Page 1 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 338 OF 2006

Sanjay Gupta and others ... Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh and others ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

The 10

th

of April, 2006, the last day of the India Brand

Consumer Show organized by Mrinal Events and Expositions at

Victoria Park, Meerut, witnessed the dawn of the day with hope,

aspiration, pleasure and festivity at the Victoria Park, Meerut, but,

as ill-fortune (man made) would have it, as the evening set in, it

became the mute spectator to a devastating fire inside the

covered premises of the brand show area which extinguished the

life spark of sixty-four persons and left more than hundreds as

Page 2 injured; and with the clock ticking, the day turned to be a silent

observer of profused flow of human tears, listener of writhing pain

and cry, and eventually, marking itself as a dark day of disaster in

human history. Some, who were fortunate to escape death,

sustained serious injuries, and some minor injuries. The cruelest

day of April converted the last day of the festival of Consumer

Show to that of a horrifying tragedy for the families of the persons

who were charred to death, the victims who despite sustaining

serious injuries did not fall prey to the claw of fatality, and the

others, slightly fortunate, who had got away with minor injuries

bearing the mental trauma. The dance of death, as it appears,

reigned supreme and the cruel demon of injury caused serious

injuries as well as minor injuries. The assembly of pleasure paled

into total despair and before the people could understand the

gravity of the tragedy, it was over, leaving the legal

representatives who have lost their parents, or the parents who

have forever been deprived of seeing their children, or the wives

who had become widows within fraction of a minute, blaming and

cursing the officials of the State Government. The

2

Page 3 contemporaneous history records it as “Great Meerut Fire

Tragedy.

2. After the tragedy paraded at the Victoria Park a First

Information Report was lodged against the accused persons under

Sections 304A, 337, 338 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. The State

Government, regard being had to the magnitude of the tragedy,

vide notification No. 2155/p/Chh.p-3-2006-12(51)p/2006 dated

2.6.2006, appointed Justice O.P. Garg, a former Judge of

Allahabad High Court, as one man Commission under the

Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”). The

Commission was required to submit the report in respect of four

issues, namely: -

“1.To find out the facts, causes on account of which

the aforesaid accident occurred.

2.To decide the ways and means to keep up the

situation in control.

3.In respect of the aforesaid occurrence, determination

of liability and the extent thereof.

4.Measures to be adopted to avoid the occurrence of

such incident in future.”

3

Page 4 3. Almost at the time the Commission was appointed, the

present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed

seeking the following reliefs: -

“A.Pass appropriate writ, order or direction directing

the respondent No. 13, CBI to take up the

investigation of the case FIR No. 95 of 2006,

registered at Civil Lines, Meerut, UP, u/s

304A/337/338/427, IPC and investigate the case in

accordance with law, and this Hon’ble Court may

be pleased to monitor the investigation from time

to time, to ensure that no person guilty of any of

the offences is able to escape the clutches of law

and that the investigation is carried out as

expeditiously as possible in a free and fair manner.

B.Pass appropriate writ, order or direction directing

the State Government to initiate action against the

erring administrative officers for their atrocious and

negligent 4ehavior while dealing with tragedy of

this magnitude.

C.Pass appropriate writ order or direction awarding

damages against the respondents, jointly and

severally, to the petitioners including all victims

who lost their lives, the names and particulars of

which, are given in Annexure P.6 for a sum of

Rs.106 crores (Rs.20 lakhs for 53 dead) with the

direction to equally distribute the same to the first

degree heirs of all the victims evenly or in such

manner as may be considered just and proper, by

this Hon’ble Court.

D.Award damages against the respondents, jointly

and severally, to the tune of Rs.63 crores (Rs.5

lakhs for 126 injured) to the injured whose names

and addresses are mentioned in Annexure P-6 to

4

Page 5 be distributed evenly or in such manner as may be

considered just and proper, by this Hon’ble Court.

