All Proceedings Conducted On 'Illegal' Game Zone Points To Town Planning Officer, File Didn't Reach Ex-Municipal Commissioners: Gujarat HC
Examining the affidavits of two former Rajkot Municipal Commissioners pertaining to the TRP Game Zone fire, the Gujarat High Court said that while all proceedings pertaining to the coming up of the establishment was illegal at the level of the Town Planning Officer (TPO), however it appeared that at no stage the file travelled to the concerned Municipal Commissioners.
The high court had in its September 27 order directed the former Municipal Commissioners who were in-charge during the establishment of TRP Game Zone and the fire accident which took place in May this year to file their affidavits, as the Court was dissatisfied by the affidavit filed by the present Municipal Commissioner. The Court had then directed the former municipal commissioners to file their personal affidavit to ascertain the role played by them and to bring in record the case file and communications regarding the demolition order passed by the TPO.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi in its October 25 order, after perusing several documents submitted by the State pertaining to Town Planning Department of Rajkot Municipal Corporation, observed that the record indicated the "communication between the original owners and the Town Planning Authority". However, it noted, there was no indication about "any endorsement of bringing the issue to the notice of the Municipal Commissioner, at any stage of the proceedings".
The Court while referring to the affidavit submitted by the two Municipal Commissioner in compliance of the September 27 order, noted that Anand Babulal Patel, who served as Commissioner from April 2023 to May 2024, in his affidavit had expressed his remorse for the incident, stating that he performed his duties to the best of his ability "and yet occurrence of the incident has taken a personal toll on him".
The court further took note of the affidavit filed by Amit Arora, who served as Municipal Commissioner of Rajkot from June 2021 to April 2023, which stated that he diligently carried out his duties.
The Officer further submitted in the affidavit that had he known that TRP Game Zone was operating without permission, he would have taken "strictest possible action" against the owners/operators concerned. He further expressed his remorse for the incident.
Considering the statements in the officers' affidavits and the original records related to the demolition and the fire incident at the TRP Game Zone the bench observed, “we have reached at the conclusion that all proceedings pertaining to the coming up of the TRP Game Zone was conducted illegally at the level of the Town Planning Officer and at no stage of the proceedings, it seems that file had travelled to the level of the Municipal Commissioners (two herein), posted at different point of time in the Municipal Corporation, Rajkot. With this, we find it fit and proper to put at rest the issue pertaining to the involvement of the Municipal Commissioners posted at relevant point of time at the Rajkot Municipal Corporation in the upcoming of the TRP Game Zone illegally”.
The Court then said that the issue of whether compensation for the victims should come from the "pocket of the erring officials" is still alive and will be addressed when appropriate.
The Counsel for the Corporation invited the court's attention to the structure of the Fire Department of eight municipal corporations and said that under the Gujarat Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Act, 2013, a notification issued on October 3, 2020 states that fire brigades of all Municipalities and Corporations "shall not form part of the State Fire Service".
Under the Act, control over these municipal fire services is given to the State Government, through an officer appointed under the Gujarat Fire Prevention Services. Further, On October 4, 10, and 17 this year the Principal Secretary of Urban Development had directed all eight Municipal Commissioners to enhance resources and complete the recruitment process of their respective Fire Departments, and to provide the necessary data to the Director, Gujarat Fire Prevention Services.
The Court further examining the data collected from the Municipal Commissioners observed details about operational Fire Stations, newly approved Fire Stations, allocated land, and the status of construction for new Fire Stations, along with a timeline for their completion, the fire vehicles currently in use and those needed by different Municipal Corporations. It noted that there is a significant shortage of personnel, and the court was informed that the recruitment process has commenced to fill these vacancies.
The Court directed to the Director of Gujarat Fire Prevention Services to get a timeline for completion of the recruitment process from the eight Municipal Commissioners of the concerned Corporations and place it on record to demonstrate the progress in strengthening the fire services in the State. The Court also noted that in four major cities—Rajkot, Surat, Ahmedabad, and Vadodara, the construction of high-rise buildings up to 130 to 150 meters have been approved (about 42 to 45 stories). A query was made as to whether the Fire Departments in these cities are prepared to handle fires in such tall buildings.
"On this, the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation would submit the he will complete the necessary instructions to place an answer," the order states.
Lastly, the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary (Primary and Secondary) Education Department stated the progress in making schools fire safety compliant. Out of the 771 schools, 338 have become fire compliant and efforts are ongoing for the remaining 433. Mock drills are being conducted, and staff training is provided to prepare for emergencies and as of October 23, 2024, mock drills have been held in 50,699 schools, with around 297,212 staff members trained.
The Court then posted the matter on December 20, to determine the remaining issues.
Case Title: Amit Manilal Panchal v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.