AUGUSTO RODRIGUES
“Goa’s coast line is its heart and soul. What will Goa be without its beaches?” observed Jus tice Suman Shyam of the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday, ex pressing serious concern over unchecked illegal con structions along the State’s coastline. The court was hearing a case concerning alleged il legal constructions along Arambol beach. As advo cate for petitioner Vijay Kumar Samant displayed photographs of structures reportedly erected within 200 metres of the High Tide Line (HTL), Justice Shyam expressed surprise at the manner in which the State was handling violations de spite clear directions issued in PIL Suo Motu No 3 of 2024. “What is Goa without its beaches? The government must have some mechanism to stop these illegalities,” Justice Shyam remarked, seeking explanations from Additional Government Ad vocate Deep Shirodkar. The petition challenges the failure of the State of Goa, the Arambol Village Panchayat, the Goa Coastal Zone Management Author ity (GCZMA), and private respondents Prakash and Sheetal Dabholkar to comply with directions issued in the suomotu PIL regarding ille gal constructions. Earlier, in PIL Suo Motu No 2 of 2024, the Goa Bench had taken cognisance of widespread irregular con structions and encroach ments and directed that such structures be identified and demolished wherever nec essary. Justice M S Karnik, in an order dated March 6, 2025, had noted persistent delays in execution and di rected the Chief Secretary to ensure the availability of two additional demolition squads in each district. Advocate Salil Saudagar, appearing for the petition ers, submitted that despite these orders, authorities failed to include the Aram bol structure in compliance reports submitted to the court, even though it clear ly fell under the category of illegal commercial construc tion in panchayat areas. “The Arambol Panchayat has not taken cognisance of the illegal structures despite being informed in writing,” Saudagar said. Visibly displeased, Justice Shyam asked, “Why is no action being taken? Who is coming in the way?” Shirodkar responded that the Advocate General had informed the court during an earlier hearing that nodal officers were being appoint ed to monitor compliance. Unsatisfied, Justice Shyam warned that if such laxity continued, all nodal officers would be required to remain present in court at every hearing. Shirodkar maintained that the State was following court directions, adding that sarpanches and panchayat secretar ies were empowered under the Panchayat Raj Act to take action and report compliance to higher authorities. “Matters concerning the environment cannot be taken lightly. We will not remain quiet,” Justice Shyam asserted. “Preserving the environment is essential, and the courts are serious about it.” Calling the issue “serious,” Justice Shyam cautioned, “We cannot allow beaches to be destroyed. If Goa’s beaches are destroyed, there will be nothing left. This cannot be per mitted.” Angel Vaz, who was present during the proceedings, remarked that enforcement appeared to falter at the panchayat level. “The events at Birch by Romeo Lane opened our eyes. But after today’s hearing, it seems those running panchayats have tunnel vision,” she said, alleging selective action despite clear High Court directions. The matter has now been listed for February 11, 2026, for further hearing.
