The Supreme Court recently declined to interfere with a Bombay High Court order directing the removal of a statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj erected on land belonging to the Mormugao Port Authority in Goa.

A partial working days Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing a petition challenging the High Court's order. The petitioners argued that the High Court had effectively granted final relief while deciding an interim application.

However, after the Bench indicated that it was not inclined to entertain the plea, the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the case. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn while granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Bombay High Court with an appropriate application seeking modification of its order.

The challenge was directed against an April 7 order of the Bombay High Court, which had directed the removal of the statue from the Port Authority's land, holding that it had been installed in "gross violation" of applicable laws and constituted an illegal construction.

A Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar had also strongly criticised the Goa government and local authorities for remaining passive despite the alleged illegal occupation of public land.

The High Court observed that issues involving law and order must be addressed by the State through its police and executive machinery. It remarked that the State had acted as a "mere bystander" and had effectively allowed the encroachment on the property of a major port without taking steps to prevent the alleged criminal trespass.

The case before the High Court arose from a petition filed by the Mormugao Port Authority, which alleged that despite repeated complaints to the Bogda Police Station and other authorities, no action was taken against the alleged encroachment of its land at Vasco-da-Gama. The Port Authority claimed that local residents, allegedly supported by MLA Sankalp Amonkar, his wife and other local corporators, had forcibly occupied the land and installed the statue.

Rejecting the Goa government's stand that the Port Authority could rely on its own CISF personnel to deal with the situation, the High Court held that the State could not abdicate its responsibility to maintain law and order merely because the property belonged to a Central government authority.

The Court observed that the same logic could not apply to other critical public installations such as airports or railway properties protected by central security forces, emphasising that the State police remain duty-bound to prevent unlawful occupation and protect public property.

The High Court also observed that the senior officer of Bogda Police Station ought to have considered registering an FIR, noting that the allegations disclosed a cognisable offence of criminal trespass under Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners were represented by Advocate Ninad Laud and Advocate-on-Record Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon, while the Mormugao Port Authority was represented by Advocate-on-Record Ujjwal Singh and Advocate Manisha Gupta.

Case: Rajendra Laxman Parab and Others v. Mormugao Port Authority and Others, Diary No. 37696/2026.