Jose Joaquim Fernandes and 3 Ors. vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 7 Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Jose Joaquim Fernandes and 3 Ors. vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 7 Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with directions: (i) no construction at the site without a fresh Technical Clearance from the concerned Town Planner; (ii) the GCZMA to notify and hear the Petitioners before deciding any fresh-NOC application by Respondent No. 8; (iii) Respondent No. 8 to implead the Petitioners in any proceedings disputing the expiry of its NOCs, to be disposed of in accordance with law with a hearing; (iv) liberty to the Petitioners to revive the Petition if Respondent No. 8 obtains a fresh licence or NOC.

Issue for consideration

Validity of the Technical Clearance dated 13.03.2020 granted by the Town and Country Planning Department, Mormugao, challenged by the Petitioners. +2 more

Court's answer

Respondent No. 8 presently holds no valid Technical Clearance from the Town Planner; therefore no construction will proceed at the site without obtaining the Technical Clearance from the concerned Town Planner.

Ratio / Principle

The Court did not adjudicate the dispute over whether the GCZMA NOCs dated 08.04.2013 and 10.03.2017 are in operation or have expired, and framed its directions on the footing that the question stands disputed.

Key takeaways

If Respondent No. 8 applies for a fresh NOC, the GCZMA shall notify the Petitioners and hear them before taking any decision on such Application.ratio¶4
If Respondent No. 8 institutes proceedings contesting the GCZMA's stand that its NOCs dated 08.04.2013 and 10.03.2017 have expired, it shall implead the Petitioners therein, and the Forum seized of such proceedings shall dispose of them in accordance with law after giving the Petitioners an opportunity of hearing.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL Writ Petition No. 51 of 2024, High Court of Bombay at Goa (Valmiki Menezes & Amit S. Jamsandekar, JJ.), decided 17 March 2026. The Petitioners (Jose Joaquim Fernandes & 3 Ors.) challenged the Technical Clearance dated 13.03.2020 granted by the Town and Country Planning Department, Mormugao, and sought a GCZMA survey of the subject land under Survey No. 117/1, village Arrosim, to ascertain alleged sand dunes. At hearing, the GCZMA stated that its NOCs to Respondent No. 8 dated 08.04.2013 and 10.03.2017 had expired — a position Respondent No. 8 disputed — and it was recorded that the challenged Technical Clearance had expired. Holding that Respondent No. 8 possesses no valid Technical Clearance, the Court directed that no construction proceed at the site without a fresh Technical Clearance from the concerned Town Planner; that any fresh-NOC application to the GCZMA be preceded by notification to and hearing of the Petitioners; that proceedings disputing NOC expiry implead the Petitioners; and left the Petitioners liberty to revive the Petition against any fresh approval. Petition disposed of; no statutes or precedents cited.

2026:BHC-GOA:504-DB

Jose Joaquim Fernandes & 3 Others Vs. State of Goa & 7 Others

1 PIL WP No. 51 of 2024

Esha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

PIL WRIT PETITION NO. 51 OF 2024

JOSE JOAQUIM FERNANDES & 3 ORS. … PETITIONERS

~ VERSUS ~

STATE OF GOA, THR. CHIEF SECRETARY … RESPONDENTS & 7 OTHERS

APPEARANCES:

for the Petitioners Mr. Charles Furtado for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to 7 Mr. Deep D. Shirodkar, AGA for Respondent No. 2 Mr. Adonis Felipe Colaco with Ms. Ankita Basnet for Respondent No. 8 Senior Advocate, Mr. S.S. Kantak with Ms. Neha Kholkar, Mr. Kunal Mehta, Mr. Preetam Talaulikar and Ms. Laxmi Sawant

CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATED : 17^th MARCH 2026

P.C:

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

Page 1 of 3 March 17, 2026

Jose Joaquim Fernandes & 3 Others Vs. State of Goa & 7 Others

1 PIL WP No. 51 of 2024

2. The challenge in this Petition is to the Technical Clearance order dated 13.03.2020, granted by the Town and Country Planning Department, Mormugao. The Petitioners also seek a direction to the GCZMA to survey the subject land under Survey No. 117/1 of village Arrosim, to ascertain the existing sand dunes, as alleged in the Petition.

3. The learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Shirodkar, appearing for the GCZMA, today, makes a statement that the NOCs of the GCZMA dated 08.04.2013 and 10.03.2017, which were granted to Respondent No. 8 have expired and Respondent No. 8 would be required to obtain a fresh NOC, if they seek to carry out any construction at the site; this position is disputed by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Kantak appearing for Respondent No. 8, who claims that the license has not actually expired. Further, it is pointed out that since the Technical Clearance of the Town Planner, which is under challenge in this Petition, has expired, Respondent No. 8 would have to obtain a fresh Technical Clearance for carrying out the construction at the site.

4. Considering that at present, Respondent No. 8, does not possess any valid Technical Clearance from the Town Planner, it is clear that no construction will proceed at the site without obtaining the Technical Clearance from the concerned Town Planner. Even though the question as to whether the NOCs granted by the GCZMA dated 08.04.2013 and 10.03.2017 are in operation or have expired, is in dispute, if Respondent No. 8 chooses to apply for a fresh NOC, the GCZMA in that event, shall notify the Petitioners and hear the Petitioners before is takes any decision on such Application filed by Respondent No. 8. So also, if Respondent No. 8 chooses to challenge the contentions of the GCZMA that the

Page 2 of 3 March 17, 2026

Jose Joaquim Fernandes & 3 Others Vs. State of Goa & 7 Others

__________________________________________________ 1 PIL WP No. 51 of 2024

NOCs dated 08.04.2013 and 10.03.2017 have now expired and if such proceedings are filed, then the Respondent No. 8 shall implead the Petitioners as party Respondents to the proceedings and the Forum of such proceedings lodged, shall proceed to dispose of the same in accordance with law and after giving the Petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

5. Needless to state, if the Respondent No. 8 obtains a fresh license or NOC from the concerned Town Planner or GCZMA, we leave it open to the Petitioners to revive this Petition, if so advised to challenge the same afresh.

6. Considering the aforesaid mentioned facts and the directions issued by us, nothing further survives in this Petition and the Petition stands disposed of in view of the observations made above.

[ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. ] [ VALMIKI MENEZES, J. ]

Page 3 of 3 March 17, 2026

Signed by: ESHA SAINATH VAIGANKAR Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 18/03/2026 11:07:47