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; if a person who has collected money he has to pay more he must have acquired more wealth. How many victims are there? 27...And three commissioners. Equally distributed amongst three". 

The State said that the Commissioner was conducting, even prior to incident, as many as "300 review meetings", but the issue in question was "not brought to his notice". 

Observing that the structure in question was not normal, the Chief Justice orally said, "It is not about one person. There are three commissioners one after another. And during this period this structure came up. It is difficult to accept that there was a huge structure coming up like this and he (municipal commissioner) was not sounded…he should have atleast thought of as to how these structures are coming what his colleagues are doing. Review meetings are not enough, these were not normal structure. It was a new structure, came up within three years. That is why it was all the more necessary for people to be alert as to what is happening in their city, the city which is in their charge". 

Meanwhile Panchal pointed to certain earlier directions passed by the high court in the same proceedings (pertaining to a 2020 matter in the batch) arguing that had these directions been implemented this "tragedy would have been averted". 

The high court enquired if the Rajkot Municipal Commissioner was a party in the matter to which Panchal said that then commissioner was a party and that official had filed an affidavit.

Panchal further argued that the affidavit was filed and contended, "To say it was not brought to his notice? It was his duty to check. Please take action against those responsible. The commissioners are responsible. They are the head". 

The high court thereafter enquired as to when was the affidavit filed, to which Panchal said that it was filed on March 8, 2022. 

The court thereafter permitted the authorities to respond to the affidavit.

"All officers who were posted when the zone came in, all responsible officers have to pay compensation from their own pocket. For now for municipal commissioner we have said Rs. 10,000; if there is much vehemence we will increase it. We will also want this reply about non compliance of directions of this court in petition 118/2020. That is a serious issue. There was affidavit of Rajkot municipal commissioner...We are not concerned with the name. If municipal commissioner has given affidavit in the court, that is not in his personal capacity. That is an affidavit which is to be honoured by officer who is taking charge who is the successor. He cannot say 'since its not my affidavit so I'm not responsible'. Successive municipal commissioners were responsible to comply with directions of this court. That is why we want you to file a reply," the chief justice orally said.

To this the advocate general said that the reply will be filed on all these aspects and some time may be given. While Panchal said that let the three municipal commissioners, if they so desire, file their affidavits, the high court again made it orally clear it was not calling for the individual commissioners' affidavit, because when the municipal commissioner is giving affidavit it is not in his personal capacity and so whosoever is succeeding is bound by earlier statements on record.

Before parting the Chief Justice orally said,"We are keeping the matter on consideration of giving compensation to be given to the victims. Additional compensation which has to be pocketed from the officers...So we want the response to the affidavit and our proposal. We will be mentioning in our order that these officers including municipal commissioner have to pay compensation from their own of pocket. Tentative opinion. For municipal commissioner our opinion would be tentative subject to what you say on the next date".

The court also called for a report from the Special Investigation Team on the incident. The matter is now kept on September 13.

Case title: Amit Manilal Panchal v/s State of Gujarat & Ors. and batch along with Suo Motu v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.