Municipal Commissioner Cannot 'Plead Innocence' On The Ground That Duties Were Delegated: Gujarat HC Says While Hearing Rajkot Fire Case

While hearing a matter pertaining to the TRP Game Zone fire in Rajkot which took place earlier this year, the Gujarat High Court on Friday (September 13) orally said that the city municipal commissioner cannot "plead innocence" on the ground that "duties and powers" had been "delegated to a subordinate authority" which had not informed him about the situation. The court further said that had the authorities been "vigilant and doing their duties" the incident would not have happened. While permitting the corporation to withdraw its affidavit filed in the matter, the court granted liberty to the Municipal Commissioner, Rajkot Municipal Corporation to file a response to the court's earlier order detailing certain aspects. A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi was hearing a batch of pleas including the suo motu petition initiated by the high court after twenty-seven individuals, including four children, perished in the massive fire that engulfed the game zone in Rajkot's Nana-Mava locality on May 25.During the hearing on Friday, advocate Amit Panchal, the petitioner in one of the pleas, said that the high court had passed an order on August 23 and the Rajkot Municipal Corporation was to respond and that it had responded.The bench orally noted that the matter had been kept today to hear the victims and also as to why compensation be not awarded and why erring officials be not directed to give compensation.The Chief Justice orally said,"We have taken note of the two aspects. First is the direction issued in a PIL (118/2020) wherein respective municipal commissioners were directed to do the needful. Municipal Commissioner of Rajkot Municipality had also filed affidavit on 08-03-2022 and affirmed on oath that he would comply with the directions of the court. And those directions were noted in para 7-8 of the August 23 order". These earlier directions had been issued by the high court in a 2020 PIL; the same have been recorded by the bench in its August 23 order. The direction was issued to various respondent authorities (including various municipal corporations) to ensure that effective steps are taken forthwith for the Fire Prevention and Safety and for the protection of the life and property of citizens in various types of buildings and temporary structures in Gujarat. The court had directed the respondents to "ensure that all the buildings" in the state have adequate disaster management infrastructure and proper firefighting and rescue equipment as required in the National Building Code and the Standing Fire Advisory Council, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.The respondents were earlier also directed to grant "Occupancy Certificate" to the applicant/occupant of the buildings in the state and permit occupation of the building concerned, only after consulting the concerned designated authority which issues the Certificate and after the inspection of such buildings, in order to ensure that necessary requirements for the fire protection have been fulfilled under the Gujarat Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Act, 2013, and its Rules and Regulations. It had also been directed that the "No Objection Certificate" from the concerned Fire Department/Authority will have to be produced before the Competent Authority which issues Building Use (BU) Permission/Occupancy Certificate in conformity with the Comprehensive General Development Control Regulations (CGDR) 2017. The respondents were also required to submit by way of an affidavit the details of such buildings which existed on the date of the earlier order and which required installation of Fire Prevention and Protection Systems. Taking note of the August 23 order the Chief Justice further orally said, "So this does not only cover the permanent structure but the temporary structure also. What we said in this order is that Municipal Commissioner Rajkot cannot get away by saying that he was not aware and the town planning officer or town planner has done everything". Referring to the 2022 affidavit submitted by the then Municipal Commissioner Rajkot the Chief Justice orally said, "Because it was the duty of the municipal commissioner when he gave affidavit to the court to ensure that all 'building use permission' are given in accordance with law. Then there is a need to supervise even if there was a delegation. We accept to the extent that Municipal Commissioner could not do everything on his own and was required to delegate some powers to some subordinate authority…and we are not concerned with 'A' municipal commissioner or 'B' municipal commissioner. We are not concerned with the officer. We are concerned with the working of the system. Once municipal commissioner gave affidavit to the court that 'I will ensure that this will be done' and there were directions that he will ensure that this is done; after that then saying and pleading innocence and this fact finding committee report saying that 'municipal...

Municipal Commissioner Cannot 'Plead Innocence' On The Ground That Duties Were Delegated: Gujarat HC Says While Hearing Rajkot Fire Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags