Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against High Court Order For Removal Of Shivaji Maharaj Statue From Mormugao Port Land
The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court order which ordered removal of a Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj statue from the land owned by Mormugao Port Authority.
A partial Court working days bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu was dealing with a plea challenging the High Court order. The petitioners claimed that the High Court granted final relief at the interim stage.
However, considering the bench's disinclination, the petitioners chose to withdraw the case and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The bench however gave the petitioners liberty to move an appropriate application before the High Court to seek variance of its order.
To recap, vide the impugned order, the High Court ordered removal of the statue from the Port Authority land holding that it was installed in "gross violation" of local laws and constructed illegally.
A division bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar pulled up the authorities and also the Goa administration for being a "bystander" and allowing the statue to be installed illegally.
"We believe that where issues of law and order are involved, such as the present one, it is only the State through its agencies such as the Police Force, Executive Magistrate and other such authorities, can adequately quell such incidents and ensure public safety and property of individuals is preserved. In the present case, 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," the bench observed in the order passed on April 7.
According to the Port Authority's plea before the High Court, despite repeated complaints to the local Bogda Police Station and other authorities there had been no action. The plea alleged forcible encroachment of the land at Vasco-da-Gama by local persons, who were backed by MLA Sankalp Amonkar, his wife and other local corporators.
The High Court noted that despite continuous pleas relating to potential law and order situation that may be created, no action was taken by the authorities. It criticised the Goa Government for its argument that since the land in question is owned by the Port authorities, its own CISF and security can take action against the illegality.
"The incident may as well have taken place in at an Airport, Railway property or such other installation under the security of the Central Forces such as the CISF; would the State take the same arguments that it has raised during the hearing,that its police force and Executive does not have the duty to intervene and prevent in invasion of such installation or property which is vested in say, an Airport Authority or for that matter, as in this case a Port Authority. The State cannot be heard to say that the Authority or installation is free to use Central Forces to protect possession of its properties from trespass or destruction," the High Court observed.
The High Court further said that the Bogda Police Station's senior officer ought to have taken a call on whether to register the FIR based upon the allegations in the complaint, which the judges opined, did reveal an offence of criminal trespass under Section 329 of BNS, which was cognizable.
Appearance: Advocate Ninad Laud and AoR Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon (for petitioners); AoR Ujjwal Singh and Advocate Manisha Gupta (for Port Authority)
Case Title: Rajendra Laxman Parab and Ors. v. Mormugao Port Authority and Ors., Diary No. 37696/2026