Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

“102. On this law it cannot be said, at this stage that the petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise we find that this is not a matter in which highly disputed question of fact arise. This appears to be a matter in which facts could be ascertained very easily. The Rules and Regulation 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 11 2000 SCC OnLine Del 216 strictly comply with them. It cannot be seriously disputed that the Government 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 the 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 then even if there is no negligence on their part. The Government and its agencies would also be liable for not having ensured strict compliance with Rules and Regulations 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 licence 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 reduced, 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 findings 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.”

13. It was thereafter, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a judgment reported as Assn. of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 13 noticed the deviations in the building plans of the theater. The High Court considered a similar argument as was raised on behalf of the Organizers herein and held as under:

“47. Dr.Rajeev Dhawan, Senior Advocate, argued on behalf of the respondents that the public law remedies by way of writ petitions are normally limited to giving directions, providing interim and final injunctive reliefs and quashing decisions which are violative of the fundamental rights or violation of law. He submits that the scope of providing damages in public law is limited to specific situations and 12 (2001) 6 SCC 663 circumstances where the State deliberately deprives a person of his personal liberty in cases such as causing death, grievous injury, custodial violence and the like. He submits that the judgments already cited by this Court in its earlier judgment dated 21st February, 2000, namely, Sebastian M.Hongray Vs. Union of India, 1984 (3) SCC 82;

xxx xxx

53. It is in view of these observations that we have to examine as to how the fire was caused and what is the complicity of the parties in the same. Besides examining the causation of fire, this Court is also required to go into the question as to whether a party even if not responsible for causation of fire was still responsible for spreading the smoke so as to make it liable for compensation. This Court is also to examine, if it is ultimately held as to how the fire was caused, who was responsible for the same and who was responsible for spread of smoke to the upper floors and what were the deviations in the building, seating arrangement including provision of gangways and exit doors, etc., what were the defects in installation and maintenance of the transformer and how all this has contributed to the spreading of smoke and fire in the building and how the compensation, if any, is to be apportioned amongst the parties to this petition”.

4.(1) The nominated authority shall, after the completion of the inspection of the building or premises under section 3, record its views on the deviations from, or the contraventions of, the building bye-laws with regard to the fire prevention and fire safety measures and inadequacy of such measures provided therein with reference to the height of the building or the nature of activities carried on in such building or premises and issue a notice to the owner or occupier of such building or premises directing him to undertake such measures as may be specified in the notice. (2) The nominated authority shall also give a report of any inspection made by it under section 3 to the District Magistrate.”