Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 1 of 16

February 25

th 2026

Vinita

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITON NO.74 OF 2026

1. MR. PRADEEP P. GHADI AMONKAR,

Aged 60, Indian national, owner/ Stakeholder in

"Maizons Coast line Developers. Resident of H. No.

4/138/H, "Roshandeep", Near Thivim Industrial

Estate, Mapusa, North Goa-403526.

2. MR. SUNIL D. DIVKER,

Aged 54, Indian national, Owner/

Stakeholder in "Maizons Lake View Resort",

Resident of House No. 71-E/5,

Shetye Vaddo,

Mapusa, North Goa-403507 … PETITIONERS.

~ VERSUS ~

1. STATE OF GOA,

Through its Chief Secretary,

Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa-403521

2. VILLAGE PANCHAYAT ARPORA-

NAGOA,

Through its Sarpanch, Arpora-Nagoa,

Bardez, Goa.

3 BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-

BARDEZ,

Mapusa, Goa

4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR-SUB-

DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BARDEZ &

Mapusa, Bardez, Goa

5. MAMLATDAR OF BARDEZ,

Office at Mapusa, Bardez, Goa.

6. SENIOR TOWN PLANNER-BARDEZ,

2026:BHC-GOA:342-DB

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 2 of 16

February 25

th 2026

Town and Country Planning Department,

North Goa District Office,

Mapusa, Bardez, Goa

7. GOA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

AUTHORITY (GCZMA),

Through its Member- Secretary,

4

th

Floor, Dempo Towers, Patto, Panaji-Gou.

8. GOA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

Through its Member Secretary, Goa,

Pilerne, Goa

9. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

North Goa District

10 MR. SURINDER KUMAR KHOSLA,

Major, UK national, doing business under the

name Maizons Lake View Resort" and "Birch by

Romeo Lane, having address at Sankwadi, Arpora,

Bardez Goa-403516.

11. DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY

SERVICES,

Through its Director,

Campal, Panajı, Goa

12. GOA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT

AUTHORITY,

Through the Secretary Revenue (Ex-Officio

Member Secretary) Secretariat,

Porvorim, Goa.

…RESPONDENTS.

APPEARANCES:

for the Petitioners Mr Joel Pinto with Mr Prasenjeet

Dhage, Advocate

for Respondent Nos.1, 3 to

7, 9 and 11.

Mr. Devidas Pangam, Advocate

General with Mr Neehal Vernekar,

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 3 of 16

February 25

th 2026

for Respondent No.8.

Addl. Govt. Advocate.

Mr Manish Salkar, Govt. Advocate.

CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &

AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR,J J.

RESERVED ON : 11

th

February 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 25

th

February 2026

ORDER (PER AMIT S . JAMSANDEKAR, J)

1. Heard Mr. Pinto, the Learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioners.

2. The present petition was filed on 11.12.2025, exactly after five days of

the tragedy that had taken place on the intervening night of 6

th and 7

th

December 2025 at the village Arpora, Bardez, Goa, where 25 people

lost their lives in a tragic fire incident. The incident occurred in a

commercial establishment named ‘Birch by Romeo Lane’.

3. The Petitioners in the present petition have alleged violations of their

fundamental rights, inter alia, guaranteed by Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21

of the Constitution of India. It is stated in the petition that the 10

th

Respondent, with whom the Petitioners admittedly have contractual

relationship has breached and violated, inter alia, the provisions of Goa

Land and Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010,

Goa (Regulation of Land Development and Building Construction)

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 4 of 16

February 25

th 2026

Act, 2008, Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, Goa Panchayat

Raj Act, 1994, Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968, CRZ norms and

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, etc. Petitioners contend that,

though there is rampant violation of the provisions of law by the 10

th

Respondent, the concerned Authorities did not take any action. By

highlighting this tragic incident, the Petitioners have sought broad relief

in this petition, including a writ of Mandamus and a writ of Certiorari.

