Liability Of Municipal Corporation Officers Equal As That Of TRP Game Zone Owner: Gujarat High Court Says While Hearing Rajkot Fire Case

The Gujarat High Court on Friday orally said it was of the "tentative opinion" that the concerned Commissioners of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation pay Rs. 10,000 to the dependents of each of the victims who lost their lives in the TRP Game Zone fire earlier this year. 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, while submissions were being made by the kin of the victims of the incident, the high court orally enquired about who had paid compensation to the victims, and was informed that apart from the owners of the game zones, the state government had also paid compensation. At this stage the Chief Justice orally said,"What about municipal corporation? The Officers of the municipal corporation have to pay compensation from their own pocket.They are also party to this situation. The liability of the officers of corporation is equal as that of the owner". The high court thereafter orally enquired about the officers who had been found as responsible, and was informed that the "responsibility had been fixed" upon some of the officers of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation in the Special Investigation Team (SIT) report. Advocate Amit Panchal, appearing as petitioner in person in one of the matters, pointed to names of certain officers including three assistant engineers of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation who were posted from time to time and were found responsible for illegal construction and not carrying out demolition order. He submitted that "officers should pay from their own pocket". Taking note of the same, the high court orally said, "These eight officers would bear liability for payment of compensation to each and every dependent of the victim. Each and every victim we would say...And then the municipal commissioner also has to pay something from his own pocket. He is guilty of not supervising the whole affairs so he has to pay. He cannot be exonerated...Why we are saying that municipal corporation and commissioner is responsible, that there was an order of demolition and it was not carried out; had it been carried out in time, there would not have been this tragedy". The demolition order was passed on June 8, 2023. Meanwhile the advocate general appearing for the state said that in his "view", the "responsibility lied with the town planning officers and the fire department officers". At this stage, the Chief Justice orally noted that there was also some kind of ceremony which was attended by the administrative officers in connection to the structure in question wherein there was a photograph which was being circulated. Remarking on the responsibility of the Municipal Commissioner, the Chief Justice thereafter orally said, "He cannot plead innocence. He may not be directly responsible but he cannot be exonerated the way the report exonerates him...We are not initiating departmental inquiry for the reason that the power was delegated. But no one can argue that municipal commissioner was innocent; then he has to pay something out of this pocket...Maybe a lesser amount. At this stage, the advocate general said that there "should not be any problem" on this, however he be granted a chance to place the legal position on this aspect. He said that a similar argument was made before the Supreme Court in another fire incident matter where municipal commissioner was sought to be made liable, however the apex court said that he was not and it was liability of the corporation. The Chief Justice however orally said that as the head of the corporation, the "supervision" was with the municipal commissioner. "He cannot shut his eyes after delegation of power. This is what we had recorded in our order; after looking at the fact finding report we have recorded this that though he may not be directly responsible but he is responsible for not discharging his duties of supervision...Officers are attending the party there this was not a kind of structure which could have escaped the eyes of municipal commissioner. It was not a residential house which was not noticed...Each and every victim atleast minimum of 10,000 out of his pocket. So that he may feel that pain," the chief justice orally remarked.At this stage, the advocate general said that he would like to place the legal position and then whatever the court says "he will bow down". On the legal position, the high court orally remarked that the municipal commissioner cannot escape responsibility since it is the duty of the commissioner to see that the officers to whom the power is delegated are discharging their duties responsibly. After noting that there were 27 victims who had lost their lives, the high court further orally said, "For rest we will decide what amount has to be paid; ...

Liability Of Municipal Corporation Officers Equal As That Of TRP Game Zone Owner: Gujarat High Court Says While Hearing Rajkot Fire Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags