EDITORIAL
It is important that mechanisms to prevent such disasters from recurring are put in place
Days ago, the High Court of Bombay at Goa ruled that the state government and the owners of Birch by Romeo Lane at Arpora were liable for compensating the victims of the deadly fire at the nightclub. From the viewpoint of the victims’ families, this offers some succour. But, from a wider perspective, what is of interest is that the court also criticised the systemic regulatory failures and went on to order all panchayats to submit affidavits on licences issued over five years.
The court observed that the mishap reflected a clear violation of workers’ fundamental rights and that both the government and the club owners were responsible for compensating those affected. In the case of ‘High Court on its own motion v. State of Goa &Ors’, the judges were reported as not yet having specified a fixed compensation amount, but the state has been told to disburse “full compensation” immediately, allowing it to undertake recovery from liable parties such as the club owners. There have been reports of ad hoc payments of Rs 2 lakh to each family, while the state has also announced an ex gratia payment of Rs 5 lakh per deceased victim’s family, which would reportedly total Rs 85 lakh for 17 families.
By now it has been confirmed that the hexagonal structure stood illegally on a salt pan, violating the Goa Land Revenue Code (Section 32) and the Coastal Regulation Zone norms. Section 32 of the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968 (Act No. 9 of 1969) primarily governs the use of land and procedures for converting land from one purpose to another (e.g. agricultural to non-agricultural, residential or commercial). It outlines the requirements for obtaining permission for such conversions, associated fees and penalties for unauthorised usage. No conversion certificate had ever been applied for or granted in the Birch case, leading one to wonder where exactly the loopholes lie and what exactly could be done to fix them.
It might also be worth repeating that a temporary licence had been issued to the now-notorious Birch by Romeo Lane in December 2023. This was valid only until March 2024. Furthermore, it was marked by rushed approvals, missing documents and even alleged forgery. The local panchayat has been faulted for failing to seal the premises or inform other departments, despite knowing of violations. This led to accusations of collusion.
When the incident took place, the state government went into overdrive, setting up committees and instituting a magisterial inquiry. Many irregularities were revealed in the inquiry. Unfortunately, the report has not been made public. Hopefully, the government will stand by the voice of the people. As we have seen from the Birch inferno case, the promoters, in most cases, are well connected to political bigwigs in the national capital or political party honchos. In small states, the government finds it difficult to tackle them. It is hoped that the recommendations made in the report will be followed in letter and spirit.
Beyond the shock and notoriety of the Birch by Romeo Lane episode, this is a time when we cannot let forgetfulness take over. We would all gain from deep thinking to understand why such crises occur and how best a tourism-promoting state like ours can avoid the same in the future. It is also important that mechanisms are put in place to minimise—if not completely eradicate—the possibility of such disasters happening again in the future.
