Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. The other major structural deviation in the building alleged by the petitioners is the construction of the rear wall at the back of the transformer room. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the wall as originally sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was only a 3 feet high parapet wall but the respondents have now raised it to the ceiling level and, according to the petitioner, construction of this wall has contributed, to a large extent, the smoke not going out of the building and going to the balcony through the stairway. Mr.Tulsi, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his argument that this wall was constructed in violation of the building bye-laws and in violation of the building plan sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has placed reliance upon the inspection report dated 11th August, 1997 prepared by the Engineers of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another report dated 2nd August, 1997 prepared by the Engineers of the Public Works Department. The contention of Dr.Dhawan, however, is that this wall was duly sanctioned and there was thus no question of the same being unauthorised. It is submitted by him that in the plans submitted by the owners for additions/alterations of the building and sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 20th May, 1972, this wall was proposed to be built up to the ceiling level along with the ramp. It is submitted that in 1973 again additions/alteration plans of the building were submitted to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and these plans were sanctioned on 22nd March, 1973. Contention of Dr.Dhawan is that in the plans which were sanctioned in 1973, the wall was shown to have been constructed and the same was not shown to be deleted and the wall, therefore, stood erected and is continuing to exist since 1972. It is also his contention that neither the Commissioners appointed by the Court in their report dated 30th November, 2000 nor the Naresh Kumar Enquiry Report makes a mention about this wall being unauthorised. It is also his contention that even the DCP (Licensing) in his various inspection reports submitted from time to time has not made any mention of this wall being unauthorised or being a deviation from the original building plan. It is, therefore, submitted that the argument about construction of 12 feet high rear wall is only red herring.

" As regards objection at Serial No.11, the committee has reported that the space meant for restaurant as per the sanctioned plan has been let out to a bank but this was done with the permission of the then Licensing Authority vide its letter No.F.2(48)/ETO/1052 dated 11.3.1976. It is surprising that the Licensing Authority should have assumed the function of the local body by approving this deviation from the building plan sanctioned under the building bye-laws. The purpose of a restaurant is entirely different from that of a bank. Whereas a restaurant in a cinema is approved for the convenience of the patrons, opening a bank in the cinema premises is a purely commercial proposition from the point of view of the licensee. In any case, it is a deviation from the sanctioned building plan. The appellant should approach the local body to get it regularised/compounded.
" It was also noticed that there was some major deviations from building bye-laws which contributed converting the whole building into a death trap for innocent people. The office of Shegal Carpet is situated in the staircase which leads to the exit from the building. That staircase has been converted into the office and given on rent to the Shegal Carpet. They did not even pause to think of the consequences of this deviation.
The other interesting deviation noticed during the course of the inquiry was that the portion which was meant for restaurant had been let out to a Bank. A lot of correspondence has been made by the Licensing authority in this regard with the licensee but it seems that the licensee was not interested in abiding by the laid down provisions of law."
"The Rules and Regulations are clear and unambiguous. Everybody knows them or should know them. It cannot seriously be disputed that the private Respondents, who were or are owners of Uphaar Cinema were (as are all cinema owners) bound to strictly comply with the. It cannot be seriously disputed that the Govt. agencies are entrusted with duty to ensure that the Rules and Regulations were complied with. It cannot be seriously disputed that a theatre is one place where a large number of people have to sit in an enclosed area for a fairly long period of time. There is a potential threat to life and safety if fire, leakages of gas etc. take place. This potential threat has to be guarded against. At this stage, therefore, it cannot be said that the cinema owners/employees (past/present) cannot be held to be under an obligation to provide and maintain all standards of safety and/or that they are not liable to compensate for loss of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 if harm has arisen by virtue of their not guarding against such hazard. Prima facie it appears that under the doctrine of strict liability on Public law (as set out above) the liability would be them even if there is no negligence on their part. The govt. and its agencies would also be liable for not having ensured strict compliance with Rules and Regulation which have been created to ensure safety. At this stage it appears to us that this is the case in which there can hardly be any dispute. The Rules and Regulations are clear and known. The affidavits of the public authorities support Petitioners and admit that there was non-compliance. In fact, Mr.Rawal's arguments have necessarily been that Rules and Regulations were not complied with. Mr.Rawal sought to justify the lapse of not ensuring compliance by blaming it on the Orders of the High Court. At this stage, it appears to us that Orders of this Court only stayed the suspension of license for four days and/or the Order of the Lt.Governor. It prima facie appears that the Orders of the High Court did not justify grant of temporary permits for such a long period of time. Admittedly, the fire took place on 13th June, 1997. Admittedly, a number of people have been killed and/or injured. Admittedly, fire fighting equipments and/or ambulances arrived on scene late. Admittedly at that time and even now the CATS Centre which was to have been created as far back as 1986 has not yet been established. There also does not appear to be much dispute on fact that number of seats had been increased, size of gangway reduce, one exit closed by creating a private viewing box, etc. It can easily be ascertained whether there have been unauthorised deviations. The building is still standing. These are matters which can easily be verified by the court by appointment of commissioners. The commissioners, who would be responsible persons, knowledgeable in the field would visit the site in presence of all parties and ascertain facts. The Report of the commissioner would show whether Rules and Regulations were complied and whether there have been deviations or not. It is clarified that Court is not giving any finding at this stage and is not holding that there have been breach of Rules and/or Regulations and/or unauthorised deviations and/or failure to enforce. All that the Court is saying is that at this stage it cannot conclude that the petition is not maintainable.