The Bombay High Court delivered a sharp rebuke to the Goa government on Monday, expressing severe displeasure over a glaring lack of accountability in enforcing demolition orders. The court was hearing a petition related to the controversial 'Birch by Romeo Lane' structures, a case that has gained tragic significance following a recent incident.
Court Grills State Over Licensing and Inaction
A division bench comprising Justices Sarang Kotwal and Ashish Chavan posed critical questions that have echoed public sentiment since the tragedy. The bench directly challenged the state's logic, asking, "Considering there was a demolition order, why was the trade licence issued in the first place?" The judges termed it "very bad" that the director of panchayats kept the demolition order pending for an extended period, raising queries about the director's qualifications and appointment process during the hearing.
The High Court demanded an explanation from the government on how commercial operations, including a nightclub, continued at the premises without a valid occupancy certificate. "Why was it issued a commercial licence if it did not possess an occupancy certificate?" the bench sought to know. In response, the government counsel revealed that the commercial licence was issued a decade ago.
A Systemic Failure of Duty and Prevention
The bench emphasized the proactive duty of authorities, stating, "From day one, we have observed and expressed our concern... why wait for somebody to make a complaint (of an illegal construction). It is your duty to visit the spot and examine if constructions are as per plans." The judges observed a persistent pattern of authorities "passing the buck" and blaming a lack of cooperation from police and other departments, even after final demolition orders were issued.
Highlighting the core issue, the bench stated, "Accountability is missing and that’s why this is happening. Punishing after the event is one issue, but we are concerned about prevention." They stressed that their primary concern was the safety of commercial establishments to prevent future tragedies, calling it a time for "corrective action."
Petitioners and State's Response
Advocate Rohit Bras de Sa, representing petitioners Pradeep Ghadi Amonkar and Sunil Divker, argued that lives could have been saved if authorities had acted on a legal notice sent on November 4, which called for inspection of the illegal structure built on a salt pan. He underscored that no structure can be legally occupied without an occupancy certificate, making commercial operations a clear violation. "Everybody has profited at the cost of 25 lives lost. Politicians have profited..." he alleged, pointing to several other illegal structures operating without proper certificates.
Government advocate Neehal Vernekar informed the court that officials connected to the case are being questioned by a magisterial inquiry committee. He placed the blame on the panchayat for issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the illegal structure. Vernekar suggested mapping illegalities as a solution, similar to an ongoing suo motu petition on illegal constructions. However, the High Court declined this suggestion, noting it would lead to further delays.
The hearing has put a spotlight on the administrative and regulatory lapses in Goa, with the court insisting on immediate accountability and action to rectify systemic failures that compromise public safety.
