Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Ld Counsel for the petitioners submit that the respondent no 1 i.e the State, NCT of Delhi has miserably failed to discharge their statutory duties by not preventing the factory owner, respondent no 2 from running the said factory in flagrant violation of all statutory laws relating to fire prevention, building bye laws, labour laws etc which resulted into the deaths and injury of the workmen.

7. Ld counsel for the petitioners further submit that even after the fire incident, the various agencies of respondent no 1 have been lackadaisical in their attitude to grant compensation for the incident, or initiate appropriate and prompt action against respondent no 2.and have, instead, been passing the buck to each other.

"5. Let us see who are the persons responsible for the wrong. Primarily it is the terrorist who was assembling the bomb. Next, it is the State as it failed in living up to its guarantee that ''no person shall be deprived of his life .. except according to procedure established by law''. The State failed to prevent the terrorist from harming innocent citizens like Uday Singh. Terrorism itself is an indicia of the inability of the State to curb resentment and to quell fissiparous activities. Social malaise in itself is a reflection of the State's inefficiency in dealing with the situation in a proper manner. Apart from the general inability to tackle the volatile situation, in this case, the State agencies failed in their duty to prevent terrorists from entering Delhi. It was their responsibility to see that dangerous explosives such as RDX were not available to criminals and terrorists. The incident occurred as there was a failure on the part of state to prevent it. There was failure of intelligences they did not pick up the movement of this known and dangerous terrorist. So, it would be extremely difficult even to suggest that the State did not fail in its duty towards the late Uday Singh and his family. The other players in this sad drama could be the owner of the Guest House. Did he take due care in permitting such a dangerous person to enter and reside in the guest house? Did he maintain his guest house in good repair so as to have prevented the same from collapsing under the impact of the explosion? Then, the municipal officials may also be roped in. Did they inspect the property from time to time? Did they take any action if the building was in any way not in accordance with the regulations and law? Did they find the building to be structurally sound? Of course, these are questions which need a thorough investigation and cannot be gone into in this writ petition. But, this does not mean that without these questions being answered the petitioner is to be left without a remedy.

47. There is no dispute that the said factory/unit was being run in an illegal manner in a "low rise residential building", as is evident from the fire report. Neither respondent no 1, nor respondent no.2 have claimed that the former had permitted the use of the building for commercial/manufacturing purpose, nor respondent no.2 has disclosed that he had obtained the requisite municipal licenses or fire clearances before running his unit. It is not their claim that the activity was being run in a proper manner, and that there were checks and measures in place. The factory/unit seems to be operating from 2005 in flagrant violation of all statutory laws, rules and regulations. There is no explanation offered by the Respondent no 1 as to how an export factory, or a dry cleaning unit (as claimed by respondent no.2) storing and using highly inflammable substances was permitted to run in a residential building in a congested area. There can be no denying the fact that respondent no 1 owed a duty of care towards public, so that no action or inaction on their part causes harm to the citizens. Even after the incident, they have not done anything substantial to provide relief to the petitioners, except for sending letters and reminders. It is absolutely clear that respondent no 1 has been utterly negligent in discharging its statutory obligations and in ensuring that the citizen's fundamental rights to life was not infringed.

" In the investigation carried out so far, it was found that the accused ( respondent no 2) had been using a highly flammable liquid for washing of the prepared garments on the fourth floor of the building which did not have any proper ventilation and the 4th floor of the building was used for washing of the garments on 25.01.2011 at about 4 p.m with solvent and the solvent spread in the air and the electrical spark which came from the hydro machine in which the washed garments were being dried , caused fire which caused a big sound resulting in engulfing the workers working there and falling off the roof of the 4th floor of the building . Hence, there are sufficient evidences against the accused Shamim of Column No. 11 and the challan against him is prepared u/s 287/285/337/338/304A IPC. The case may be heard please."