E.Award punitive damages against the respondents

to pay a sum of Rs.50 crores jointly and severally

for the purpose of setting up and augmenting the

Centralized Accident and Trauma Services and

other allied services in Western UP. Respondent

No. 3, the District Magistrate may be directed to

create a fund for the purpose and submit a detailed

report to this Hon’ble Court in accordance with

which the said services will be set up under the

supervision of this Hon’ble Court.

F.Pass appropriate writ, order or direction issuing

guidelines to be followed by all, at the time of

creating a temporary structure for organizing

Seminars, Exhibitions etc.”

4.In course of hearing of the writ petition we have been

apprised by Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned senior counsel that 64

persons have died in the incident and not 53. The said fact is not

disputed by learned counsel for the State. As the hearing

progressed, this Court directed for filing of the translated copy of

the relevant portion of the report of the commission as it had

already been submitted to the competent authority. In

compliance with the order learned counsel for the State has

brought on record the report dated 5.6.2007. On a perusal of the

said report, we have found that the Commission has returned its

findings in respect of all the aspects.

5

Page 6 5.Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for

respondents 10 to 12, the organizers of the event, submitted that

the Commission has fallen into grave error by not complying with

Sections 8B and 8C of the Act as a consequence of which the said

respondents have been seriously prejudiced. It is his further

proponement that they were only issued notices under Section

4(a) of the Act, but that would not meet the requirement as

mandated under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act.

6.To appreciate the said submission, it is apposite to refer to

Sections 8, 8A, 8B and 8C of the Act. Section 8 provides for

procedure to be followed by the Commission empowering it to

have power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of

place and time of its sitting and deciding whether to sit in public

or in private. Section 8A stipulates that the inquiry not to be

interrupted by reason of vacancy or change in constitution of the

Commission. Sections 8B and 8C on which emphasis has been

placed by Mr. Shanti Bhushan need to be reproduced. They read

as follows: -

6

Page 7 “8B. Persons likely to be prejudicially affected to

be heard. – If, at any state of the inquiry, the

Commission, -

i. considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct

of any person; or

ii.is of opinion that the reputation of any person is

likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry,

the Commission shall give to that person a reasonable

opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and to

produce evidence in his defence:

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply

where the credit of a witness is being impeached.

8C. Right of cross-examination and

representation by legal practitioner . – The

appropriate Government, every person referred to in

section 8B and, with the permission of the Commission,

any other person whose evidence is recorded by the

Commission, -

(a) may cross-examine a witness other than a

witness produced by it or him;

(b) may address the Commission; and

(c) may be represented before the Commission

by a legal practitioner or, with the permission of

the Commission, by any other person.”

7.It is submitted by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior

counsel, that no opportunity was given to the respondents 10 to

12 to cross-examine the witnesses though they are directly

affected by the said inquiry and the findings recorded by the

Commission. It is canvassed by him that the notice that was sent

7

Page 8 to the said respondents is basically under Section 4(a) of the Act.

To bolster his submission he has drawn our attention to the

notices that have been sent by the Commission. We may

fruitfully refer to one of the notices sent by the Commission to

one of the organizers, namely, Lakhan Tomar, respondent No. 10.

The said notice reads as follows: -

“Sh. Lakhan Tomar, (in Jail),

Organizer, Consumer Show,

Victoria Park,

Meerut,

Via

Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut,

Meerut

On 10

th

of April, a sad incident of massive fire occurred

in the 3 Pandals of Brand Consumer Show at Victoria

Park, Civil Lines area of police station, District Meerut.

In order to ascertain the reasons, circumstances and

fixing of responsibilities, the Government of Uttar

Pradesh issued notification bearing No. 2155p/Chh.p-3-

2006-12(51)p/2006 dated 2 June, 2006 appointing a

one member Enquiry Commission under the

Commission of Inquiry Act 1952 (Government Order no.

60 of 1952) and the said Commission is in progress.

The Commission is enquiring into the following issues:

1.To find out the circumstances and causes on account

of which the aforesaid accident occurred.

2.To recommend ways and means to keep up such

incidents in check in future.

3.In respect of the aforesaid occurrence, determination

of liability and fixing the same.

8

Page 9 4.Measures to be adopted to prevent such occurrences

in future.