4. When the petition was heard for the first time on 15.12.2025. It is

expressly recorded in the Order dated 15

th December 2025 that the

dispute in the petition is a private dispute between the Petitioners and

the 10

th Respondent. However, considering the tragic incident which

took place on the intervening night of 6

th and 7

th December 2025, the

Court took serious note of the problem of illegal constructions and

indiscriminate grant of licences in the State of Goa. Therefore, a Suo

Moto cognisance of the facts was taken, and the Registry was directed

to register the Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation, which was

subsequently registered as Suo Moto PIL No. 1/2026 (

the PIL) and the

present petition was tagged along with the PIL.

5. Thereafter, the PIL was heard in detail, and to address the issues

covered by the PIL, we have passed detailed orders. We are monitoring

the progress on the issues covered by our orders and directions passed

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 5 of 16

February 25

th 2026

in the PIL. Subsequently, we have also expanded the scope of the PIL,

and suitable orders and directions have also been passed;

implementation of the same is in progress.

6. Thereafter, the present petition came up for further hearing on

13.01.2026, and after hearing the Petitioners and going through the

pleadings in detail, we were of the view that the dispute in the present

petition is in the nature of a private dispute. Therefore, we thought it

appropriate not to take this matter up along with the PIL. Accordingly,

the Registry was directed to segregate this matter from the PIL.

7. In view thereof, the Writ Petition again came up for hearing on 19

th

January 2026, when Mr. Pangam, the Learned Advocate General, made

submissions that the present petition ought not to be heard on any

ground. The grounds for opposing the petition were the suppression

of material and vital facts, as well as documents, by the Petitioners, and

the ongoing criminal and other investigations into the tragic incident

that occurred in Survey No. 158/0 of Arpora village. According to the

Learned Advocate General, the Petitioners themselves have illegally

constructed the structure in which the tragedy took place and 25 lives

were lost. This argument of the Learned Advocate General was

countered by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. On 19

th

January 2026, the Petitioners sought leave to file relevant documents to

justify that the structures in Survey No. 158/0 and 159/0 of the village

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 6 of 16

February 25

th 2026

Arpora are legal. This liberty was given to the Petitioners. The

Petitioners were also directed to produce a copy of the written

statement and the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 1/2005/C etc.

Thereafter, the Petitioners filed a further affidavit and documents and

the matter was further heard on 11

th February 2026.

8. Today, during the course of the hearing, we clarified that all the larger

issues and public causes are being addressed by the orders and

directions passed by us in the PIL, and are being continuously

monitored by us. Therefore, the present petition, as far as those issues

are concerned, cannot be heard at the behest of the Petitioners.

However, Mr. Pinto submitted that the Petitioners are pressing for all

the issues raised in the Petition qua the Petitioners and the cause of

action of the Petitioners arising out of the alleged illegalities

committed by the 10

th Respondent and consequent inaction by the

Authorities.

9. In view thereof, we have heard Mr. Pinto, the Learned Counsel for the

Petitioners, Mr. Pangam, the Learned Advocate General, on behalf of

Respondents Nos. 1, 3, 7, 9 and 11 and Mr. Salkar on behalf of

Respondent No. 8. Mr. Pangam appressed the Court that the 10

th

Respondent is absconding till date.

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 7 of 16

February 25

th 2026

10. Mr. Pinto submitted that the present petition is maintainable even

though there are civil suits pending between the Petitioners and the 10

th

Respondent. He submits that if there is any violation of the statutory

provisions and the construction is illegal, then the writ is maintainable

irrespective of the pendency of the private civil disputes. He relied

upon

Madhukar Janardhan Dhole and ors. v. The Chief Officer

and anr.

1, Raman Madhok and ors. v. State of Goa and ors.

2,

Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil v. The State of Maharashtra and ors.

3,

Rampuria Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Calcutta Municipal Corpn.

4,

Shyamal Kanti Mondal and ors. v. The State of West Bengal and

ors.

