Romeo Lane, a private shack resting on the Vagator beach shoreline — recently in the news after a group of tourists complained that they were thrashed by its bouncers — now has the Gov ernment of Goa sitting on the file sent by the Department of Tourism to comply with a demolition order of the Bom bay High Court (Goa Bench) order. Wh a t is more, O Heraldo is in pos session of an email from the original petitioner in the case, requesting that all his complaints against the shack be withdrawn — a move some say casts a shadow on the cred ibility of activism in Goa. The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court, in Writ Petition No 825 of 2023 (dated December 14, 2023), had ordered the re moval of encroachments from the public beach, stating that Romeo Lane “must stop using this encroached portion for any commercial purposes pending the removal of encroachment.” The Court also made its po sition unambiguous: “No con sideration should be shown to the builder or any other person when the construction is illegal and unauthorised. This dicta is now almost a rule of law.” Despite these categorical directions, the illegal 471 sqm structure built on Tourism De partment land continued to be rebuilt. The Department’s latest attempt at demolition was stalled on August 7, 2025 (Romeo Lane demolition stalls again, locals call it a farce, O Heraldo, August 8, 2025). According to reliable sources in the Department of Tourism, a fresh survey was subsequent ly carried out at the govern ment’s direction. Once it was confirmed that the High Court orders had not been complied with, the Director of Tourism issued a note for demolition. “The higher-ups asked for the file on October 27, 2025, and the same has not been re turned,” a Department source told O Heraldo on condition of anonymity. Director of Tourism Kedar Naik confirmed that the De partment intends to comply with the Court’s directions. “Romeo Lane has a licence to run as a private shack but the extension built is illegal as per the orders of the High Court, and the Department needs and will comply with the orders,” Naik said. “Court orders are court orders.” Meanwhile, O Heraldo has accessed an email from NileshPhadte, the petitioner who originally moved the High Court, addressed to the Department of Tourism. In it, he writes: “This is to inform the respective Department that I, Nilesh R Phadte s/o RatnakarPhadte R/O ChaporaBardez Goa, do solemnly affirm that I would like to withdraw all my complaints filed by me against a unit by the name and style – Romeo Lane, Vagator. The above is given by me under no pressure and I shall be fully responsible for the same.” Phadte had earlier filed Contempt Petition No 76 of 2024 against the State of Goa, which was disposed of after the respondents’ advocate stated that “a sum of Rs 10,97,880/- will be deposited with the Goa State Biodiversity Board within a week.” His latest email, however, has left many befuddled. Local resident Trevor Mascarenhas, known for exposing irregularities in his village, said: “I had doubts about cer tain activists, as there were rumours that some so-called activists have been extorting money from people in busi ness along this belt. But there was never any proof. The email now is proof that all is not well, and the High Court should actually take cognizance of this email and act to de ter such acts again.” High Court advocate Samuel Abraham echoed similar concerns: “When an individual calls himself an activist, initiates complaints on illegalities and later withdraws it without valid explanation, it raises serious questions. An inquiry is necessary to ensure that the process of law and public activism is not misused for ulterior motives.” The High Court itself, in its earlier judgment, had ob served: “Even after Court orders, unfortunately, we get the impression that the entire focus is on avoiding implementa tion. At least, hereafter, the Director of Tourism must keep a strict vigil to ensure no such large-scale mushrooming of illegal and unauthorised constructions on public beaches in the State of Goa. Ultimately, these illegal and unauthor ised constructions cause incalculable harm to eco-sensitive beach areas and unauthorisedly exploit these public prop erties for commercial purposes such as encroachers. There are several laws in place. But the authorities duty-bound to implement the same, most derelict for reasons best known, and perhaps not far to see.” The file now lies with the government, the illegal part of the shack remains on the sands of Vagator — and Goa waits to see whether the rule of law will finally prevail.
Romeo Lane Shack in Vagator Remains Illegal as Goa Govt Yet to Act on High Court Demolition Order