Your presence is mandatorily required for the said

Enquiry. You are hereby directed to appear before the

Commission on the 27

th

of September 2006 at 10:30

AM and ensure the recording of your Statement. You

are also required to present before the Commission all

the Documents, correspondence, Acts, Rules,

Government Orders, Departmental orders, if any,

related to the circumstances of the incident.

You are also informed that the above notice is issued

under the provisions of Commission of Enquiry Act

1952 (Government Order no. 60 of 1952) and the

compliance of which is necessary, mandatory and

binding.”

8.Similar notices were sent to the other organizers. On a

perusal of the said notice, it is limpid that the said notice is in the

nature of notice requiring him to appear. It has to be construed

as a notice under Section 4(a) of the Act. That apart, on a

scrutiny of the list of witnesses who were examined by the

Commission, we find 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.

9

Page 10 9.In State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani and others

1

while interpreting Section 8B of the Act which has been brought

into the statute by the Amending Act 79 of 1971, the Court has

opined thus: -

“8. It may be noticed that the amendment was brought

about, about 20 years after passing of the main Act

itself. The experience during the past two decades

must have made the legislature realize that it would

but be necessary to notice a person whose conduct the

Commission considers necessary to inquire into during

the course of the inquiry or whose reputation is likely to

be prejudicially affected by the inquiry. It is further

provided that such a person would have a reasonable

opportunity of being heard and to adduce evidence in

his defence. Thus the principles of natural justice were

got inducted in the shape of a statutory provision. It is

thus incumbent upon the Commission to give an

opportunity to a person, before any comment is made

or opinion is expressed which is likely to prejudicially

affect that person. Needless to emphasise that failure

to comply with the principles of natural justice renders

the action non est as well as the consequences

thereof.”

10.In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is difficult to

sustain the report. We are obliged to state here that in course of

hearing, we had asked the learned counsel for the parties that in

case the report of the Commission would be set aside, the

Commission has to proceed after following the provisions of the

1

(2003) 8 SCC 361

1

Page 11 Act. The said position was acceded to. On a further suggestion

being made, learned counsel for the parties had fairly agreed for

appointment of another retired Judge as Commission. Learned

counsel for the parties had suggested certain names in sealed

covers but there was no commonality. Regard being had to the

gravity of the situation and the magnitude of the tragedy, on due

deliberation we appoint Justice S.B. Sinha, formerly a Judge of this

Court, as the one man Commission. It is agreed by the learned

counsel for the parties that 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 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. Mr.

Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel, submitted that the

contractors who were engaged by the organizers, as they were

summoned by Justice O.P. Garg Commission, should be

summoned by the present Commission. Appreciating the said

submission, we think it apposite that the Commission should issue

1

Page 12 notices to the contractors so that the proceeding under the Act

can continue in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Needless to say, they shall have the similar opportunity that has

been made available to the organizers. The organizers as well as

the contractors would be at liberty to adduce evidence in support

of their respective pleas. The Commission shall record the

evidence at Meerut and hear the arguments in Delhi. It needs no

special emphasis to say that the State shall provide the requisite

infrastructure, secretarial staff to the Commission for its smooth

functioning and pay the fees of the Commission which shall be

fixed by the Commission. The Commission is requested to submit

the report by the end of January, 2015.

11.Having so opined, we cannot comatose our judicial

conscience to the plights of the victims who have approached this

Court. Some of the petitioners are themselves the victims or next

kin of the deceased and the injured persons who have suffered

because of this unfortunate man made tragedy. It is the admitted

position that 64 deaths have occurred and number of persons

have suffered grievous injuries. There are also persons who have

suffered simple injuries as has been asserted by the State. We

1

Page 13 have been apprised at the Bar that the State Government has

already paid Rs.2 lakhs to the legal representatives of the persons

who have breathed their last, and a sum of rupees one lakh has

been paid by the Central Government. As far as seriously injured

persons are concerned, rupees one lakh has been paid by the

State Government and Rs.50,000/- has been paid to the victims

who have suffered simple injuries.

