SANJAY GUPTA & ORS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 137 · Decided: 12-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
137
   [2022] 15 S.C.R. 137
137
SANJAY GUPTA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 338 of 2006)
APRIL 12, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Arts. 21 and 32 –Commission of Inquiry
Act, 1952 - ss.2(a), 3 - U.P. Fire Service Act, 1944 - s. 16 – Uttar
Pradesh Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2005 - ss. 2(g) ,3 -
Code of Criminal Procedure - ss.133,144 - Occurrence of Fire
Tragedy in a Consumer Show, organized by the respondents 10 to
12( Organizers)– Incident claimed lives of 65 persons and 161
suffered burn injuries – Organizers appointed a contractor to look
after the proposed construction of exhibition infrastructure –
Organizers claiming that contractors liable for fire tragedy –
Appointment of Commission by theS tate of U.P. under the
Commission under Inquiry Act – However, report submitted by the
Commission not found sustainable by this Court – Thus, this Court
appointed Justice Sinha as a one-man commission to give his report
on the incident – Writ petition in respect of private law liability of
the Organizers – Held : Where life and personal liberty have been
violated, the absence of any statutory provision for compensation
in the statute is of no consequence – Right to life guaranteed under
Art. 21 is the most sacred right preserved and protected under the
Constitution, violation of which is always actionable and there is
no necessity of statutory provision as such for preserving that right
- Art. 21 has to be read into all public safety statutes, since the
prime object of public safety legislation is to protect the individual
and to compensate him for the loss suffered –Duty of care expected
from State or its officials functioning under the public safety
legislation is very high –On facts, Organizers were the persons
responsible for organizing the exhibition and informing people to
visit such exhibition after purchase of the ticket – Thus, the property
of the Organizers caught fire on account of their negligence and
hence are liable to pay compensation – Organizers herein cannot
be absolved from their duty of providing safety, even though the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
Contractor was engaged for providing certain services –
Contractorwas working on behalf of the Organizers in terms of the
work order issued – Therefore, whatsoever may be the relationship
between the two, the Organizers cannot be absolutely absolved of
theirliability – All permissions were required to be sought and were
in fact sought by the Organizers - Victims or their families visited
exhibition on the invitation of the Organizers and not that of the
Contractor – Organizers were supposed to make arrangements for
putting up the exhibition hall, providing electricity and water and
also the food stalls for the facility of the victims/visitors – They
cannot now take shelter on the ground that the Contractor who
was given work order was an independent contractor and the victims
should seek remedy from him – Contractor has worked for the
Organizers and not for the victims – Hence, the Organizers alone
are responsible to protect the life and liberty of the victims – Report
of the one-man Commission not suffering from any infirmity so as
to absolve the Organizers from their responsibility of organizing
the exhibition – Court Commissioner rightly fixed the liability on
the Organizers to the extent of 60%, and the State with 40% of the
total liability – Such distribution of liability does not suffers from
any illegality to warrant interference by this Court – High Court
Chief Justice to entrust the work of determination of compensation
to a District Judge or Additional District Judge – Compensation to
be computed in accordance with the principles of just compensation
as in the case of accident under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Maxims: res ipsa loquitur – Applicability of – On facts, an
exhibition organized of such substantial magnitude without proper
and adequate safety factors which may endanger the life of the
visitors, wherein fire broke and incident claimed lives of 65 persons
and left 161 or more with burn injuries – Maxim res ipsa loquitur
would be applicable as, rightly found by the Court Commissioner,
an act of negligence including negligence of the officers of the
State – Finding on cause of fire is not relevant in determining the
civil liability.
Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 : ss.2(a), 3 – Appoin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.