Terms it private dispute cloaked as PIL
PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has dismissed a writ petition filed by Pradeep Ghadi Amonkar and Sunil Divker in connection with the December 6-7, 2025 fire at ‘Birch by Romeo Lane’, ruling that the plea was a private dispute dressed up as public interest and tainted by suppression of material facts.
The petition, moved on December 11, 2025 -- five days after the blaze in Arpora, Bardez that killed 25 people -- alleged violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners claimed that UK national Surinder Kumar Khosla, who is currently absconding in the criminal case and with whom they had a contractual relationship, had committed widespread violations of planning, land and environmental laws, while the authorities failed to act.
When the matter first came up on December 15, 2025, the Court observed that the dispute appeared private in nature between the petitioners and Khosla. Holding that the suppression was gross and that the petitioners had approached the court with “unclean hands”, the Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Amit Jamdandekar ruled that they were not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
“...we find that the Petitioners have suppressed the material, vital and crucial facts in the proceedings and have approached the Court with unclean hands. The suppression is gross, and therefore, such Petitioners do not deserve any relief by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” reads the 16-page order pronounced on Wednesday.
Taking note of the tragedy and concerns over illegal constructions and indiscriminate licensing in Goa, the Bench initiated a suo motu PIL earlier this year, with the present petition initially tagged to it.
After detailed hearings in the PIL and a series of court-monitored directions, the Bench on January 13, 2026 segregated the writ petition, holding that it could not proceed alongside the public interest litigation.
At the hearing on January 19, Advocate General Devidas Pangam opposed the petitioners’ plea, alleging gross suppression of vital facts and documents, and pointing to pending cross-civil suits and counterclaims between the parties over Survey Nos. 158/0 and 159/0 of Arpora village -- the site of the fire. He argued that the petitioners themselves had illegally constructed the structures where the blaze occurred and that the writ court should not entertain disputed questions of fact.
Relying on an agreement dated April 23, 2004 between the petitioners and Khosla, the AG submitted that the plea was filed after the tragedy to avoid civil and criminal liability amid ongoing investigations. He contended that any relief would affect pending probes and that the petitioners could also face liability to compensate victims.
The court noted that the petitioners described themselves as long-standing promoters and former developers of ‘Maizons Star Resort’, located primarily in Survey No 158/0 and abutting Survey No 159/0 at Sankwadi, Arpora. As per their pleadings, the complex includes apartment blocks, a restaurant, a wholesale liquor shop, a nightclub and a private lake, and lies in an environmentally sensitive and CRZ-regulated area.
The court also questioned the bona fides of the petitioners, noting that they waited over two decades after filing their civil suit in 2004 and approached the High Court only after the fatal fire.
“We also seriously doubt the bona fides of the Petitioners due to the filing of the present petition after December 6-7, 2025 -- the date on which the tragic incident occurred in the property situated at Survey No 158/0 and Survey No 159/0 of the village Arpora. When the Petitioners filed the suit in 2004, the interim relief was refused, and, according to the Petitioners, the statutory Authorities were not acting in accordance with the provisions of law. Then there was no reason for the Petitioners to wait so long before approaching this Court,” reads the order adding that considering the pendency of the civil suit since 2004, filed by the Petitioners, they could have approached the civil court seeking preventive relief.
“... by interlinking the private dispute of the Petitioners with Khosla, the Petitioners seek to project a larger public interest through this petition. Therefore, it certainly appears to us to be an attempt to resolve private civil disputes by the present petition after the tragic incident and to avoid the civil and/or criminal liabilities that may be imposed after the ongoing investigations,” it said while dismissing the plea.
