CLAUDE ALVARES
esides the widely celebrated scrapping of the Unity Mall and its official cous-in, the Prashasan Stambh, at Chimbel village, there is other heart-warming news that deserves to be placed on public record. This is not about concrete, steel, or unity of any kind. It is about efficiency dazzling, re-cord-breaking, possibly Olympic-grade efficiency in government decision-making.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The legal proceedings arising from the Unity Mall controversy, initiated by villagers through Govind Shirodkar, Chairman of the Chimbel Biodiversity Com-mittee, and other citizens who had the audacity to ob-ject, gave the public a rare
privilege: watching two government officers per form administrative feats previously believed to exist only in folklore.
Enter stage left: Anil L Dhumaskar, Block Devel opment Officer (BDO). Enter stage right: Sanjana Bandekar, Deputy Direc-tor of Panchayats (DDP). Together, they delivered performances so swift and decisive that generations of litigants waiting pa-tiently in dusty corridors may now rise from their slumbers. Both officers heroically heard appeals after office hours, refused adjournments even of a single day, and passed detailed orders within 24 hours. Twenty-four hours. In Goa. In matters involv-ing land, tribal rights, en-vironmental clearances, and a politically favoured corporation vis-à-vis the 73rd Constitutional Amendment.
Such officers should be deputed to the Supreme Court without delay. Cit-izens are therefore ad vised: the next time you have a matter pending before the BDO or DDP that has been languishing for two to five years with out even the courtesy of a stay, insist politely, of course that these of ficers be assigned to your case. Who knows? You too might receive justice be-fore your grandchildren graduate.
This is especially strik-ing when contrasted with the usual practice in these offices: register the mat-ter, adjourn it repeatedly, forget about it briefly, ad journ it again, and even-tually allow it to ripen into a full-fledged archi-val document. But for the Goa Tourism Development Corporation (GTDC), time itself had to be bent. Even the all-powerful Model Code of Conduct politely stepped aside.
Now to the less mirac-ulous and more troubling facts. In October 2025, the GTDC and its chosen contractor commenced construction work the Unity Mall project at Chimbel without a con-struction licence. This is, strictly speaking, illegal. Governments, as we are often reminded through press releases and po-lice parades, do not like illegality. They arrest people for it, demolish houses for it, seize vehi-cles, freeze accounts, and lecture citizens endlessly about the rule of law. Yet here was a government corporation breaking the law with admirable con-fidence. No licence? No problem. Dig first, ask questions later.
Curiously, no thought was given to prosecuting Kuldeep Arolkar, who was in charge of GTDC, for author ising illegal construction. After all, when the government breaks the law, it is usually called “development”. It took a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Chimbel Gram Seva Kala Ani Saunkrutic Manch to curb this enthusiasm. Hauled before the High Court, the GTDC meekly assured the Court that it would not carry out any further con struction until it had obtained a valid licence from the Chimbel Panchayat. The GTDC had, in fact, applied for such a licence. The Panchayat considered the application and rejected it by an order dated October 16, 2025. The rejection cited multiple grounds — environmental, procedural, and social — many serious enough to warrant pause in a less hurried universe. The gram sabha had, on three separate occasions, resolved that it did not support the project on those very grounds. The GTDC responded by filing an appeal before the BDO on October 30, 2025, a full 15 days after the Panchayat’s decision. It did not consider it necessary to implead Govind Shirodkar, the original complainant, or the Chimbel Manch that had already taken the corporation to the High Court. Shirodkar, displaying the irritating persistence of a citizen who reads orders, applied to be made a party. This appli cation was allowed on November 21, 2025, and the matter was fixed for hearing on December 1, 2025. That date proved inconvenient — to the GTDC. A few hours later, Dhumaskar telephoned Shirodkar’s lawyer to announce that he had decided to prepone the hearing to November 24, 2025. A WhatsApp message followed. On the 24th, Shirodkar appeared and requested that the original date be retained, explaining that time was needed to pre pare a reply. The request was denied. This denial was particularly impressive because, during the same proceedings, the BDO casually informed the par ties that all other matters before him had been adjourned to February 2026 due to the Model Code of Conduct. Ap parently, the Code applies universally — except when the GTDC is waiting in the wings. The matter was then fixed for November 26. Shirodkar filed his reply on that very day. On November 27, the hear ing commenced at 4.30 pm and continued for two hours. At 6.50 pm, just in time for dinner, the BDO read out the oper ative portion of his order: the GTDC’s appeal was allowed, and the Panchayat was directed to issue the construction licence “within 24 hours.” Shirodkar immediately applied for a stay to enable him to appeal. Dhumaskar stepped outside with the application, made a phone call, returned with handwritten instructions, and dictated another order rejecting the stay. The efficien cy was breathtaking. The very next day, Shirodkar approached the High Court with a fresh writ petition, arguing that the BDO lacked ju risdiction to hear appeals against Panchayat decisions. On 28 November, the High Court deferred the operative por tion of the BDO’s order. Further arguments were heard on December 1, 2025, and the matter was fixed for final orders on December 4, 2025. On December 2, 2025, the Panchayat filed a revision be fore the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Sanjana Bandekar. She promptly issued notice and fixed the hearing for De cember 4, 2025. On the same day, Shirodkar withdrew his High Court petition and filed his own revision before her. Two revisions, one controversy, zero delay. On the evening of December 4, Bandekar heard argu ments for about two hours and reserved judgment. On December 5, she pronounced her order, dismissing both revisions and refusing a stay to enable any appeal. That af ternoon, Shirodkar filed a civil revision before the District Court. The next morning, the Court granted an ad-interim stay of both the BDO’s and DDP’s orders insofar as they re lated to the construction licence. Undeterred, the Panchayat issued a construction licence anyway. This was brought to the District Court’s notice on December 6. No work resumed between December 6 and 22. Then, on the evening of December 22, just as courts went into vacation, GTDC resumed work. JCBs arrived. Trees fell. Development marched on, secure in the knowl edge that judges were on holiday. The District Court, however, was open. Shirodkar re turned with photographic evidence and an application for stay. The Court promptly stayed all further work until January 8, 2026. After hearing arguments over two days, it passed its order on January 14, 2026, allowing the revision, quashing the orders of the BDO and DDP, cancelling the construction licence, and bringing the Unity Mall project to a grinding halt. Govind Shirodkar, Tukaram Kunkolikar, and others op posing the project belong to the tribal community. In their battle before authorities meant to function as ‘quasi-ju dicial’ forums, they encountered an administration that could sprint when instructed and stall when convenient. The BDO and DDP may have taken cues from their masters. The courts, less steeped in mendacity and more inclined towards law, rewarded vigilance — and, in the end, saved the day. (The author is Director of Goa Foundation)