12.The question that we would like to pose is whether this Court

should wait for the Commission’s report and then direct the State

Government to pay the amount of compensation to the grieved

and affected persons, who have been waiting for the last eight

years, or should they get certain sum till the matter is finalized.

We will be failing in our duty if we do not take into consideration

the submission of Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel,

that as far as respondents 10 to 12 are concerned, no liability can

be fastened under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, and

definitely not at this stage. As far as first part of the submission is

concerned, we keep it open to be dealt with after the report is

obtained by this Court. As far as second aspect is concerned, we

1

Page 14 shall deal with it after we address the issue of public law remedy

and the liability of the State in a case of this nature.

13.In Nilabati Behera (Smt) alias Lalita Behera (through

the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) v. State of

Orissa and others

2

, J.S. Verma, J. (as his Lordship then was)

speaking for himself and Venkatachala,J., after referring to

various authorities, opined thus: -

“17. It follows that ‘a claim in public law for

compensation’ for contravention of human rights and

fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is

guaranteed in the Constitution, is an acknowledged

remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights,

and such a claim based on strict liability made by

resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the

enforcement of a fundamental right is ‘distinct from,

and in addition to, the remedy in private law for

damages for the tort’ resulting from the contravention

of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign

immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept

of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no

question of such a defence being available in the

constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies

award of monetary compensation for contravention of

fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution,

when that is the only practicable mode of redress

available for the contravention made by the State or its

servants in the purported exercise of their powers, and

enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by

resort to the remedy in public law under the

Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the

2

(1993) 2 SCC 746

1

Page 15 Constitution. This is what was indicated in Rudul Sah v.

State of Bihar

3

and is the basis of the subsequent

decisions in which compensation was awarded under

Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, for

contravention of fundamental rights.

18. A useful discussion on this topic which brings out

the distinction between the remedy in public law based

on strict liability for violation of a fundamental right

enabling award of compensation, to which the defence

of sovereign immunity is inapplicable, and the private

law remedy, wherein vicarious liability of the State in

tort may arise, is to be found in Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s

Law of Torts, 22nd Edition, 1992, by Justice G.P. Singh,

at pages 44 to 48.

Thereafter, the learned Judge referred to the authority in Union

Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India

4

and observed: -

“We respectfully concur with the view that the court is

not helpless and the wide powers given to this Court by

Article 32, which itself is a fundamental right, imposes

a constitutional obligation on this Court to forge such

new tools, which may be necessary for doing complete

justice and enforcing the fundamental rights

guaranteed in the Constitution, which enable the award

of monetary compensation in appropriate cases, where

that is the only mode of redress available. The power

available to this Court under Article 142 is also an

enabling provision in this behalf. The contrary view

would not merely render the court powerless and the

constitutional guarantee a mirage, but may, in certain

situations, be an incentive to extinguish life, if for the

extreme contravention the court is powerless to grant

any relief against the State, except by punishment of

the wrongdoer for the resulting offence, and recovery

of damages under private law, by the ordinary process.

3

(1983) 4 SCC 141

4

(1991) 4 SCC 584

1

Page 16 If the guarantee that deprivation of life and personal

liberty cannot be made except in accordance with law,

is to be real, the enforcement of the right in case of

every contravention must also be possible in the

constitutional scheme, the mode of redress being that

which is appropriate in the facts of each case. This

remedy in public law has to be more readily available

when invoked by the have-nots, who are not possessed

of the wherewithal for enforcement of their rights in

private law, even though its exercise is to be tempered

by judicial restraint to avoid circumvention of private

law remedies, where more appropriate.”

14.Dr. Anand,J. (as his Lordship then was) in his concurring

opinion has observed that: -

“34. The public law proceedings serve a different

purpose than the private law proceedings. The relief of

monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in

proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under

Article 226 by the High Courts, for established

infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in

public law and is based on the strict liability for

contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible

rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not

only to civilize public power but also to assure the

citizen that they live under a legal system which aims

to protect their interests and preserve their rights.

