[Rajkot Fire Case] 'No Remorse': Gujarat High Court Expresses 'Deep Pain, Frustration' At 'Vehemence' In Response Of Municipal Commissioners
The Gujarat High Court has directed the then Rajkot Municipal Commissioners posted in the city corporation from 2021 till May 2024 when the TRP Game Zone Fire incident took place, to respond to the court's earlier order on issues including the non-compliance of its directions on obtaining Fire NOC as well as compensation to victims by "erring officials".
The high court said so while noting that it could not see a "feeling of remorse" in the statements of officers posted as Municipal Commissioners of Rajkot over the course of the matter, adding that the affidavits filed before the court had the "tenor" that the Municipal Commissioner posted at the relevant time can in "no eventuality" be held responsible for "dereliction of duties".
Expressing its anguish at the vehement response filed by the officials, a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi in its September 27 order said, "With a deep sense of pain and feeling of frustration, the way the response has been given by the officers with vehemence to the Court, we are of the view that two Municipal Commissioners posted in the Rajkot Municipal Corporation at the relevant point of time are required to submit their response by filing their personal affidavits. We, therefore, call upon the Municipal Commissioners posted in the Rajkot Municipal Corporation between the years 2021 to May 2024 when the fire incident had occurred, to file their personal affidavits in response to the order dated 23.08.2024 passed by us".
The order was passed in 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.
No feeling of remorse in statements of officers
The court further said, "We do not see any feeling of remorse in the statements of the officers posted as Municipal Commissioner, if any recorded in the fact finding report, nor any such response has come up before us till date. All the affidavits filed before us from July 2024 onwards are of the tenor that in no eventuality, the Municipal Commissioner of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation posted at the relevant point of time can be said to be held responsible of dereliction of their duties and responsibilities, which was duly exercised as part of their supervisory role and control over his officers".
It said that there was no expression of "feeling of remorse or any assurance" given to the court that if the then Municipal Commissioners had exercised their "supervisory powers diligently" and were alerted about the TRP Gaming Zone which was being run for two years, such a "ghastly incident where 27 young people, middle aged and child had died by burning alive, could have been avoided".
TRP Game Zone fire has created dent in functioning of municipal corporation officials in the State
Expressing its concern regarding the fire incident at the game zone vis-a-vis the functioning of different state municipalities the court said, "This incident has created a deep dent in the functioning of the officials of different Municipal Corporations in the State as admittedly many Gaming zone flourised in the entire State prior to the incident have been closed or sealed on the ground that they were being run without proper Building Use Permission, after the TRP Gaming Zone fire incident had occurred in the month of May' 2024".
The court said that it was bothered by the issue pertaining to the manner in which the TRP Game Zone was functioning without a "building use certificate" and without fulfilling necessary requirement for fire protection. This, it said, was a "serious lapse" on the part of the authorities of the Corporation and the Municipal Commissioner in his supervisory role, "cannot shed" his responsibility for exercise of supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of other corporation officers.
With respect to the averments made by Rajkot Municipal Commissioner in a September 26 affidavit, the court said that the "vehemence of the officer" in giving a response to the court was "clearly visible", wherein while replying to certain paragraphs mentioned in court's August 23 order the statement made was that the court cannot hold any of the "then Municipal Commissioners responsible by holding them guilty for non-performance of their supervisory role".
"The vehemence with which the officer has responded to us in the affidavit dated 26.09.2024 shows that he has no respect for the Court of law and the affidavit has been drafted in order to dictate the Court as to what can be done and what cannot be. We do not expect an officer of the caliber of IAS cadre to submit response to the Court in this manner. We keep our order reserve to seek explanation by issuing a proper notice to the officer (deponent), who has filed affidavit dated 26.09.2024," the bench said.
The court said that it had categorically noted that the then Municipal Commissioners (in a connected 2020 PIL) had filed affidavits giving an "undertaking" that all efforts would be made to ensure the fire prevention, life safety measures, its implementation and the fire prevention and protection systems would be installed in all the buildings of the State as required under the Comprehensive General Development Control Regulations, 2017.
Progress report on making schools fire safe
The court thereafter in its order asked the counsel appearing for the Rajkot Municipal Corporation to place the entire original record pertaining to the demolition order passed by the Town Planning Officer including the notice of demolition etc., the regularisation application moved etc. prior to the incident.
With respect to the structure of the fire department of eight Municipal Corporations, the high court granted time to the Director appointed under Section 6 of Gujarat Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Act 2013, to respond by filing his personal affidavit on strengthening the fire department of each Corporation, progress regarding filling of vacancies in the department and the response to certain paragraphs of the court's August 2 order.
Before parting, the court also asked the Secretary, Primary and Secondary Education Department to file his affidavit to bring on record the progress report on making "schools fire safety compliant", including installation of fire safety equipments, conducting of mock drills and training to teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution.
Asking the officers to submit their responses, the high court listed the matter on October 25.
Background
In its August 23 order the court had taken note of its directions passed in a connected 2020 PIL directing 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.
It had been submitted in the August 23 hearing, as noted in the order, that all these directions were continuing and responsibility for implementing them was upon the Municipal Commissioner, and in case of non-compliance he cannot take "shield of the delegation of his powers, duties and functions for initiation action as per Section 260(2) of the GPMC Act' 1949 to the Town Planning Officer".
It was also then argued if the directions on obtaining Fire NOC before building occupation and building use was complied with, the fire incident could probably have been avoided. It was also argued that the "presence of the Municipal Commissioner at a function in the TRP Zone premises/area clearly goes to show that the Municipal Commissioner was aware of the existence of such site within the jurisdictional limits of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation". It was, thus, argued that the Municipal Commissioners of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, posted at the relevant point of time are to be held to be "guilty of dereliction of their duties and responsibilities of due exercise of supervisory role and control over his offices".
Meanwhile the advocate appearing for the victims had then argued that the victims have not been given adequate compensation, inasmuch as, the erring officials are also required to compensate the victims. The responsibility has been fixed in the SIT report upon the identification of the erring officials and they be held liable to pay compensation to the victims from their own pocket. Even the Municipal Commissioners who are found to be lacking in discharging their duties in supervisory control are also liable to compensate the victims, the August 23 order noted.
Case title: Amit Manilal Panchal v/s State of Gujarat & Ors. and batch along with
Suo Motu v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.