The Panjim Park riverfront redevelopment has come under a cloud of alleged illegal construction, with the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP) record ing structural alterations and construction substan tially beyond the scope of the permission granted to the project. The allegations have now reached the Bombay High Court at Goa, where the Goa Bachao Abhiyan (GBA) has challenged the works and sought judicial inter vention. The case also lays bare a sharp contradiction in the official record: while the CCP’s inspection and transgression report docu ment several alleged unau thorised works, the Depart ment of Tourism has told the court that the project’s contractors had not started any construction activity at the site. The CCP issued a show cause notice to M/s River front Hospitality Pvt Ltd on June 30, 2026, after a site inspection on May 26 found that the work had allegedly gone far beyond a provisional repair licence granted to the company.
The licence, issued on August 12, 2025, permitted only localised plastering and waterproofing and was valid for 90 days, expiring on November 10, 2025. The conditions expressly prohibited RCC work, alter ations and canopies and re stricted both external and internal alterations. Yet the CCP’s transgres sion report records an RCC slab allegedly cast at a height of three metres on the ground floor of Structure 1. It also records structural modifications that alleged ly made the first floor fully usable, two unauthorised metal staircases and mason ry work that was still in pro gress during the inspection. The scale of the alleged deviations is particularly stark in Structures 3 and 5Structure 3 was measured at 11 metres by 8.40 metres, or about 92.40 sq m, against a permitted area of 48.67 sq m. Structure 5 measured 10 metres by 20.30 metres, or 203 sq m, against a permitted area of 101.28 sq m. Arguing before the court, advocate Rohit Bras de Sa said the alleged viola tions were not merely complaints by the petitioner but had been recorded by the competent authorities. “Documented illegality has been recorded by the CCP and the Captain of Ports,” de Sa submitted, arguing that the transgression report had established il legality on the river side and that a stop-work order had not been complied with.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Adv de Sa further pointed out that the Captain of Ports had directed the Water Resources Department (WRD) to stop the work, as the activity had allegedly been undertaken without obtaining the required NOC. The State, however, disputed aspects of the petitioner’s case. Advocate Gener al Devidas Pangam informed the court that the WRD had already executed the works. The bench observed that if any illegality was found, it would have to be removed. A division bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S Jamsandekar directed all respondents to file their affidavits in reply within two weeks. The GBA has been granted a further week to file a rejoinder, if any. The matter will next be heard on September 1. The Tourism Department, meanwhile, has put forward a substantially differ ent account in its affidavit filed on Tuesday. Director of Tourism Kedar Naik stat ed that Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt Ltd and Riverfront Hospitality Pvt Ltd had not commenced any construction activity at the site. According to the affidavit, the project area falls in CRZ-II, where construction is permissible on the landward side of existing authorised structures. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), it stated, had concluded that the plot lies landward of the High Tide Line in CRZ-II and had granted permission for the project on October 18, 2024.
Naik stated that the project was conceived to develop tourist infrastructure at the site, including public conveniences, a parking area and other permissible activities. The work was awarded to Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures under an agreement with the State government and the tender documents. He further stated that, pursuant to the agreement, Trishul Buildtech & Infra structures had constituted a special purpose vehicle, Riverfront Hospitality Pvt Ltd, for implementing the project. The State government, TCP Department, NGPDA, GCZMA, Captain of Ports, Department of Tourism, Goa Tourism Development Corporation, WRD, Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures and Riverfront Hospitality Pvt Ltd are respondents in the case.
The court’s directions now place the competing claims on record, with the authorities and project entities required to explain their respective positions before the next hearing. Meanwhile, GBA convenor Sabina Martins said that de spite stop work order the party carried out extension into Mandovi river.
