Minor boys’ drowning in open tank: Bombay HC seeks from BMC exact details on removal of family’s hutment

“We require this (details) because it should not even be accidentally suggested that the demolition was some sort of ad hoc action by BMC. We have not reached a conclusion one way or another as there are possibilities involved.

There will be widely divergent legal consequences if proper protocol is not in place,” the bench noted in its order. It also sought an affidavit on provisions of liability for compensation in case of accidental deaths.

A division bench of Justices Gautam S Patel and Kamal R Khata was hearing the PIL it initiated suo motu on the April 1 incident of the drowning of two boys, aged 4 and 5, in a water tank in a civic garden which had no proper cover. Last Thursday, it had questioned the BMC as to “what was the price of human life in the city” and initiated the public interest litigation.

The court also told advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the state government, that there has to be “some sort of structure” for compensation in case of deaths due to negligence by civic bodies.

“Our anxiety is that If you (government) don’t have structure, liability is open-ended… There has to be some basis on which the compensation part can be reasonably addressed. There is also a question of responsibility of the corporation and individual officers,” the bench remarked. It added that while it may use concerned news reports as ‘springboards’, the details were required to be given by authorities.

“When these news reports appear, they tend to take a certain colour. We will do what we have to do. It is one thing that it was a planned (scheduled) removal. A family has suffered tragedy and trauma and the report shows the same is piling one on top of another, ” the bench told senior advocate Anil Singh representing BMC.

The high court said that the matters regarding removal of shanties or unauthorised constructions would be taken care of by other PILs and it was not expanding the scope of the present PIL.

Referring to the father of the two boys Manoj Wagari, who was present in the court, the bench said that “some order of ad hoc compensation” should be considered by the authorities.

Justice Patel told senior advocate Sharan Jagtiani, appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter, “It is a horrible thing. Somehow you have to explain to him (father). What is befallen to a couple is unimaginable. We are not suggesting that by pushing some money their way the loss will be made up. We just want them to get something under law.”

“Woh (Jagtiani) aapko samjhayenge. Aap befikre rahiye (He will explain it. You do not worry),” the bench told Wagari.

The court said that while it had not made an order related to compensation for the family as yet, it will pass further directions during the next hearing on April 23.