# SANJAY GUPTA & ORS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 15 S.C.R. 137
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-04-12
- **Bench:** Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sanjay-gupta-ors-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-through-its-chief-secretary-ors-35516
- **Pages:** 45

## Headnote

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 loq

## Text

_Characters 0–39,898 of 102,974. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39898 for what follows._

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 - Appointment
of Inquiry Commission under - Held: Commission under the Act
shall be appointed either by the Executive or by the Legislature but
not by the Judiciary in terms of the provisions of Inquiry Act - On
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
139
facts, appointment of the Court Commissioner was though to
substitute the Commissioner appointed under the Inquiry Act, but
under the Inquiry Act, the Court could not appoint a Commissioner
- Such power is conferred only on the executive and the legislature
- Thus, the jurisdiction exercised in appointing Justice S.B. Sinha
(Retd.) was vesting with this Court under Art. 142 of the Constitution
-Furthermore, it cannot be said that the appointment of the Court
Commissioner was as a Commissioner of Inquiry under the Inquiry
Act.
Nilabati Behera (Smt.) alias Lalita Behera v. State of
Orissa &Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 746 : [1993] 2 SCR 581;
Sube Singh v. State of Haryana &Ors. (2006) 3 SCC
178 : [2006] 2 SCR 67; Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi
Nath & Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 616; Radhey Shyam &Anr.
v. Chhabi Nath & Ors.(2015) 5 SCC 423 : [2015] 3
SCR 197; Green Park Theatres Associated (P) Ltd. v.
Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy & Ors.
(2001) 6 SCC 663 - held inapplicable.
Sanjay Gupta & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(2015) 5 SCC 283 : [2014] 8 SCR 992; Shri Sohan
Lal v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1957 SC 529 : [1957]
SCR 738; Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual
& Ors.: (1969) 1 SCC 585 : [1969] 3 SCR 773; Shalini
Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010)
8 SCC 329 : [2010] 8 SCR 836; M.C. Mehta & Anr. v.
Union of India & Ors.(1987) 1 SCC 395 : [1987] 1
SCR 819; Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v.
Union of India & Ors. 2000 SCC OnLine Del 216;
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar
Tragedy Victims Association & Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 481
: [2011] 16 SCR 1; Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar & Anr.
(1983) 4 SCC 141 : [1983] 3 SCR 508 ; Bhim Singh,
MLA v. State of J & K & Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 677; D.K.
Basu v. State of W.B.17. (1997) 1 SCC 416 : [1996] 10
Suppl. SCR 284 ; Dabwali Fire Tragedy Victims
Association v. Union of India & Ors. 2009 SCC OnLine
P & H 10273; DAV Managing Committee & Anr. v.
Dabwali Fire Tragedy Victims Association & Ors. (2013)
SANJAY GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
10 SCC 494; M.S. Grewal &Anr. v. Deep Chand Sood
& Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 151 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 156;
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar
& Ors. AIR 1958 SC 538 : [1959] 0 SCR 279; T.T.
Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181 :
[2001] 3 SCR 942; Sham Kant v. State of Maharashtra
1992 Supp (2) SCC 521; State of Karnataka v. Union
of India & Anr. (1977) 4 SCC 608 : [1978] 2 SCR 1;
Shyam Sunder & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 1
SCC 690: [1974] 3 SCR 549; Pushpabai Purshottam
Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. &Anr.
(1977) 2 SCC 745 : [1977] 3 SCR 372 - referred to.
Haseldine v. C.A. Daw and Son Limited & Ors. (1941)
3 All. E. R. 156 (C.A.); Green v. Fibreglass Ltd. (1958)
2 All. E. R. 521 -referred to.
Halsbury's Laws of India Vol. 29 (1); American
Jurisprudence Vol. 41 (2d) - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 8 SCR 992
referred to
Para 3
[1993] 2 SCR 581
held inapplicable
Para 3
[2006] 2 SCR 67
held inapplicable
Para 7
[1957] SCR 738
referred to
Para 7
(2009) 5 SCC 616
referred to
Para 7
[2015] 3 SCR 197
held inapplicable
Para 7
[1969] 3 SCR 773
referred to
Para 7
[2010] 8 SCR 836
referred to
Para 7
[1987] 1 SCR 819
referred to
Para 10
(2001) 6 SCC 663
referred to
Para 12
[2011] 16 SCR 1
referred to
Para 14
[1983] 3 SCR 508
referred to
Para 16
(1985) 4 SCC 677
referred to
Para 16
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284
referred to
Para 16
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
141
(2013) 10 SCC 494
referred to
Para 19
[2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 156
referred to
Para 20
[1959] 0 SCR 279
referred to
Para 44
[2001] 3 SCR 942
referred to
Para 44
1992 Supp (2) SCC 521
referred to
Para 44
[1978] 2 SCR 1
referred to
Para 47
[1974] 3 SCR 549
referred to
Para 53
[1977] 3 SCR 372
referred to
Para 54
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.338
of 2006.
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv., Ms. Raavi Sharma, Syed Arham Masud,
Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra, Advs. for the Appellants.
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Ms. Garima Prasad, AAG, Shanti
Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Tushar Bhushan, Rohit Kumar Singh, Manoj K. Mishra,
Umesh Dubey, Dr. Indra Pratap Singh, A. A. Bhasme, Ms. Kiran Pandey,
Pradeep Misra, Suraj Singh, A. P. Dhamija, Ms. Tanya Sharma, Sarad
Kumar Singhania, J. P. Singh, Mukul Singh, D. L. Chidanand, Amit
