Uphaar fire: HC poses queries

AVUT counsel senior advocate K T S Tulsi contended that various authorities had failed to discharge their statutory duty and deliberate disobedience on their part had led to the tragedy. He wanted the Court to fix responsibility on them. “Under public law theywere liable to compensate the victims, as merely punishing those guilty will not change the culture of disobedience on the part of authorities,” Tulsi said.

Others who have been asked to file their replies are the Director General of Central Government Health Services, Director Department of Health (Delhi Government), Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Chief Fire Officer, Chairman of Delhi Vidyut Board, Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences and head of Centralised Accidents Trauma Services. The case will come for hearing on May 12.

The fire at the Uphaar Grand cinema hall was caused due to sparking in the DVB transformers kept in the cinema hall’s basement.

Petitioner AVUT’s counsel Tulsi said this petition was for taking steps to prevent recurrence of such accidents and for improving the infrastructure in the hospitals.

The Supreme Court, which was hearing the petition, had transferred the case to the High Court after issuing certain directions on October 17, lastyear.

Justice Sabharwal and Mahajan, however, rejected a suggestion submitted by counsel for Common Cause, Ashwini Kumar, that the Press Council of India should also be directed to formulate a code for the press so as to avoid pre-trial publicity and harm the reputation and human rights of several others.

The Court said the most important issue was the fire tragedy and steps that could be taken to avoid recurrence of such an incident and not the media coverage.

Senior counsel Tulsi said CATS, functioning under the government, had been given crores of rupees as grants but had failed to deliver the goods by “lying dormant” in every such tragedy and similar exigencies.

Accepting the request of K T S Tulsi for early disposal of the matter, Justice Sabharwal and Mahajan were of the view, “if such matters are not disposed off expeditiously, they lose their relevance. It is in public interest that the petitions be disposed off quickly.”