Therefore, when the court moulds the relief by granting

“compensation” in proceedings under Article 32 or 226

of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection

of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law

by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the

liability for the public wrong on the State which has

failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental

rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in

such cases is not to be understood, as it is generally

1

Page 17 understood in a civil action for damages under the

private law but in the broader sense of providing relief

by an order of making ‘monetary amends’ under the

public law for the wrong done due to breach of public

duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the

citizen. The compensation is in the nature of

‘exemplary damages’ awarded against the wrongdoer

for the breach of its public law duty and is independent

of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim

compensation under the private law in an action based

on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of

competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender

under the penal law.”

15.In Chairman, Railway Board and others v. Chandrima

Das (Mrs.) and others

5

, this Court while dealing with an appeal

arising out of a public interest litigation before the High Court

pertaining to the grant of damages by the railways after referring

to earlier decisions came to hold as follows:-

“Running of the Railways is a commercial activity.

Establishing the Yatri Niwas at various railway

stations to provide lodging and boarding facilities

to passengers on payment of charges is a part of

the commercial activity of the Union of India and

this activity cannot be equated with the exercise of

sovereign power. The employees of the Union of

India who are deputed to run the Railways and to

manage the establishment, including the railway

stations and the Yatri Niwas, are essential

components of the government machinery which

carries on the commercial activity. If any of such

employees commits an act of tort, the Union

5

(2000) 2 SCC 465

1

Page 18 Government, of which they are the employees,

can, subject to other legal requirements being

satisfied, be held vicariously liable in damages to

the person wronged by those employees.”

16. In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and others

6

, while

dealing with the grant of compensation in a public law remedy,

the Court ruled thus:-

“It is thus now well settled that the award of

compensation against the State is an appropriate

and effective remedy for redress of an established

infringement of a fundamental right under Article

21, by a public servant. The quantum of

compensation will, however, depend upon the facts

and circumstances of each case. Award of such

compensation (by way of public law remedy) will

not come in the way of the aggrieved person

claiming additional compensation in a civil court, in

the enforcement of the private law remedy in tort,

nor come in the way of the criminal court ordering

compensation under Section 357 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.”

17.In Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of

Maharashtra and another

7

, the Court reiterated the view that

the power and jurisdiction of this Court and the High Courts to

grant monetary compensation in respect of petitioners under

Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India and fundamental

6

(2006) 3 SCC 178

7

(2012) 9 SCC 791

1

Page 19 rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are violated are

well-established.

18. In Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh

and others

8

while dealing with the mental torture of the

petitioner – an Ayurvedic doctor in custody, the Court after

referring to the earlier judgments including in Hardeep Singh v.

State of M.P.

9

ruled:

“35. We have referred to these paragraphs to

understand how with the efflux of time, the concept

of mental torture has been understood throughout

the world, regard being had to the essential

conception of human dignity.

36. From the aforesaid discussion, there is no

shadow of doubt that any treatment meted out to an

accused while he is in custody which causes

humiliation and mental trauma corrodes the concept

of human dignity. The majesty of law protects the

dignity of a citizen in a society governed by law. It

cannot be forgotten that the welfare State is

governed by the rule of law which has paramountcy.

It has been said by Edward Biggon “the laws of a

nation form the most instructive portion of its

history”. The Constitution as the organic law of the

land has unfolded itself in a manifold manner like a

living organism in the various decisions of the court

about the rights of a person under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. When citizenry rights are

sometimes dashed against and pushed back by the

8

(2012) 8 SCC 1

9

(2012) 1 SCC 748

1

Page 20 members of City Halls, there has to be a rebound

and when the rebound takes place, Article 21 of the

Constitution springs up to action as a protector. That

is why, an investigator of a crime is required to

possess the qualities of patience and perseverance

as has been stated in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L.

Dani

10

.”

Thereafter placing reliance on Raghuvansh Dewanchand

Bhasin (supra), Sube Singh (supra) and Hardeep Singh

(supra), the Court granted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five

lakhs only) as compensation.

19.Having stated about the legal position pertaining to public

law remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as

regards the grant of compensation we are obliged to address with

regard to the responsibility and involvement of the State. Mr.