5, Sh. Anoop Mehta and ors. v. Jaypee Powergrid Ltd. and

ors.

6, Mohd Arif and ors. v. Soth Delhi Mucinipal Corporation

and ors.

7 in support of his submissions. It is also submitted that the

resort constructed by the Petitioners in Survey No. 158/0 and abutting

Survey No. 159/0 of the village Arpora was constructed after

obtaining all the required permissions from the concerned

departments. Therefore, there cannot be any allegations of illegality

1

In Writ Petition No. 6728 of 2024 decided on 07.02.2025

2

In Writ Petition No. 25 of 2021 decided on 20.09.2022

3

(2020) 19 SCC 241

4

1988 AIR(Cal) 370

5

2015 SCC OnLine Cal 10343

6

2010 SCC OnLine HP 5366

7

In WP(C) 4090/2022 decided on 10.03.2022

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 8 of 16

February 25

th 2026

against the Petitioners by the State. He submits that the 10

th

Respondent has carried out construction illegally in Survey No. 159/0

of the village Arpora. He further emphasised that the Petitioners have

consistently objected to and filed complaints before the statutory

Authorities regarding the illegal acts of the 10

th Respondent. He relies

upon the order of demolition passed by the Panchayat against the 10

th

Respondent on a complaint of the Petitioners. The Petitioners submit

that the tragic incident occurred because the statutory Authorities did

not take any action on the complaints filed by the Petitioners, pointing

out the illegalities committed by the 10

th Respondents. Mr. Pinto

submitted that there is no suppression of the facts or documents by

the Petitioners and the Petitioners have disclosed the ongoing civil

dispute between the Petitioners and the 10

th Respondent. In view

thereof, the Petitioners are justified in approaching this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief by way of a Writ

of Mandamus and a Writ of Certiorari.

11. Mr. Pangam, the Learned Advocate General, vehemently opposed the

relief being granted in the present petition at the behest of the

Petitioner on various grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that there is a

gross suppression of the material and vital facts and documents.

Secondly, there are cross civil suits-counter claims pending before the

Civil Court inter se between the Petitioners and the 10

th Respondent in

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 9 of 16

February 25

th 2026

respect of the land/structures erected on the Survey Nos. 158/0 and

159/0 of the village Arpora where the tragic incident took place.

Therefore, there are disputed facts and the Writ Court ought not to

entertain the petition. Thirdly, and most importantly, the Petitioners

have not approached the Court with bonafide intention. The Petitioners

have filed the petition only after the tragic incident, in order to avoid

the ongoing criminal and other investigations conducted by various

investigating agencies. It is submitted that any relief in the present

petition at the behest of the Petitioner would impact the ongoing

investigations. The Learned Advocate General heavily relied upon a

copy of the Agreement dated 23

rd April 2004 executed between the

Petitioners and the 10

th Respondent. On the basis of Agreement dated

23

rd April 2004 and statements made in the plaint by the Petitioners, it

is submitted that the structures where the tragic incident took place,

taking the lives of 25 people, are other structures in Survey No. 158/0

and 159/0 of the village Arpora are illegally constructed by the

Petitioners. Mr. Pangam, emphasised that the Agreement dated 23

rd

April 2004 and the facts relating to the civil disputes, in particular the

rival pleadings are suppressed by the Petitioners with malafide intention.

He further submits that apart from the other accused, the Petitioners

are also liable to pay the compensation to the victims and that should

be recovered from the assets of the Petitioners. According to Mr.

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 10 of 16

February 25

th 2026

Pangam, the present petition is an attempt to avoid the civil and

criminal liabilities and therefore it ought to be dismissed.

12. In the background of the rival submissions recorded above, we have

perused the documents on the record.

