Rajkot gaming zone fire | ‘Did not see any feeling of remorse…’: HC asks two ex-RMC chiefs to file personal affidavits

The order stated, “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 (RMC) 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.”

The court further said, “There is no expression of feeling of remorse or any assurance to the Court that, in case, the then Municipal Commissioners had exercised their supervisory powers diligently and were alerted about the TRP Gaming Zone…having been run for a period of two years, such a ghastly incident…could have been avoided.”

The bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agrawal and Justice Pranav Trivedi was hearing a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) initiated after the incident, and another PIL filed by advocate Amit Panchal in 2020 after a fire at Shrey Hospital in Ahmedabad killed eight patients.

The bench, in its order on Friday, directed Amit Arora and Anand Patel, both former Rajkot municipal commissioners, to file “personal affidavits” by October 25.

According to submissions made by RMC before the HC, TRP Game Zone had become functional in June-July, 2021, and kept on running till May 25 without a no-objection certificate (NOC) from its fire and emergency services department and building-use permission (BUP) from its town planning department. While Arora served as Rajkot municipal commissioner from June 2021 to April 2023, Patel, who succeeded Arora, served in that position till his transfer on May 27.

“…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,” the division bench stated.

During a hearing of the PILs on June 13, Panchal had underlined that the HC had, through its orders on December 15, 2020 and February 25, 2021, had directed Gujarat’s eight municipal corporations, including RMC, to ensure that buildings in their jurisdictions have fire NOCs and BUP. Panchal further said that in response, the then Rajkot municipal commissioner had filed an affidavit dated March 8, 2022, in which he “affirmed on oath” that he would comply with the directions issued by this court from time to time.

During a hearing of the PILs in August this year, advocate of the victims had also demanded that RMC officers pay compensation to them out of their pockets. “At this stage, learned advocate appearing for the victims would argue 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,” according to the August 23 order of the HC.

Following the May 25 fire, RMC suspended eight officers, including the then town planning officer M D Sagathiya and chief fire officer Ilesh Kher. Others who were suspended included a deputy chief fire officer, a fire officer, three assistant town planning officers and an assistant engineer of the town planning department. They all have been arrested and are presently in judicial custody.

After a direction by the HC, the state government had constituted a three-member committee of senior officers in June to conduct a fact-finding enquiry against RMC officers “to find out the specific role of the responsible senior officers of the corporation, who were posted from time to time, and fixing their responsibilities, when they were at the helm of the affairs.”

But the committee found no fault in the roles of the two IAS officers. However, during a hearing of the PILs on August 23, Panchal opposed the clean chit to the two officers. “Panchal… would vehemently submit that the Municipal Commissioner cannot be given clean chit, inasmuch as, even after delegation of his power to any other officers of the corporation, being the head of the institution, he exercises control over his subordinates and was required to ensure that the delegated powers are being exercised…diligently and strictly in accordance with law. It was argued that the findings in the Report of the Fact Finding Committee that both the Municipal Commissioners have discharged their duties diligently…is misleading,” the HC order dated August 23 stated.

Through its August 23 order, the HC had sought RMC response to contentions raised by Panchal and the victims’ advocate. In response, Devang Desai, incumbent municipal commissioner of Rajkot, submitted an affidavit dated June 26. Desai, who had succeeded Patel, underlined that RMC has more than 6,000 employees and 36 different departments, each headed by a sectoral expert to govern 6 lakh buildings spread over 161 square kilometre area of the civic body’s jurisdiction.

Desai had said in his affidavit of September 26, “In my humble submission, it appears that the-then Municipal Commissioners have duly discharged their respective duties… and…it would not be in the interest of justice for the learned Amicus to contend that… (they) should be held personally responsible for any alleged non-compliance of any of the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court…”

But the court objected to the “tenor” of Desai’s affidavit and sought personal affidavits from his two predecessors.