Disposed

Lloyd St Jude Joachim Fernandes v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

NGT7 Sept 2026Review Application No. 6/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT Pune Bench dismissed a liberal review application against an order directing demolition of structures violating CRZ norms. The Court refused to grant relief to alter structures but granted liberty to file a fresh original application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a fresh original application; relief sought in review was negatived.

Lloyd St Jude Joachim Fernandes vs Goa… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | NGT (2026)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.7

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.06 OF 2026 (WZ) IN

¶6

APPEAL NO.142 OF 2024 (WZ) (Disposed of on 29.07.2026)

¶7

Lloyd St Jude Joachim Fernandes

¶8

…..Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Goa State Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) & Ors.

¶11

….Respondents

¶12

Date of hearing: 07.09.2026

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER

¶14

Applicant

¶15

: Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni and Mr. Adwait Gokhale, Advocates

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This review application has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2026 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No.142 of 2024 (WZ), wherein in para nos.23 to 25, following order was passed:-

¶18

“23. In regard to the above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that this argument does not sustain because the approval granted was with specifications of the area and size, of which the construction of the shacks/cottages was to be done, the same could not have been exceeded or deviated. There was no justification for the appellant to exceed the total area, in which the construction was allowed to be done. In no manner, any change in construction could have been done by the appellant from the one granted/approved by the GCZMA. Further, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant can reduce the construction of each

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

cottage to bring it within the approved limit, would also not sustain because that is not possible to be done practically, as the demolition of any part of particular cottage would affect the entire cottages/huts. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the GCZMA ordering demolition of the entire structures.

¶21

24. As regards revocation of the permissions, we are of the view that once any violation of any of the terms & conditions of the approval is committed by the appellant, Respondent No.1GCZMA would be well within its right to revoke their permissions because that was one of the conditions also while granting the permissions/approvals.

¶22

25. One more argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that the appellant has also moved an application for revision of the Plan before Respondent No.1GCZMA, which has not been decided till date and yet the impugned order has been passed hurriedly ordering demolition of the entire structures. In this regard, we are of the considered view that in the CRZ area, there is no provision for the regularization of any construction/illegal construction, therefore, no such application would lie before the GCZMA, decision on which might go in favour of the appellant. Therefore, even that argument of learned counsel for the appellant fails on merit.”

¶23

Against the above order, learned counsel for the review applicant

¶24

has submitted that the applicant has moved CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10253

¶25

OF 2026 (LLOYD ST. JUDGE JOACHIM FERNANDES VS. GOA COASTAL

¶26

ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein following order was passed on 17.08.2026:-

¶27

“ 1. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel representing the appellant after arguing at length, upon instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal, with liberty to pursue such other remedies as may be available to the appellant in law.

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

2. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to avail such other remedy as may be available to the appellant in accordance to law.”

¶30

Now, the learned counsel for the review applicant has submitted that a private survey was got conducted, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure- A-3, wherein under the head “Feasibility of Alteration”, following are recorded:-

¶31

“Based on our review, the existing cottage structures can be altered and modified without compromising its overall structural stability, provided the alterations are carried out in accordance with approved structural drawings and under the supervision of a qualified Structural Engineer.

¶32

The proposed alterations may include modification of walls, openings, internal arrangements, roof elements and other components, depending upon the final architectural proposal.

¶33

………………………………………………………………………………”

¶34

Having read out the above, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the review applicant that an order may be passed to the effect that the demolition of the structure in question, which is to be done, may be directed to be done by the applicant himself and during that he may adhere to the recommendations made by the private surveyor.

¶35

We do not deem it appropriate to grant the above relief in the review application because review would lie only for some error contained on the face of the order passed, which does not appear to be a case herein. The relief, which the review applicant is seeking, would require a fresh petition to be filed with the said relief, in which the opposite party will have to be heard before passing any order.

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

At this stage, learned counsel for the review applicant has prayed that he may be granted liberty to convert this review application into an Original Application. But we are of the view that it will be appropriate for us to grant liberty to the review applicant to file fresh Original Application seeking therein the said relief subject to the limitation.

¶38

In view of above, we dispose of this review application accordingly.

¶39

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶40

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶41

September 07, 2026 REVIEW APPLICATION NO.06 OF 2026 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶42

Page 4 of 4

Lloyd St Jude Joachim Fernandes v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lloyd St Jude Joachim Fernandes v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunath Maity vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Venkatapati Raja Yenumula vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Balvant vs Yashwant Soma Tandel

Nitin Singhvi vs State of Chhattisgarh through- Secretary Mineral Resources Department Government of Chhattisgarh

Gram Panchayat Bahrol Sagar through Sarpanch vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary Department of Environment

Anil Kanti Prasad Poddar vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board

Anil Kanti Prasad Poddar vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board

Anil Kanti Prasad Poddar vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board

Arun Nathuram Gaikwad vs Secretary Environment Department Government of Maharashtra

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee vs Moef

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through the Secretary

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 19/2024 in Original Application No. 205/2024 of Nagri Hakka Sangarsh Samiti vs Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through the Secretary