Goa nightclub tragedy exposes labyrinth of enforcement failures, jurisdictional gaps

Goa nightclub fire

The fire that killed 25 people at the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub in Goa has exposed a series of unheeded warnings from local authorities, revealing a catastrophic failure in enforcement that preceded the disaster.

Official documents show the Arpora village panchayat had initiated decisive action against the property months before the fatal incident. In March of this year, it issued a show-cause notice to the property owner, Surinder Kumar Khosla, the Financial Express reported.

The notice explicitly accused Khosla of running an "illegal business of Night Club" from the Sankwadi property and "causing noise pollution by playing loud music beyond the permissible limit." It further stated the business, operating under the name "BIRCH," was unregistered.

Most critically, the notice confirmed a demolition order for the structure had already been issued on April 20, 2024, with reports suggesting an initial order may have been made as early as January. This order was later put on hold by the Directorate of Panchayats after the owner filed an appeal, leaving the illegal structure standing.

Parallel to the panchayat's actions, a separate environmental complaint was being dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. As reported by The Indian Express, the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) had received complaints in late 2023 and early 2025 alleging the property violated Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) rules by constructing in a sensitive salt pan area.

After a site inspection that described the club as a 550-square-metre hexagon-shaped building partly over a water body, the GCZMA issued its own show-cause notice in April.

However, by October, the Authority reversed its stance. It concluded the structure was outside the legally defined CRZ area, where it holds jurisdiction and moved to withdraw the notice and close the case. The owner had supported this view, citing older construction permissions from the local panchayat.

The emerging picture is one of fractured responsibility: the local authority moved to demolish the venue but saw its order stalled, while the environmental body stepped back based on a territorial technicality. This created a perilous regulatory void.