Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Special Leave Petition (civil) 10288 of 2000
PETITIONER:
M/S GREEN PARK THEATRES ASSOCIATED P. LTD & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/08/2001
BENCH:
S. Rajendra Babu & Doraiswamy Raju
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
A fire broke out at Uphaar theatre on the evening of June 30, 1997
in consequence of which a number of persons were either killed or
injured. An Association was formed of victims of Uphaar tragedy. They
filed a writ petition on the ground that the public authorities failed to
discharge their statutory obligations and the standard of safeguards set
out under the statute and the rules framed thereunder for the purpose of
preventing a hazards of breaking out of fire was not observed. The
license and permits to the theatre were issued contrary to the mandatory
provisions of the statute and rules. The petitioners thereafter sought for
adequate compensation to the victims in the said tragedy from the
respondents for failure to observe the statutory obligations and also on
the basis of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The respondents in the writ petition, who are petitioners before us,
raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable
on various grounds that the extraordinary remedy of a writ petition
cannot be used in case of a break out of fire in a theatre which is the
result of complex series of causative factors for claiming and awarding
damages to hundreds of persons as against the statutory authorities and
the company owning the theatre. It was also detailed that the precise
cause of the incident, the role of each of the individual parties and the
extent of their blameworthiness, the manner in which the liability has to
be apportioned and as to who are entitled to claim the damages and what
is the extent of that amount ought to be awarded to each one of them
and such questions relate to causation, the extent of culpability, people
entitled to claim damages and the amount due to them and all such
questions involve complex investigation based on evidence. Therefore,
the writ petition was not an appropriate remedy and could not be
maintained.
A Division Bench of the High Court considered the various
contentions raised in the course of the arguments and wrote an order
running to nearly 100 pages and ultimately held that at the preliminary
stage the question of maintenance of the petition was being considered
and, therefore, it is not deciding the case of merits. The facts referred to
in the course of the order are as stated by the parties and not as found
by way of a decision on merits. The observations and the reference to
facts in the course of the order were only of preliminary character. The
High Court held that all the court could say is that it could not be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
concluded that the petition could not be maintained.
The learned counsel for the petitioners before us raised an
apprehension that the court might adopt some procedure of appointing a
Commission to gather certain facts which, by itself, may not be sufficient
to dispose of the matter and that the Commission appointed would only
to report whether the rules and regulations were complied therewith or
not and no more.
Whatever be the apprehensions of the learned counsel they could
very well be pointed out to the learned Judges of the High Court who
would hear the matter ultimately before the High Court and address their
arguments as to the manner in which a dispute of this nature could be
resolved satisfactorily. We are sure that when such arguments are
addressed before the High Court, they will be appropriately considered
and therefore, there is absolutely no basis for any apprehension of this
nature as entertained by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Considering the nature of the order passed by the High Court and
the arguments addressed before us, we do not think, there is any
justification for us to interfere with the order made by the High Court.
This petition stands rejected.
.J.
[ S. RAJENDRA BABU ]
....J.
[ DORAISWAMY RAJU ]
AUGUST 17, 2001.