyor belt system in Sy. Nos. 144 & 147 at Sarmanos in Pilgao Village, Bicholim Taluka. DECISION: Approved

Case No. 5.3 NOC for strengthening / repair of existing jetty and installation of a new stationary / mobile conveyor belt system and in Sy. Nos. 415 & 416 in Surla Village, Bicholim Taluka. DECISION: Approved

67.4 Matters relating to matters in all Courts: The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority has been made a Party to several different matter / cases which have been filed in the Civil and the District Courts in Margao and Panaji and also before the Hon’ble State Information Commission, at Panaji. The Legal Assistant of the GCZMA has been attending the various cases from the time the Suits are instituted till date. The Legal Assistant of the GCZMA has requested the Authority reimburse professional fees towards the handling charges of the above matters. The breakup of the cases is given as under: 1. Studying the case file Rs. 5,000/- 2. Any written submission submitted in the Court (i.e W.S / Affidavit / reply to any application etc) Rs. 2,000/- per application 3. Appearance Rs. 500/- per appearance 4. Transport Provided by the Authority. The Legal Assistant of the GCZMA, has requested that the above charges may kindly be accepted and the necessary orders may kindly be passed.

DECISION: The GCZMA Members have acknowledged that there are matters with regards to the GCZMA filed in the Court, and hereby accepts the professional fees to be paid to the Legal Assistant. The same has been consented and accepted by all the Members.

67.5 Any other matters.

67.5.1 Complaint against illegal road constructed by Armando Cardozo in the property of Hermitage Builders and Narayan R. Bandekar in Sy. No. 16/4, 16/4-A of Sernabatim

Page 8 of 11

Background and Proceedings: The GCZMA had passed an order bearing ref. No. GCZMA/ILL/SERN/10-11/564 dated 24/08/2011 wherein the GCZMA directed Shri Armando Cardozo to remove the illegal construction of the road, which has been constructed without approvals from the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority and others concerned. Shri Armando Cardozo approached the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition 606 of 2011 wherein vide order dated 08th December 2011; the Hon’ble High Court passed an order stating that: “(1) the Impugned order passed by the Respondent No 1 i.e Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority dated 24/08/2011 shall come in operation / effect only after an appropriate identification / demarcation of the road as depicted in promulgated survey records in respect of the property surveyed under Nos. 16/4 and 16/4A of Sernabatim Village is carried out by Respondent No 1. The said demarcation / identification shall be carried out within two months from today.”

The GCZMA Members carried out the Site Inspection on the 07th February 2012 in the presence of 1. Dr.A.G.Untawale, Member, GCZMA 2. Mr.Santosh Volvoikar, representative (GCZMA),Saligao 3. Mr. Rajesh Harmalkar, Staff Surveyor, Director of Settlement and Land Records, Government of Goa, Panaji-Goa. 4. Mr. Jovec Cardoz present on site on behalf of Shri Armando Cardozo 5. Lt. Gen(Retd). Rana S.K. Kapur 6. Mr.R.S.Sawant & Mr.Mohan Gajlekar,Mr.Subhash Kamat,Mr.R.Azrekar,Mr.V.B. Uchil & Mr.Gowdappa Present on site on behalf of Shri Suvarn R.Bandekar.

On the basis of the available records from the official GCZMA file, the evidences in the form of Land Survey Plan (dated 9th July 2010) as well as the Satellite Date Analysis Report by M/s TECDATUM, Hyderabad (18th Jan.2011) were used for the investigations. The electric poles fixed along one of the accesses (with engraved year 1992) were also used as the ground reality. The site under dispute was also surveyed on all the sides for any markings like property border stones, HTL stones, etc. However, there were no signs of any demarcations anywhere. Towards the seaward side, heavy beach erosion was observed. This indicates that the demarcations of the HTL on the beach might have been washed-out or purposely removed by the vested interests. The Cul-de-Sac (extension of the tar road) on are of the roads on the western side was also taken as evidence. On the basis of the above exercise, it was concluded that the access road towards the seaward or western side, with electricity poles is the ‘old’ on original pathway or access, while the other access towards the eastern side was made at a later date. The Satellite pictures of 2010 and 2011 also prove adequately this finding. It is, therefore, finally concluded that the original access road (the said old road) may be maintained, while the second access (New road) should be demolished. It is also recommended that the owners of plots 16/4 and 16/4-A may also be permitted to erect strong bio-fencing as per the CRZ norms all along their borders to prevent any further violation or encroachment.

Decision: The GCZMA Members after perusing the records available in the Official File of the GCZMA and after going through the Site Inspection Report, the GCZMA Members have decided to issue directions to the Deputy Collector / SDO (Salcete), to comply with the directions and to remove the road constructed by Shri Armando Cardozo in the property of Hermitage Builders and Suvarn R. Bandekar in Sy. No. 16/4, 16/4-A of Sernabatim Village, as the road has been constructed without approvals and the same is not in larger public interest.

67.6 Personal Hearing in cases referred by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa held on 10/04/2012

67.6.1 Ms. Sudarshan Dry Docks v/s GCZMA ……………… W.P. No. 761 of 2011 and MCA No. 192 of 2012 [Annexed, (i) Order of High Court in W.P. 761 of 2011 dated 15th December, 2011, (ii) Order of High Court in MCA 192 of 2012 dated 16th February 2012.]

