Bombay HC Orders Removal of Illegal Shivaji Statue on MPA Land, Slams Goa State for ‘Tacit Collusion’
The Bombay High Court at its Goa Bench has directed the State authorities to provide security and assistance for the removal of a statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj allegedly erected illegally on land belonging to the Mormugao Port Authority (MPA).
The Division Bench comprising Justices Amit S Jamsandekar and Valmiki Menezes passed the order on April 8, 2026, in the case titled Mormugao Port Authority v. State of Goa & Ors.
Background of the Case
The MPA approached the High Court alleging that on February 16, 2026, certain individuals trespassed onto its land at Headland Sada Junction in Vasco and illegally erected a permanent statue of Shivaji Maharaj. The situation escalated when a large public gathering, including local MLA Sankalp Amonkar and other political figures, allegedly participated in a grand unveiling ceremony on February 19.
Despite multiple complaints lodged with authorities, including the Bogda Police Station, no preventive action was taken. The MPA contended that authorities were fully aware of the developments but failed to intervene.
Notably, the Court also recorded that a prior request routed by the MLA through the Chief Minister seeking a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for installation of the statue had already been rejected by the MPA under Union land policy guidelines.
Table of Contents
Court’s Observations
The Bench came down heavily on the State machinery, highlighting a complete breakdown of administrative responsibility. It observed:
“It is absolutely unbelievable that such a large gathering could have been allowed on the port land, and the forcible construction and unveiling of the statue on such land be held without any knowledge of the police inspector… the SDM of Mormugao… and both the Superintendent of the Police and the Collector of South Goa.”
The Court further remarked:
“If this be so, there is a complete failure of the executive structure in South Goa District… However, the incident points more to a glaring and tacit understanding or arrangements between the authorities… and the local MLA… with no action whatsoever… been taken by the authorities to protect the invasion of the port property.”
Critically, the Bench held:
“What is even more serious is that we see a clear invasion of property of a Major Port and the State has acted as a mere bystander and has in fact tacitly colluded with the perpetrators of the invasion without offering any assistance to prevent the criminal trespass.”
Directions Issued by the Court
The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, South Goa, to:
- Provide “all necessary assistance, including by providing adequate police force”
- Issue prohibitory orders if required
- Ensure that the MPA can “remove, dismantle or demolish the statue, pedestal and all other structures”
Rejecting the State’s argument that the MPA should rely on remedies under the Public Premises Act or its CISF security, the Court clarified:
“Where issues of law and order are involved… it is only the State through its agencies… can adequately quell such incidents and ensure public safety and property of individuals is preserved.”
Failure of Preventive Mechanisms
The Bench took note of police affidavits confirming that authorities had prior knowledge of potential law and order issues. A police inspector had alerted the Executive Magistrate on February 17 itself about the likelihood of unlawful activities. However, no effective preventive steps were taken.
The Court observed:
“It is obvious… that the intention to forcibly trespass… and to install the statue and unveil it was surely known to all the authorities.”
Ongoing Proceedings
The petition has been kept pending. The Court indicated it would further examine:
- Conduct of government officials
- Jurisdictional claims of the Mormugao Municipal Council
Legal Representation
- For MPA: Advocates Yogesh V Nadkarni, Simran Khadilkar, and Kunal Nadkarni
- For State: Advocate General Devidas Pangam with Shubham Priolkar and Rishikesh Gawas
- For Police: Advocate Ravi Anand
ALSO READ:- 3-Year Practice Rule Won’t Deter Women, Bar Experience Essential: Justice BV Nagarathna