13. The statements are made by the Petitioners in the petition that they are

long-standing promoters / stakeholders and erstwhile developers of

the resort project known as ‘Maizons Star Resort’. The Resort is

primarily situated in Survey No. 158/0 and abutting Survey No. 159/0

at Sankwadi of the village Arpora, Bardez, Goa. It comprises of several

apartment blocks, a restaurant block, a wholesale liquor shop, a

nightclub and a private lake. Significantly, the Petitioners contend that

the Resort is located in an environmentally sensitive pocket, that the

area falls within CRZ jurisdiction, and that it consists of low-lying,

water-logged land, part of which has been filled, as documented in the

Panchayat/TCP inspection reports. In short, a highly eco-sensitive area

as pointed out by the Learned Advocate General.

14. The petition briefly makes a reference to the pending civil litigation

between the Petitioners and the 10

th Respondent and also refers to the

agreement dated 23

rd April 2004, executed between the Petitioners and

the 10

th Respondent. Thus, it is admitted in the petition that there is

extensive civil litigation between the Petitioners and the 10

th

Respondents. Thereafter, the petition proceeds to the alleged illegalities

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 11 of 16

February 25

th 2026

committed by the 10

th Respondent and the complaints made by the

Petitioners to various statutory authorities in respect of those alleged

illegalities.

15. Perusal of the allegations in the petition, the complaints to the

Authorities, legal notices sent by the Petitioners and the statements

made in the plaint and the written statement filed by the 10

th

Respondent clearly indicate that there are civil disputes between the

Petitioners and the 10

th Respondent which are originating and/or

arising out of the Agreement dated 23

rd April 2004.

16. The civil litigation began in 2004, when the Petitioners filed a civil suit

against the 10

th Respondent before the Learned Civil Judge, Senior

Division, at Mapusa. The Petitioners have given the description of the

property situated in Survey No. 158/0 and abutting Survey No. 159/0

of the village Arpora in paragraphs 3 (a) and (b) of the plaint, which is

the subject matter of the suit filed by the Petitioners. The claim is made

by the Petitioners, inter alia, of breach of the Agreement dated 23

rd

April 2004 by the 10

th Respondent. The Petitioners have also alleged in

the plaint that the 10

th Respondent carried out illegal construction on

the property. It is also alleged that the possession of the property was

given to the 10

th Respondent by the Petitioner in the year 2004,

pursuant to the Agreement dated 23

rd April 2004.

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 12 of 16

February 25

th 2026

17. Subsequently, the record indicates the filing of suit by the 10

th

Respondent against the Petitioners in the year 2024. There are various

complaints made against each other before various authorities.

Therefore, we agree with the submission of the Learned Advocate

General that there are disputed questions of facts involved in the

petition, and therefore, the Writ Court cannot entertain the same under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