Vikas Pahwa, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners,

would submit that the organizers had sought permission from the

Additional District Magistrate, Meerut City, vide letter dated

27.3.2006 for conducting the Consumer Show and in the said

letter they had undertaken to follow all the guidelines and all

suggested security and precautionary measures and also sought

other permissions from the competent authorities under the U.P.

10

(1978) 2 SCC 424

2

Page 21 Fire Services Act, 1944 and the authorities of the State had

granted permission without proper verification and hence, they

should be held liable to pay first subject to recovery of the same

proportionately from the organizers and contractors after

recording the findings on all the contentions issues including the

quantum of compensation that may be determined in the report

by the Commission.

20.Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the Sate, submitted that the liability that would be

eventually determined, has to be apportioned between the State

and the organizers and the same has to be done on percentage

basis, that is to say, the liability of the organizers should be 85%

and that of the State should be 15% and said proportionality

should be followed at this stage also.

21.Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel, would submit

that the liability cannot be fastened on the organizers under

Article 32 of the Constitution as the grievance is not tenable

against the private persons and, in any case, the organizers

cannot vicariously be held liable for the act of the contractors.

2

Page 22 We have noted these submissions but we are not intending to

address these aspects in praesenti. Be it stated, with regard to

the precise exact quantum, liability of the organizers, liability of

the contractors and, if found liable by this Court, would depend

upon the eventual verdict, regard being had to the report of the

Commission. As stated hereinbefore, we have to see whether the

State and its authorities prima facie are responsible to make

them liable to pay the compensation. The issue of apportionment

would come afterwards. As we find from the material on record,

pursuant to the letter of request issued by the organizers, the

Additional District Magistrate obtained a report from the

Superintendent of Police, Meerut and expressed the view that

there was no objection if the programme was organized from

6.4.2006 to 10.4.2006. It has also come on record that after

obtaining permission from the Additional District Magistrate the

organizers requested the Principal, Government Inter College,

Meerut, requesting for providing of the GIC Play Ground and toilet

facilities for hosting of the build-in-style exhibition on the said

dates. The relevant part of the said letter reads as follows: -

2

Page 23 “The event is assured to be both an elite and very tidy

affair conducted in the maximum possible professional

manner, with support and involvement of many a

senior officials/ technocrats, major companies and well

placed professionals. Moreover it has been purposely

scheduled at the time when it does not interfere with

the regular school classes or other activity.

With the above inference it is earnestly requested that

we may please graciously be allowed to use the GIC

Playground and the allied services for toilet etc. for the

purpose on the above dates and also make the ground

available for general maintenance/preparatory works

etc. 4 days prior to the proposed event.”

22.The Principal of the Government College granted the

permission subject to certain restrictions. Be it clarified, the said

premises was an additional one. It is averred in the petition that

though the pandals were not properly constructed, there was only

one entry and one exit gate, there had been violation of UP Fire

Services Act, 1944, there was no proper fire safety arrangements

yet the permission was granted to hold the exhibition. Few things

are extremely clear from the entire assertion of facts. The

Consumer Show was organized at a place belonging to the State

Government, permission was granted by the Additional District

Magistrate in consultation with the Superintendent of Police, the

State Government had not taken pains to see whether the other

statutory authorities as required under law had granted “No

2

Page 24 Objection Certificate” or not and also how far the organizers had

complied with the directions. The primary obligation of the State

was to see whether the preparations made at the place of

exhibitions by the organizers involved any risk or not and

whether, there was proper arrangement for extinguishing the fire

or not in the covered area. Under these circumstances, we are

disposed to think that there has to be some initial arrangement

for payment of compensation by the State awaiting the report

from the Commission.

23. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of

another submission of Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, who would vehemently

urge that the principles stated in Municipal Corporation of

Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy & ors.

11

,

as regards the apportionment of damages should be considered.

