HC notice to 52 parties in Arpora blaze suo motu case

Panaji: The Bombay high court on Tuesday issued notices to 52 parties, including coastal panchayats and municipal bodies, in a suo motu petition concerning the Arpora nightclub tragedy that claimed 25 lives in Dec 2025.

The division bench broadened the scope of the petition when it came to light that Birch by Romeo Lane operated in an illegal structure without a trade licence and other mandatory NOCs. The HC is now examining whether similar illegal commercial establishments exist in other coastal areas of the state.





When the petition came up for hearing, advocate general Devidas Pangam submitted a list of govt authorities and others to the HC, proposing that they be added as parties. Accepting govt’s proposal, it issued notices to the property’s owners Gaurav and Saurabh Luthra and Surinder Kumar Khosla, both district collectors, and heads of the departments of fire, tourism, excise, panchayats, and municipal administration, among others.

The HC issued notices returnable on Feb 3. It also issued a notice to Roshan Redkar, disqualified sarpanch of Arpora-Nagoa, after Pangam told the court that he needed to be added as a party in personal capacity as the panchayat was the root cause.

Justices Suman Shyam and Amit S Jamsandekar, also directed separation of proceedings in the writ petition that was filed by Pradeep Ghadi Amonkar, observing that his petition did not stand on equal footing with the suo motu case and PILs, which are of public importance.

After the hearing, Pangam told reporters that the 52 authorities were added as respondents to ensure that effective orders are passed and action is taken against illegal commercial activities in the coastal belt and against clubs operating high-handedly.

“The court is going to supervise all this. The persons responsible for this tragedy were joined as parties because the court wants to find out whether compensation can be awarded to the victims by these persons who were responsible for the deaths. This is one of the things we will tell the court. The court took the matter very seriously and, in my view, the matter proceeded in the right direction,” Pangam said.

When asked about Birch by Romeo Lane being permitted to operate for more than one year after the demolition notice was issued, and about other commercial establishments being permitted to run without trade licences, Pangam told reporters that trade licences are issued by panchayats, and that if some parties begin commercial activities without the permission of the panchayat, the panchayat should step in.

“That is why the court joined all these panchayats as parties, to possibly seek reports from them on how many structures are in their jurisdiction without a construction licence and operating without a trade licence, where a trade licence is issued despite there being no construction licence, and where commercial operations continue despite demolition orders,” Pangam said. “All these reports will be called for by the court, and panchayat sarpanchs and secretaries will be taken to task on this front. We hope that something good will come out of this.”



___________________________________________


Commercial ops must stop during stay orders: AG

Panaji: When asked if commercial operations can continue while proceedings before the appellate authority are pending, advocate general Devidas Pangam said, “There is no written law on this subject, but there are HC judgments saying that whenever a construction is ordered to be demolished, and when there is no construction licence or technical clearance, the authority granting the stay has to ensure status quo is maintained in the sense that commercial activities should not be allowed. So every authority hearing a matter where there is a demolition order — and if there is no construction licence and no technical clearance — has to ensure that commercial activities are immediately stopped,” he said and added that a distinction should be made for residential structures where there are issues of shelter. TNN