MAPUSA
The government’s decision to remove and disqualify beleaguered Arpora“Nagoa sarpanch Roshan Redkar over alleged irregularities in granting permissions to the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub “ where a devastating fire claimed 25 lives “ has triggered a far wider debate on accountability, consistency and selective action in Goa’s coastal governance.
While the official action is being projected as a strong message against regulatory lapses, critics argue that it has inadvertently exposed a systemic problem that goes far beyond one panchayat or one sarpanch.
The question now being asked “ both by activists and local leaders “ is whether Redkar is being made a scapegoat in a licensing regime that has long functioned with tacit acceptance across the State.
Licensing practices under scrutiny
It is an open secret that panchayats across major tourist belts “ from Calangute-Candolim and Anjuna-Vagator to Morjim, Mandrem, Arambol and even parts of South Goa “ routinely issue trade licences for “restaurants” that function in practice as high-decibel nightclubs.
These establishments often operate without the full suite of fire safety, coastal regulation and police clearances mandated by law.
If Redkar is found to have deviated from due procedure, then by the same yardstick, sarpanchas, panchayat members and secretaries across these coastal belts would also be vulnerable to similar action.
Activists flag ‘systemic collapse’
Assagao-based activist Desmond Alvares termed the episode not an individual failure but a “systemic collapse”.
“This is not one sarpanch’s failure; it is a failure of the system. Every sarpanch, panchayat member, secretary and official who approved, facilitated or ignored licences without mandatory safety clearances must be held accountable,” Alvares said.
“Licensing is not a formality. It is a public responsibility. When rules are bypassed, lives are put at risk. Silence and inaction are also forms of negligence. Panchayats are public institutions, not private estates. Power comes with duty, and duty comes with accountability,” he added.
There is a growing perception that Redkar has so far been the only political functionary to be punished in connection with the tragedy, fuelling allegations of selective accountability.
Premanand Diukar, founder president of the Calangute Constituency Forum, echoed this concern, stating that the decision to issue the licence could not have been taken unilaterally.
“It appears Roshan Redkar has been made a scapegoat. He could not have taken this decision alone. The entire panchayat body must have been privy to the resolution granting the licence to the nightclub,” Diukar said.
Questions over govt actions
He also pointed to contradictions in the government’s own actions.
“The sarpanch later issued a show-cause notice to the nightclub and even a demolition notice. That demolition was stayed by the Director of Panchayats. Why was it stayed? If violations were serious, why was enforcement halted? Who is responsible then?” Diukar asked, adding that the episode reflects a broader failure of governance rather than individual misconduct.
Alvares concurred, warning against selective blame. “If lapses exist across panchayats, then all responsible persons must face scrutiny, irrespective of position or influence,” he said.
Diukar further alleged that limiting action to the sarpanch amounted to a cover-up of failures across departments.
“If Roshan Redkar is being punished, why has no action been taken against the environment secretary who reportedly certified that the nightclub site did not fall under CRZ? Accountability cannot stop at the panchayat level,” he said.
Legal concerns over disqualification
Legal experts have also raised serious questions over the manner in which the disqualification was carried out.
Senior counsel Carlos Ferreira said that while he would not comment on Redkar’s alleged complicity, the termination itself appeared legally untenable.
“Even if a person is wrong, he must be given an opportunity to explain. A show-cause notice is mandatory. You cannot simply initiate proceedings in violation of the statutory provisions of the Panchayat Act,” Ferreira said.
He also questioned the five-year disqualification imposed on Redkar.
“Traditionally, sarpanchas are disqualified only for the remaining tenure. I am not aware of any case where the Director of Panchayats has debarred someone for five years. This appears to be a clear violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside,” he added.
Govt defends its stand
Government sources, however, maintain that the action was necessary to send a deterrent signal in the wake of a tragedy of unprecedented scale.
“The loss of 25 lives cannot be treated lightly. Where prima facie lapses are found, the government is duty-bound to act,” a senior official said, while declining to comment on whether similar scrutiny would be extended to other panchayats.
A Pandora’s box
That ambiguity is precisely what worries observers. By acting decisively in one case without outlining a broader corrective framework, the government may have opened a Pandora’s box “ one that exposes years of regulatory compromise, selective enforcement and shared culpability.
Whether the Redkar case becomes the starting point for a comprehensive clean-up of Goa’s licensing regime “ or remains an isolated sacrifice at the political altar “ will determine if justice is truly being served, or merely seen to be done.
