The Unity Mall at Chimbel: How Gross Can Government Decision-Making Get?

If the Tourism Department’s press note is to be believed, the Unity Mall project and its sister project, the Prashasan Stambh, have now exited the boundaries of Chimbel village. That retreat itself tells a larger story — one of deeply flawed government decision-making.

The amazing part of these developments is the extraordinary role played by the tribal community, not just in providing mass mobilisation, but research into the project’s details as well.

The residents of Chimbel know their village intimately. This was evident during the survey conducted to demarcate the “zone of influence” of Toyyar Lake which concluded on 27 January. Villagers identified every stream feeding the lake, its seasonal courses, and the vegetation along its banks. Their lived knowledge stood in stark contrast to the government’s position.

The government, in fact, had issued a notification declaring the lake and its zone of influence based on incorrect data—data that was contradicted by the on-ground survey. This glaring disconnect between official records and ground reality makes it necessary to examine the government’s decision-making process, particularly through documents obtained under the RTI Act.

A Loan, Not a Grant

The files reveal that the proposal first reached the Goa government in 2023. It involved an allotment of Rs.100 crores for the Unity Mall project in Goa. As drawn by the central government, the Unity Mall is an excellent idea. It envisages necessary outlets for agencies from all the 36 Indian states to market ODOP (one district, one product), GI (geographical index items) and other handicrafts including rooms for handicrafts from Goa’s two districts.

The state government however downplayed the fact that the Rs.100 crore was not a grant from the Centre, but a loan — interest-free, repayable over 50 years. This at a time when Goa is already burdened with a debt of approximately ₹32,000 crore. The Tourism Department and the Goa Tourism Development Corporation (GTDC) were tasked with implementing the project.

The project was not initially proposed for Chimbel. The first identified site was in Murda village, Merces.

The Murda Location Fiasco

Senior government officials met to approve one of two plots available with government in Murda. The selected site of 70,000 sq mts comprised mangroves (45,000 sq mts) and paddy field (25,000 sq mts), classified as Ecozone I under the Regional Plan 2021—areas where development is expressly prohibited.

One is compelled to ask how senior officers including the state’s Chief Secretary, Dr V Candavelou, the DMs of North and South Goa, Director of Industries, at a meeting,could so casually approve a project on land so clearly protected. Yet they did. A consultant was appointed, a Detailed Project Report (DPR) prepared, and even the Central Government approved the project—without being informed that the site violated RP 2021 and CRZ regulations.

The state government seemed confident it could later secure a zone change approval from a compliant Chief Town Planner.

Nature intervened. Within months of the consultant’s appointment, the project proponents realised the Murda site was marshy and would require extensive and expensive piling, pushing costs far beyond estimates prepared by the consultant. The site was overnight abandoned.

A Sudden Shift to Chimbel

Determined to push the project through regardless of consequences, the Tourism Promotion Board approved shifting the project to Chimbel. The meeting was chaired by Tourism Minister Rohan Khaunte, attended by an IAS officer and a TTAG member (Gaurish Dhond). Although Khaunte later claimed he had no role in the Chimbel decision, the minutes and records indicate otherwise.

Even more astonishingly, the Cabinet approved the Chimbel location without any environmental or social impact assessment. It was simply assumed that the land could be diverted for mall construction because it was government-owned. Officials often forget that all lands in the name of the government are covered by the Public Trust doctrine.

There was no consultation with the Chimbel panchayat or villagers, nor any discussion on whether the project was welcome or beneficial to the village. Instead, the government repeatedly asserted—before courts—that the project was worth ₹100 crore, that the money would lapse if not utilised, and that all permissions were in place.

Ignoring Constitutional Reality

The government appeared to have forgotten the lessons of the 1994 Nylon 6,6 case. DuPont had claimed it possessed over 36 permissions, yet the Querim panchayat—backed by an overwhelming gram sabha rejection—refused even permission to construct a compound wall. The High Court upheld the panchayat’s authority, and DuPont chose to exit Goa rather than appeal.

Under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, panchayats are the final authority for granting construction licences and approving developmental activities. Recent amendments to the TCP Act further require panchayats to undertake spatial planning through Village Development Plans, approved by the gram sabha and having the force of law.

Under the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, neither the state nor the Centre can override these powers. Local bodies are part of the “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.

A Project Without Logic—or Location Sense

What is most revealing in the files is the government’s initial response to the proposal: “We are already doing precisely this.” The records note that the government was already constructing the Goa Haat building in Panaji, and that a Unity Mall could logically complement it.

This matters because Unity Mall guidelines mandate that such projects be located in the capital city, or the financial capital, or areas with heavy tourist inflow. Chimbel qualifies as none of these.

A mall—by definition—requires demand and supply. Tourists, artisans, and footfall already exist in Panaji, Calangute, or Colva (subject to CZMP compliance). Chimbel has neither tourists nor artisan clusters. Goa Haat, located in the capital, already meets these criteria.

Neither the state nor the Centre appears to have applied its mind to this fundamental issue.

No Feasibility, Only Fear

Throughout the files, there is no economic feasibility report—no assessment of footfall, revenue generation, or commercial viability. There is only one recurring theme: fear that the money would “go back” if the project were not executed.

That fear has now materialised.

It is therefore imperative to identify which officials took these decisions without due application of mind—despite being paid handsome salaries from the public exchequer—and how the losses are to be recovered. Consultants were appointed and replaced; DPRs were commissioned and discarded. Yet there is no clarity on who was paid, how much, or for what. Of the ₹50 crore received, there is nothing on record to substantiate even ₹25 crore of expenditure, despite claims to the contrary.

The Larger Lesson

If the Chimbel episode proves anything, it is this: projects are pushed down people’s throats without regard for environmental damage, social cost, economic feasibility, constitutional mandates, or binding court orders protecting wetlands.

Not a single reason is offered for why the Unity Mall had to be located at Chimbel. Why not Goa Haat? Why violate the project’s own guidelines? The only apparent motive was to secure the money. We all know why politicians want their hands on public money.

Government lawyers repeatedly cited figures—₹100 crore, ₹150 crore, even ₹170 crore—before the courts. Never once did they acknowledge that this was a loan to be repaid by Goans themselves. The supreme irony is that repayment would have followed the execution of a project that threatened one of Goa’s oldest wetlands, and consequently, the villagers’ environment and livelihoods as well.

Let it be reiterated: the Unity Mall concept is not objectionable. Showcasing GI products and district specialties from across India, alongside Goa’s own, is a laudable idea. But even the best ideas can be ruined by the most gross of government decisions. Until government decision-making is corrected and bureaucrats are held accountable for bad decisions, such costly misadventures will continue—at enormous debit to the environment, the public purse, and public trust.

Bottom of Form