18. Further, though the Petitioners have produced a copy of the plaint filed

by them against the 10

th Respondent, the true nature of the disputes

between them has not been fully disclosed by the Petitioners in the

petition. The fact that interim relief was not granted to the Petitioners

in the suit filed by them in the year 2004 has not been disclosed by the

Petitioners in the petition. The fact that the Petitioners did not

challenge the refusal of the interim reliefs to them has also not been

disclosed in the petition. Importantly, the Agreement dated 23

rd April

2004 came to be suppressed in the proceedings. If the intention of the

Petitioners was bona fide then there was no reason for the Petitioners

not to produce it in the present proceedings, particularly when a

reference is made by the Petitioners to the Agreement. The written

statement filed by the 10

th Respondent in the suit filed by the

Petitioners was also not disclosed. A few of these facts and documents

came to light only after our orders passed on 19

th January 2026. We

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 13 of 16

February 25

th 2026

were required to pass the order in view of the submissions made by

the Learned Advocate General during the hearing of the petition on

19

th January 2026. When the allegations were made by the Petitioners

against the 10

th Respondent and the statutory Authorities, it was the

duty of the Petitioners to produce a copy of the Agreement dated 23

rd

April 2004. The Petitioners did not produce the Agreement dated 23

rd

April 2004, even when they filed an additional affidavit. The law

requires full and complete disclosures in the proceedings so that the

Court has all the material before it to decide the cause judiciously. A

cursory reference is not enough. Therefore, we find that the Petitioners

have suppressed the material, vital and crucial facts in the proceedings

and have approached the Court with unclean hands. The suppression

is gross, and therefore, such Petitioners do not deserve any relief by

invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

19. The Learned Advocate General produced a copy of the Agreement

dated 23

rd April 2004 in the present proceedings when it was found

during the ongoing criminal investigation of the tragedy. On the basis

of the Agreement and clauses contained therein, the submission of the

State is that the constructions are carried out by the Petitioners in the

year 2004 in Survey No. 158/0 and Survey No. 159/0 of the village

Arpora. Therefore, it is further submitted by the Learned Advocate

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 14 of 16

February 25

th 2026

General that Petitioners have not produced any permission to carry out

construction in Survey No. 159/0 of the village Arpora even when the

Petitioners have filed an additional affidavit in the present proceedings

pursuant to the leave granted by the Court on 19

th January 2026. We

are not going into any of the disputed facts in the present proceedings,

including the submissions of the Learned Advocate General with

reference to the Agreement dated 23

rd April 2004, due to the pendency

of the civil suits between the Petitioners and the 10

th Respondents, as

well as the ongoing investigations and the proposed actions by various

statutory Authorities.

[[

20. We also seriously doubt the bona fides of the Petitioners due to the filing

of the present petition after 6

th/7

th December 2025. The date on which

the tragic incident occurred in the property situated at Survey No.

158/0 and Survey No. 159/0 of the village Arpora. When the

Petitioners filed the suit in 2004, the interim relief was refused, and,

according to the Petitioners, the statutory Authorities were not acting

in accordance with the provisions of law. Then there was no reason for

the Petitioners to wait so long before approaching this Court.

Additionally, considering the pendency of the civil suit since 2004, filed

by the Petitioners, they could have approached the civil court seeking

preventive relief. The Petitioners chose not to do that for reasons best

known to them, and, if there was any reason, not to disclose to us

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 15 of 16

February 25

th 2026

during this proceeding. Now, by interlinking the private dispute of the

Petitioners with the 10

th Respondent, the Petitioners seek to project a

larger public interest through this petition. Therefore, it certainly

appears to us to be an attempt to resolve private civil disputes by the

present petition after the tragic incident and to avoid the civil and/or

criminal liabilities that may be imposed after the ongoing investigations.

21. All the larger issues raised by the Petitioners in the petition are

addressed by our directions and orders passed in the PIL. Considering

the conduct and lack of bona fides of the Petitioners, we agree with the

submission of the Learned Advocate General that any relief in the

present petition to the Petitioners shall either affect the pending civil

suits, counterclaims, and/or the ongoing investigations in the matter.

Even after the PIL addressed the larger issues canvased by the

Petitioners, they chose to press relief in the present petition. That itself

establishes the private interest of the Petitioners and intention, which

is not bona fide.

22. In any case, the Learned Advocate General has informed us that, as far

as the cause of the Petitioners of demolition of the illegal structure is

concerned, the Appeal filed by the 10

th Respondent challenging the

demolition order was heard by the concerned Authority and has been

dismissed. In view thereof, he submitted that the further steps, as

required in law shall be taken by the Authorities/State. We have also

Pradeep P Ghadi Amonkar and anr

Vs.

State of Goa thr its Chief Secretary and 11 ors.

__________________________________________________

WP-74-2026

Page 16 of 16

February 25

th 2026

been apprised that the State/Authorities have taken a serious note of

the incident, and the concerned officials, parties, and public servants

etc. are being investigated, and further effective steps are being taken

as ordered and directed by the Court in the suo motu PIL No. 1 of 2026.

23. For the reasons recorded above, we are not inclined to grant any relief

to the Petitioners in this petition.

24. Consequently, the Writ Petition No. 74 of 2026 stands dismissed.

[ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. ] [SUMAN SHYAM, J.]