Proceedings: The matter was taken for personal hearing relating to the Show Cause Notice No. GCZMA / N / 09-10 / 67 / 306 dated 09/07/2010; in the meeting held on 10/04/2012, in

Page 9 of 11 continuation to the Meeting held on 02/04/2012. The alleged Violator was issued a Notice for Personal hearing before GCZMA vide letter no. GCZMA/N/09-10/67/05 dated 09/04/2012. However there was a typing error with regards to the date of the Show Cause Notice issued. The date should have been mentioned as 09/07/2010 but on the Notice for personal hearing the date mentioned was 09/07/2006. On 10/04/2012 one Shri Yogesh Naik, submitted a letter dated 10/04/2012 in the Office of the GCZMA, claiming to be the family member of the Petitioner Shri Rudresh Naik; stating that he has telephonically been communicated by Shri Rudresh Naik, who he says left out of station on account of pre-occupation. In this letter he has returned the Notice for personal hearing dated 09/04/2012 as being wrongly served on the said Yogesh Naik under mistaken identify. He raises an objection to the year of Show Cause Notice, which should be read as 2010 instead of 2006 (which has appeared on the notice for personal hearing). It was informed to the GCZMA Members that the notice was served on his registered address by personal hand delivery. The said Shri Yogesh Naik came to the venue of the personal hearing and submitted the copy of the above letter with the staff of the GCZMA and when informed that the same has to be submitted before the convened meeting of the Authority, he refused and left the premises The Members waited for Shri Rudresh Naik to appear till 04:30 p.m.; but he has failed to appear before the Authority Instead, Shri Rudresh Naik sent a SMS (short messaging service) on the mobile phone of a Staff Member received at 03:35 p.m. alleging malafide intention of the Authority in disposing the directions of the Hon’ble High Court. Members noted that, if one goes through the Notice for personal hearing the reference of the Show Cause Notice is the same mentioned on the Show Cause Notice. Moreover, when the Adv Tamba, and Shri Rudresh Naik was present for the personal hearing dated 02/04/2012, they were informed that the hearing for the Show Cause Notice dated 09/07/2010 will be conducted a week later. Adv. Tamba and Shri Rudresh Naik acknowledged the same Thereafter the GCZMA members deliberated on the subject matter and it is seen that: (i) The Petitioner having known that the hearing in respect of the Show Cause Notice dated 09/07/2010 will be held this week as communicated to them, in the previous hearing held on 02/04/2012; has deliberately avoided appearing before the Authority, and has only gone on technical typographical error of the “year” being 2010 and not 2006. (ii) The Authority thereafter perused the reply to the SCN dated 23/07/2010 and other documents on record, including Site Inspection report, the Photographs taken during the Site Inspection. (iii)It is observed that the alleged violator has blatantly violated the provisions of the CRZ Notification and hence he should be directed to restore the area back to its original status.

Decision: It was decided to issue directions for restoring the site back to its original status by appropriate back filling and carrying out plantation in the area; in addition to the directions decided upon during the GCZMA meeting held on 02/04/2012.

67.7 Additional Item … … Site inspections for repairs / renovations/ other GCZMA matters, new projects and minor developmental works.

Case No. 1.1 Proposed NOC for reconstruction to the existing house bearing No. 57 in survey No. 61/2-C of Village Nagarcem-Palolem, Canacona Taluka by Smt. Remediana Ferrao (GCZMA/S/11-12/ ) Decision: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for repairs and renovation is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use. This reconstructed structure should under no condition whatsoever, be used for any commercial activity.

Case No. 1.2 Proposed NOC for reconstruction to the existing house in survey No. 173/7 of Village Poinguinim, Canacona Taluka by Shri Marcel Cardozo (GCZMA/S/11-12/ ) Decision: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for repairs and renovation is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP

Page 10 of 11 and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use. This reconstructed structure should under no condition whatsoever, be used for any commercial activity.

Case No. 1.3 Proposed NOC for repairs to the existing house bearing No. 589 in survey No. 174/37-A of Village Poinguinim, Canacona Taluka by Smt. Mayawati Datta Pagi (GCZMA/S/11-12/ ) Decision: Approved from CRZ angle, permission for repairs and renovation is granted subject to the condition that the plinth and FAR remain the same and in accordance with TCP and local authority guidelines. This permission granted is as per provisions of rule 6(1)(d) of the CRZ Notification 2011 and should be used only for bonafide personal use. This reconstructed structure should under no condition whatsoever, be used for any commercial activity.

67.8 Matters for Discussion on the proposals of Director (Tourism): (1) Proposed Baga Circuit Development. (2) Proposed Colvale Tourism Circuit Development (3) Proposed Colva Tourism Circuit Development (4) Benaulim Beach. (5) Tourist Assistance Booths. Proceeding: The First proposal was deliberated upon and the same has been considered except the watch tower component where changes have been suggested. The proposal from (2) to (4) are deferred and is now to be placed in the next meeting. The sample tourist assistance booth would be inspected for approval and thereafter approval considered.

Decision: Approved as discussed. The GCZMA Members directed the Tourism Department, with reference to the proposal of proposed Baga Circuit Development; to submit a proper plan for approval incorporating the changes.

(Michael M. D’Souza) Member Secretary, GCZMA Director/Ex-Officio Jt. Secretary, STE

****************************

Page 11 of 11