The Bombay High Court has directed the demolition of a toilet constructed under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan in Calconda, Margao, holding that the central government scheme did not legalise construction carried out without the required municipal licence or permission.
Justice S G Chapalgaonkar observed that the petitioners had not demonstrated that the toilet was backed by the necessary sanction from the competent authority. The court upheld the action taken by the Margao Municipal Council (MMC), which had ordered the structure’s demolition and directed the petitioners to bear the associated costs.
The dispute arose after the MMC issued a show-cause notice to the Khans in August 2017, asking them to explain why the toilet should not be demolished. The council later passed an order in October 2021 declaring the construction unauthorised. That decision was upheld by the Goa Municipal Appellate Tribunal in February 2026.
Zubeda Khan, who is now deceased and was represented in the proceedings by Amina Khan, had approached the High Court challenging both orders. The petitioners argued that authorities associated with the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan had allotted and constructed a toilet at the site of their old toilet.
They contended that the complaint before the municipal council had failed to disclose the scheme-related construction. The petitioners also argued that the MMC’s decision was contradictory because the council was the authority responsible for approving such construction. According to their submissions, the application had been processed and the Public Works Department, through its appointed technical officers, had assessed the feasibility of the work and granted technical sanction.
The petitioners further relied on the sanitation objectives of the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, arguing that the scheme envisaged sanitary toilet facilities in residential houses to improve safety for women and the public. The court, however, held that the scheme’s purpose could not override statutory requirements governing construction permissions.
The ruling places municipal approval at the centre of the dispute. A sanitation facility may serve a public-health objective, but the court’s order makes clear that such an objective does not, by itself, replace the permissions required from the competent local authority. The case also highlights the potential administrative gap between scheme implementation and municipal building-control procedures.
The High Court’s direction follows the earlier municipal and appellate findings that the toilet had been constructed without the required permission. The demolition is to proceed in accordance with the orders upheld by the court, with the petitioners responsible for the demolition costs.