In the said case the Municipal Corporation had approached this

Court assailing the decision of the Division Bench of the High

Court of Delhi. This Court analysed the factual matrix, took note

of the contentions of various parties and modified the award as

follows: -

11

AIR 2012 SC 100

2

Page 25 “Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the

amount of compensation awarded in public law remedy

cases, and the need to provide a deterrent, we are of

the view that award of Rs.10 lakhs in the case of

persons aged above 20 years and Rs.7.5 lakhs in

regard to those who were 20 years or below as on the

date of the incident, would be appropriate. We do not

propose to disturb the award of Rs.1 lakh each in the

case of injured. The amount awarded as compensation

will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the

date of writ petition as ordered by the High Court,

reserve liberty to the victims or the L.Rs. of the victims

as the case may be to seek higher remedy wherever

they are not satisfied with the compensation. Any

increase shall be borne by the Licensee (theatre owner)

exclusively.”

24.Thereafter, in the concluding portion the Court recorded its

conclusion in seriatim. Some of the conclusions we reproduce

below: -

“(iv)The licensee (appellant in CA No. 6748 of 2004)

and Delhi Vidyut Board are held jointly and severally

liable to compensate the victims of the Uphaar fire

tragedy. Though their liability is joint and several, as

between them, the liability shall be 85% on the part the

licensee and 15% on the part of DVB.

(v)CA No. 6748 of 2004 is allowed in part and the

judgment of the High Court is modified as under:

(a)The compensation awarded by the High Court in

the case of death is reduced from Rs.18 lacs to

Rs.10 lacs (in the case of those aged more than 20

years) and Rs.15 lacs to Rs.7.5 lacs (in the case of

those aged 20 years and less). The said sum is

payable to legal representatives of the deceased

2

Page 26 to be determined by a brief and summary enquiry

by the Registrar General (or nominee of learned

Chief Justice/Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High

Court).

(b)The compensation of Rs. One lakh awarded by the

High Court in the case of each of the 103 injured

persons is affirmed.

(c)The interest awarded from the date of the writ

petition on the aforesaid sums at the rate of 9%

per annum is affirmed.

(d)If the legal representatives of any deceased victim

are not satisfied with the compensation awarded,

they are permitted to file an application for

compensation with supporting documentary proof

(to show the age and the income), before the

Registrar General, Delhi High Court. If such an

application if filed within three months, it shall not

be rejected on the ground of delay. The Registrar

General or such other Member of Higher Judiciary

nominated by the learned Chief Justice/Acting

Chief Justice of the High Court shall decide those

applications in accordance with paras above and

place the matter before the Division Bench of the

Delhi High Court for consequential formal orders

determining the final compensation payable to

them.”

25.In the said case, Radhakrishnan, J., in his concurring opinion,

after referring to earlier decisions of this Court, especially the

pronouncements in Nilabati Behera (supra) and Union of India

v. Prabhakaran

12

, came to hold as follows: -

12

(2008) 9 SCC 527

2

Page 27 “Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India 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.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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, therefore, very high,

compared to the statutory powers and supervision

expected from officers functioning under the statutes

like Companies Act, Co-operative Societies Act and

such similar legislations. When we look at the various

provisions of the Cinematographic Act, 1952 and the

Rules made thereunder, the Delhi Building Regulations

and Electricity Laws the duty of care on officials was

high and liabilities strict.”

xxx xxx xxx

Legal liability in damages exist solely as a remedy

out of private law action in tort which is generally time

consuming and expensive and hence when

fundamental rights are violated claimants prefer to

approach constitutional courts for speedy remedy.

Constitutional courts, of course, shall invoke its

jurisdiction only in extraordinary circumstances when

serious injury has been caused due to violation of

fundamental rights especially under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. In such circumstances the Court

can invoke its own methods depending upon the facts

and circumstances of each case.”

26.Relying on the said decision, Mr. Bhatia has placed emphasis

on the facet of apportionment. We have also been commended

to the decision in DAV Managing Committee and another v.

