Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition in Goa Fire Case, Cites Private Motives
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Pradeep Amonkar and Vinal Divker, who are property owners of the land where the Birch by Romeo Lane fire occurred in December 2025. The court held that the plea was not bona fide and was essentially an attempt to use the tragedy to settle a private dispute and deflect potential liability.
Background of the Petition
Amonkar and Divker had moved the high court after the devastating fire on December 6, 2025. They sought directions to enforce a 2024 demolition order issued by the Arpora panchayat against alleged illegal structures at Birch by Romeo Lane, which they claimed were put up by Surinder Kumar Khosla. Their petition alleged that illegal operations continued on premises that were unauthorised, unsafe, and in violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and other regulatory norms.
Court's Observations on Motive
The bench, which had initially tagged their plea with a pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and the court's suo motu proceedings on the fire incident, noted that the petition was filed only after the tragedy. The court questioned the motive behind the filing, observing that the petitioners were trying to "interlink" their private property dispute with Khosla with a larger public issue. This was seen as an attempt "to resolve private civil disputes ... and to avoid the civil and/or criminal liabilities that may be imposed after the ongoing investigations."
Addressing Wider Concerns
The court held that all wider concerns raised in their petition—regarding illegality, safety, and regulatory violations—were already being addressed through its orders and directions in the PIL on the fire incident. It accepted the advocate general's contention that granting any relief in the present petition could prejudice pending civil suits, counterclaims, and ongoing criminal investigations.
Lack of Bona Fides and Conduct
"Considering the conduct and lack of bona fides of the Petitioners," the court said, "any relief in the present petition ... shall either affect the pending civil suits, counterclaims, and/or the ongoing investigations in the matter... Even after the PIL addressed the larger issues canvassed 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."
Revelations from Criminal Probe
During the hearing, the advocate general informed the court that, as part of the criminal probe into the fire, investigators had found that constructions on survey numbers 158/0 and 159/0 in Arpora had been carried out by Amonkar and Divker themselves in 2004. This detail further underscored the court's view that the petition was driven by private interests rather than public concern.
The dismissal of the petition highlights the judiciary's stance against using public tragedies for personal gain, ensuring that legal processes remain focused on justice and accountability in such sensitive cases.
