“If a road is properly designed, engineered and constructed, normal monsoon rainfall cannot automatically become an excuse for substantial settlement within eight months. Goa receives heavy rain every year. Monsoon conditions are not an unexpected natural phenomenon that suddenly arrived after the tender was awarded.
The argument that corrective work is being carried out under the defect liability period is also not enough. That provision exists precisely because contractors are expected to rectify defects for which they are responsible. It does not mean the public should celebrate the fact that a defective project can be repaired at the contractor’s cost.”
There is something deeply troubling when a newly constructed road develops serious defects within just eight months and the immediate response is to explain why it should not be considered a major failure.
MLA Govind Gaude has defended the road, saying that the affected portion involved around 15 to 18 metres of earth filling over a stretch of nearly 200 metres and that some settlement can occur, particularly during heavy rainfall. He has also pointed out that engineers and the contractor are responsible for rectification during the defect liability period.
Fine. But that raises an even bigger question. Why should taxpayers have to accept a defective road in the first place?
If a road is properly designed, engineered and constructed, normal monsoon rainfall cannot automatically become an excuse for substantial settlement within eight months. Goa receives heavy rain every year. Monsoon conditions are not an unexpected natural phenomenon that suddenly arrived after the tender was awarded.
The argument that corrective work is being carried out under the defect liability period is also not enough. That provision exists precisely because contractors are expected to rectify defects for which they are responsible. It does not mean the public should celebrate the fact that a defective project can be repaired at the contractor’s cost.
The bigger issue is accountability.
Before defending the contractor, the government should tell the public exactly what went wrong. Was the soil properly tested before the earth filling? Was adequate compaction carried out? Were the drainage arrangements scientifically designed? Was the material used according to specifications? Were the layers compacted and tested properly? Did the supervising engineers certify the work at every stage?
These are not political questions. They are basic engineering questions.
Gaude has rightly said that facts should be verified before conclusions are drawn. We agree. But verification must apply equally to the government. The administration should make the technical inspection report public instead of expecting citizens to simply accept assurances.
There is also a dangerous tendency in Goa to normalise failures in public infrastructure. When a road develops cracks, we blame rain. When a retaining wall fails, we blame soil. When a structure develops defects, we blame unforeseen circumstances. Eventually, responsibility becomes everybody’s except the person who designed, approved, supervised or constructed the project.
That is where the comparison with the Shahjahan model, popularly associated with the Kala Academy controversy, becomes relevant as a question of governance, not as a technical conclusion about this particular road. The public has already seen how questions surrounding a major public project can continue for years while accountability remains blurred.
Goa cannot afford another culture where defective infrastructure is defended first and investigated later.
If the road has genuinely suffered only from unavoidable settlement because of exceptional circumstances, let an independent technical assessment establish that fact. If poor workmanship, inadequate compaction, faulty drainage or defective construction is responsible, the contractor and those responsible for supervision must be held accountable.
And if the contractor is responsible under the defect liability clause, the government must ensure that the repairs are carried out properly, inspected independently and documented publicly.
The public is not asking for a witch hunt. It is asking for competence.
Goans pay taxes for roads that are safe, durable and built according to engineering standards. They should not be expected to pay again through inconvenience, traffic disruption and repeated repairs because someone failed to get the original work right.
The question therefore is not whether 15 metres or 18 metres of earth filling has settled.
The question is much bigger.
How can a road fail within eight months, and why is the first instinct to defend the project rather than demand answers?
Goa needs roads that withstand the monsoon, not explanations that collapse with them.
