PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has directed all coastal panchayats to file sworn affidavits detailing the number of construction permissions, trade licences and occupancy certificates granted to commercial establishments so far, as it broadened the scope of inquiry in the wake of the fatal fire at Birch by Romeo Lane in Arpora.
The Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Amit Jamsandekar’s directions came while hearing a suo motu public interest litigation into the December 6, 2025 blaze that claimed 25 lives. The court described the incident as “a clear case of violation of fundamental rights.”
Advocate General Devidas Pangam told the court that stringent corrective measures must now follow and accountability must be fixed.
He submitted that the accused were in custody and multiple inquiries, including departmental proceedings against suspended government servants, had been initiated.
“There was no construction licence, no TCP clearance and no statutory permission for the structure in question. In the guise of granting a repair licence and house number, a fraud has been committed,” he alleged as he made his submission on behalf of the State.
Pangam explained that the structure had come up illegally, adding that applicants had sought a trade licence for a specific activity without mentioning a house number.
“While the matter was pending before the panchayat, a different house number was inserted in the office records. The house number was not shown by the owner or operator; it happened in the office of the panchayat,” he said, raising apprehensions that various other establishments might have got licences in this way.
The Court was also informed about the alleged illegality committed by dismissed Secretary Raghuvir Bagkar and the former Sarpanch of Arpora-Nagoa Roshan Redkar, both of whom have been booked in the criminal case.
Accepting AG's submission that a wider audit was necessary, the Bench directed that affidavits be filed by the respective coastal panchayat secretaries disclosing the number of trade licences, construction permissions and occupancy certificates granted to commercial units.
The court also suggested whether the district administration could divide Goa into four zones, conduct inspections and undertake corrective steps in this regard. It questioned why the State could not carry out such an exercise on its own instead of leaving it to judicial intervention.
Amicus Curiae Rohit Bras De Sa, meanwhile, argued that the situation had arisen because the then Sarpanch had granted multiple permissions and trade licences to illegal structures. He further submitted that on the night of the fire, the personnel were unable to carry out the rescue and firefighting operations due to inaccessibility to the venue.
“Had building regulations relating to access been followed, a tragedy of this magnitude would not have happened,” he contended, seeking scrutiny of lapses by TCP.
Responding, the AG maintained that primary responsibility lay with the Village Panchayat rather than the TCP Department, while acknowledging that the nightclub had only one entry and exit on the first floor. The PIL has been posted for further hearing on February 24.