2

Page 28 Dabwali Fire Tragedy Victims Association and others

13

wherein the Court took note of the fact that the High Court had

modified the percentage of the compensation as fixed by the

Inquiry Commission and appreciating the factual score held as

follows:

“It is not possible for this Court to apportion the liability

of compensation between the appellants and

Respondent 8, particularly in the absence of the

material evidence on record either before the Inquiry

Commission or before the High Court and particularly

having regard to the fact that what is stated that

economic capacity of the partners of Rajiv Marriage

Palace. In the absence of such findings it is not proper

for this Court to frustrate the judgment of the High

Court which is based on the Commission of Inquiry

report submitted by a retired Judge of the Allahabad

High Court and further on behalf of Respondent 8 it is

stated that out of six family members, two persons,

namely, Kewal Krishan and Chander Bhan died on

account of the burn injuries in the said function and

further the land where Rajiv Marriage Palace was built

up has been taken over by the district authorities and

the same has been converted into “Shahid Smarak

Park” and what is the other properties left out of the

partners of Rajiv Marriage Palace and the evidence is

not forthcoming in this Court or before the High Court

or in these proceedings. In this way, in the absence of

the same it is not possible for this Court to apportion

the liability of compensation and confine the same

upon the appellants and Respondent 8 out of 55% of

the liability of compensation confined and holding both

the appellants and Respondent 8 responsible jointly

and severally.”

13

(2013) 10 SCC 494

2

Page 29 27.We have referred to aforesaid authorities as Mr. Bhatia has

impressed upon us for apportionment at this stage. The principle

of apportionment can be thought of only after the Commission’s

report is received, but, a pregnant one, the victims and the

families cannot be left on the lurch. As we find, there has been

statutory violations and negligence on the part of the authorities

in not taking due care while granting permission and during the

exhibition was in progress, we intend to direct payment of

compensation, by way of interim measure, by the State. Regard

being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking

note of the fact that some amount has already been given, we

direct, as an interim measure, that the legal representatives of

the deceased shall be paid Rs.5 lakhs more and the seriously

injured persons would be paid a further sum of Rs.2 lakhs each

and the persons who have suffered minor injuries would be paid

an additional sum of Rs.75,000/-. The said amount shall be

deposited before the District Judge, Meerut within two months

hence. The learned District Judge may nominate an Additional

District Judge, who, on making summary enquiry, shall pay the

amount to the legal representatives and the victims. Be it noted,

2

Page 30 as asseverated by the State, the legal representatives of the

deceased have been paid certain ex gratia amount and the

injured persons have been paid certain amount ex gratia, their

identity is known and, therefore, the Additional District Judge

shall conduct a summery enquiry only for proper identification

and disburse the amount. The Collector, Meerut shall produce all

the documents for facilitating the summary enquiry at the earliest

so that the victims should not suffer and for the said purpose we

grant four weeks’ time to the Collector, Meerut. The

disbursement shall be made within one month from the date of

deposit.

28.We are absolutely conscious about the fixation of liability,

the quantification and their apportionment as has been held in

Uphaar Tragedy and Dabwali Fire Tragedy cases. Our

direction to the State Government, at present, is only to see that

the victims do not remain in a constant state of suffering and

despair. We have taken note of the submission of Mr. Shanti

Bhushan and observed hereinbefore that we will address the

issue of maintainability of the writ petition after submission of the

report. Needless to say, in any event the issue of apportionment

3

Page 31 is kept open. But the organizers cannot be allowed to remain as

total strangers in this regard. In course of hearing we had

observed that the organizers should deposit certain amount

before the Registry of this Court and regard being had to the said

observation we direct the respondents 10 to 12 to deposit a sum

of Rs.30 lakhs before the Registry of this Court within a period of

two months. The said amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit on

an interest bearing account. We repeat at the cost of repetition

that this arrangement is absolutely interim in nature and without

prejudice to the contentions to be raised by the learned

Additional Advocate General for the State and Mr. Shanti

Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 10 to

12.

29.As we have fixed the date i.e. 31.1.2015 for submission of

the report by the Commission, let the matter be listed on 11

th

February, 2015. In case the report is submitted earlier, the

registry shall list the matter immediately before the Court.

.............................J.

[Dipak Misra]

3

Page 32 .............................J.

[V. Gopala Gowda]

New Delhi;

July 31, 2014.

3