‘Very, very pathetic’: Delhi High Court raps civic body, DU over hostel collapse

“… Fifty young students who are at the threshold of entering their lives, seven of them reportedly have died, few have been rescued, rest are lying under the debris perhaps. There can’t be anything more sad than this. This is your responsibility, you cannot escape from this responsibility,” he said, orally, to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of MCD.

The division bench, also comprising Justice Tejas Karia, sought separate responses from the Delhi government, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, DU as well as Delhi Police in 10 days.

Directions to MCD, DU

The court has specifically directed MCD to clearly indicate in its reply as to whether there are any statutory regulations regulating PG/hostels.

It has also instructed DU to indicate as to how many outstation students are there in colleges affiliated to it and how many hostels are being run either by DU or the government.

“The reported incident is not only unfortunate but it evokes deep concerns about inadequate housing facilities in the form of hostels run by DU/government, safety and security of students, and not-so-adequate measures deployed by MCD and other authorities to regulate PG/hostels…,” the bench recorded in its order.

“… The responsibility, prima facie, in our opinion, for such mishaps do not lie solely on the owner of the PG/hotel, rather responsibility goes to the university authorities as well as municipal corporation of Delhi, which is responsible to ensure that every single development in Delhi, such as construction of building or repair, is carried out in accordance with law.

“It is not difficult to think that such mishaps are the result of inadequate measures deployed by MCD and other authorities. Had the authority been alive to their responsibilities and duties cast on them statutorily, perhaps such incidents could have been avoided,” the order said.

The PIL, filed by Delhi University law student Aniket Kumar Gupta, sought an immediate safety audit of private paying guest and hostel accommodations in Satya Niketan, arguing that the incident points to wider safety concerns in buildings housing thousands of students.

The bench directed the MCD to take up the issue “at the highest executive level” and conduct an inquiry “as to whether the buildings which collapsed were constructed with valid permissions or not”.

“If it is found it was without valid permission, the MCD shall fix the responsibility of the officer/employees concerned for such lapse. The response to be filed by MCD shall also indicate as to what action has been proposed against the erring officials/officers, if any,” the court directed MCD.

It also directed the MCD to inspect all buildings housing PG and hostels and prepare a report in a week on whether requisite permission/building byelaws were followed during construction.

The court will consider the matter next on September 25.

Addressing Mehta, CJ Upadhyaya orally remarked, “… You need to double down on your efforts to provide for hostels… the government doesn’t run any hostels, DU hardly runs 2-3 hostels, no other hostels by university. If you invest in such measures, you’re investing in the children, they are the future of the country…”

Pointing out the “very very pathetic situation” of hostel availability, CJ Upadhyaya said orally, “… There has to be some regulation, some statutory mechanism has to be in place to regulate these PGs. These PG owners recklessly indulge in constructions. If permission is for 2-storey, they will construct 6 storey… this collapse is perhaps a result of such construction…”