“The issue is not whether Goa needs better infrastructure. There is broad recognition that traffic congestion, connectivity challenges and future transport requirements must be addressed. The Banastarim corridor is undoubtedly important. However, infrastructure development cannot be pursued through procedural shortcuts or by merging distinct projects in a manner that limits meaningful scrutiny.
A bridge and a highway expansion may be related, but they are not identical. Residents may support one and oppose the other. They may seek modifications, safeguards or alternative alignments.”
The decision of the Bhoma-Adcolna Village Panchayat to refuse a No Objection Certificate for the proposed new Banastarim Bridge is more than a routine administrative disagreement. It is a reminder that local self governance institutions are not mere rubber stamps for projects conceived and approved elsewhere. When a panchayat says it cannot consider a bridge proposal separately because it has been bundled with a larger and far more contentious four-laning project, that concern deserves serious attention.
At the heart of the dispute is a simple question. Why was the construction of a new Banastarim Bridge tied to the four-laning of the Bhoma to Old Goa stretch of NH-748 in a single proposal? The Public Works Department’s own communication makes it clear that the NOC sought from the panchayat relates to the “4-laning of Bhoma to Old Goa section of NH-748 on Hybrid Annuity Mode – Construction of New Banastarim Bridge.” The wording leaves little room for interpretation. The bridge is not being presented as a standalone infrastructure project. It is part of a larger highway expansion plan.
The panchayat’s concern that approving the bridge would effectively amount to approving the four-lane highway cannot therefore be dismissed as unfounded. In fact, it reflects a practical understanding of how infrastructure projects are often structured. Once one component receives approval, authorities frequently cite that approval as evidence of local consent for the broader project. The apprehension expressed by panchayat members is rooted in experience rather than speculation.
Equally troubling is the revelation that the project has already been tendered and a Letter of Acceptance has been issued to a private contractor before securing the local body’s approval. This raises uncomfortable questions about the sequence of decision making. If the project was advanced to the tendering stage before obtaining the necessary NOC, what role was the panchayat expected to play? Was its approval genuinely being sought, or was it being treated as a procedural formality to be obtained after major decisions had already been taken?
Such an approach undermines the spirit of decentralised governance. Panchayats are constitutionally recognised institutions entrusted with representing local interests. Their consent cannot be reduced to a checkbox in a bureaucratic process. When authorities proceed with contracts and project commitments before completing local consultations, they create the impression that community participation is secondary to administrative convenience.
The issue is not whether Goa needs better infrastructure. There is broad recognition that traffic congestion, connectivity challenges and future transport requirements must be addressed. The Banastarim corridor is undoubtedly important. However, infrastructure development cannot be pursued through procedural shortcuts or by merging distinct projects in a manner that limits meaningful scrutiny.
A bridge and a highway expansion may be related, but they are not identical. Residents may support one and oppose the other. They may seek modifications, safeguards or alternative alignments. They may have concerns about land acquisition, environmental impact, traffic patterns or the long term consequences of large scale highway widening. By combining both projects into a single approval process, authorities risk denying stakeholders the opportunity to evaluate each proposal on its own merits.
The Bhoma-Adcolna Panchayat has effectively challenged that approach. Its refusal sends a message that local bodies expect clarity, transparency and respect in the planning process. Whether one agrees with the decision or not, the principle involved is important. Communities have a right to know exactly what they are being asked to approve.
The government should view this development not as an obstacle but as an opportunity to rebuild trust. If the new Banastarim Bridge can stand independently as a justified public project, then it should be presented independently. If the four-laning project requires public support, then that support should be sought openly and honestly through consultation rather than through bundled proposals that blur the lines between separate decisions.
Development imposed without trust inevitably breeds resistance. Development built on transparency and public confidence stands a far better chance of success. The Bhoma-Adcolna Panchayat’s decision is therefore not merely about an NOC. It is about protecting the right of local communities to make informed choices about projects that will shape their future for decades to come.
