LexSANJAY GUPTA & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2014) 8 S.C.R. 992 SANJAY GUPTA & ORS. V. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 338 of 2006) JULY 31, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952 - ss. B8 and BC - Non- compliance - Effect of - Held: Since the Commission C constituted under the Act, did not comply with the provisions of ss. B8 and BC which seriously prejudiced the accused, the report submitted by the Commission cannot be sustained - Appointment of new Commissioner. 0 Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 32 - Writ petition - Seeking damages and other reliefs - Against the State as well as private parties-accused - Holding them responsible for the 64 deaths and above 100 injuries in a fire accident which broke-out in a consumer exhibition - Held: Fact finding Commission constituted under Commission of Enquiry Act, E was not sustainable for non-compliance of statutory provisions - New Commissioner appointed and directed to submit his report - So long as the Commission is awaited, liability to pay damages cannot be fastened on the parties - The facts of the case show that there has been statutory violations and F negligence by the State authorities - Therefore, as an interim measure, State directed to pay some more amount to the victims, in addition to the amount it has already paid as compensation - The accused-organizers of the event also directed to deposit an amount of ss. 30 lakhs with the Court G to be kept in fixed deposit interest bearing account - Apportionment of the liability between different erring parties a/so to be decided after receipt of the report of the Commission - Commission of Enquiry Act, 1950 - Damages. H 992 SANJAY GUPTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 993 A consumer show organized by the organizers A (respondent Nos. 10 to 12), caught fire resulting in death of 64 persons and injuries to more than hundred persons. FIR was lodged against the accused persons u/ss. 304A, 337, 338 and 427 IPC. In view of the magnitude of the tragedy, the State Government appointed a one- B man Commission under the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952. The petitioners also filed the present writ petition u/Art. 32 of the Constitution, seeking inter alia to awar,: damages against the respondents jointly and severally tc be paid to the victims. c Respondent Nos. 10 to 12 (the organizers of the event) contended that they have been seriously prejudiced due to non-compliance of ss. 88 and SC of the Act by the Commission. Issuing certain directions and granting interim relief, the Court HELD: 1.1. The notices were sent by the Commission of Inquiry in the nature of notice requiring the respondents to appear. They have to be construed as notices under Section 4(a) of the Act. That apart, on a scrutiny of the list of witnesses who were examined by the Commission, it is found that the respondents 10 to 12 were summoned almost after examination of 45 witnesses and the respondent-organisers were not afforded opportunity of cross-examination. The Commission, on the basis of the evidence and taking recourse to certain violation of statutory provisions, has submitted the report. Therefore, it is difficult to sustain the report. [Para 8] [1003-H; 1004-A-B] State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani and others 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 844 (2003) 8 sec 361 - relied on. D E F G 1.2. Regard being had to the gravity of the situation and the magnitude of the tragedy, Justice S.B. Sinha, formerly a Judge of the Supreme Court is appointed, as H 994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A the one man Commission. The witnesses, who were examined by the previous Commission and not cross- examined by respondents 10 to 12, their depositions shall be treated as examination-in-chief and they shall be made available for cross-examination by the respondent. It has B also been conceded that the documents which have been marked as exhibits, unless there is a cavil over the same, they shall be treated as exhibited documents. The contractors who were engaged by the organizers, as they were summoned by the previous Commission, should be c summoned by the present Commission. The Commission should issue notices to the contractors so that the proceeding under the Act can continue in accordance with the provisions of the Act. They shall have the similar opportunity that has been made available to the 0 organizers. The organizers as well as the contractors would be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.