Mapusa Court Denies Intervention in Goa Fire Tragedy Bail Proceedings
A Mapusa court delivered a significant ruling on Tuesday. It rejected the application filed by families of the victims from the tragic Birch by Romeo Lane fire. These families sought to intervene in the ongoing anticipatory bail applications. The bail pleas belong to Gaurav Luthra and Saurabh Luthra, who face charges in a related forgery case.
High Court Continues Bail Hearings for Disqualified Officials
The High Court will resume its hearing on Wednesday. It will consider the anticipatory bail applications of two former Arpora-Nagoa panchayat officials. These individuals are the disqualified sarpanch, Roshan Redkar, and the dismissed secretary, Raghuvir Bagkar.
Senior advocate Nitin Sardesai presented arguments for Roshan Redkar. He challenged a key document used by the prosecution. This memorandum, dated October 17, 2017, outlined a procedure for panchayats. It required issuing a provisional trade licence first. A final licence would follow only after obtaining other necessary No Objection Certificates.
Sardesai argued this memorandum lacked legal force. He stated it was not issued under the Panchayati Raj Act. Instead, it fell under the Government of India's ease of doing business initiative. Therefore, it had no connection to the panchayat's own licensing policy. The advocate emphasized the document carried no statutory backing. It served merely as an administrative guideline, not binding on the panchayat.
He further pleaded for Redkar's protection from arrest. Redkar is an elected representative who must face voters again, Sardesai noted. An arrest could irreparably damage his reputation, a loss nobody could restore.
Defense Argues Secretary Had No Decision-Making Power
Advocate Dattaprasad Lawande represented the former secretary, Raghuvir Bagkar. He argued there was no evidence linking his client directly to the fire incident. Lawande also asserted there was no risk of evidence tampering. Bagkar had been transferred from the panchayat since July of last year.
The prosecution's case suggests the trade licence application was not on the panchayat meeting's official agenda. In response, Lawande described the secretary's role as limited. He characterized Bagkar as a glorified clerk, not a voting member of the panchayat. The secretary had no role in meetings or in the decision-making process, the court was told.
His duties were strictly administrative. He was responsible for recording the resolutions passed by the panchayat members. He possessed no authority to overrule their decisions. The defense firmly stated that Raghuvir Bagkar was not the final decision-making authority in these matters.