Sharma, Ms. Rukhimini Bobde, P. V. Yogeswaran, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
Ms. Shruti Agarwal, Siddharth Sinha, Ms. Janhvi Prakash, N. Ch. Zeliang,
Ms. Sunita Singh Chouhan, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Akhileshwar Jha, E.
Vinay Kumar, Kamlendra Mishra, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, P.
Parmeswaran, Sunil Kumar Jain, Anuvrat Sharma, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the victims of
the fire tragedy which occurred on 10.4.2006 at about 5:40 p.m., the last
day of the India Brand Consumer Show organized at Victoria Park,
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh by Mrinal Events and Expositions who are being
represented as Respondents 10 to 12 herein. For the sake of convenience,
SANJAY GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
Respondents 10-12 are being collectively referred as"Organizers". This
unfortunate incident claimed the lives of 65 persons and left 161 or more
with burn injuries.
2. The State of Uttar Pradesh appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice O.P.
Garg (Retired) in terms of provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act,
19521 vide order dated 2.6.2006 with the following terms of reference:
"(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. The above appointed Commission submitted its report on
5.6.2007 wherein various witnesses and documents produced were
examined. Such report was not found to be sustainable in the order
dated 31.7.2014 reported as Sanjay Gupta &Ors. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh &Ors.2. This Court while rejecting the proceedings conducted
by the Commission under the Inquiry Act, appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice
S.B. Sinha (Retired) as a one-man Commission as it was found that the
Organizers were summoned after examination of almost 45 witnesses
and were not afforded opportunity of cross-examination. It was held as
under:
"11. 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
Act. The said position was acceded to. On a further suggestion
being made, the learned counsel for the parties had fairly agreed
for appointment of another retired Judge as Commission. The
learned counsel for the parties had suggested certain names in
sealed covers but there was no commonality. Regard being had
1 For short, the 'Inquiry Act'
2 (2015) 5 SCC 283
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
143
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 crossexamination 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.
xxx
xxx
14. 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 finalised.
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 the second aspect is concerned,
we 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.
xxx
xxx
24. Mr Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel, would submit
that the liability cannot be fastened on the organisers under Article
32 of the Constitution as the grievance is not tenable against the
private persons and, in any case, the organisers cannot vicariously
be held liable for the act of the contractors.
25. 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 organisers, 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
SANJAY GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
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."
4. The Commission appointed by this Court had submitted the
report on 29.6.2015. The findings of the Commission on reference nos.
1 and 3 are relevant at this stage which are reproduced hereunder:
"XVII. FINDINGS
479. In answer to Reference No.1, this Commission is of the
opinion that the Organizers deliberately and intentionally
suppressed material facts before the concerned authorities while
applying for grant of permissions.
480. They proceeded on the basis that upon mere asking, they
would be granted permissions, by the college authorities/District
Administration/Police Authorities/Fire Department. They enjoyed
great clout with the concerned authorities.
481. They have singularly failed to comply with the provisions of
Section 54 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and Rule 47A of the Indian
Electricity Rules, 1956.
482. The Organizers had a complete control not only on the erection
of structures, but also the materials used therefor, and even if the
Contractor supplied inflammable materials or substandard wires
and cables, and/or committed serious irregularities in the matter
of electrical management, the Organizers were liable inasmuch
as they have failed and/or neglected to comply with the mandatory
provisions of the statutory provisions.
483. Mr. Lakhan Tomar accepts that the Contractor has been
sending the materials in trucks from 01.04.2006 along with his
labourers and supervisors, that is, Mr. Pandey, Mr. Navin and Mr.
Sudhakar.
484. The record clearly suggests that the Contractor had some
contribution to make in the matter of organizing the event.
From the materials brought on record by the parties hereto, it is
clear and evident that the Contractor had erected the pandals,
made the stalls, etc.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
145
There is, however, no conclusive proof that. he had also arranged
for the air conditioners or the generators, or had appointed some
other contractor to lay the cables and wires.
485. Except ipse dixit on the part of the Organizers and a couple
of their witnesses, who said that in case of any difficulty, they
used to contact Mr. Pandey, etc. no other evidence has been
brought on record to show that Shri Naresh Garg had any role to
play in the matter of running the event. It is beyond any cavil of
doubt that the entire event was under the direct control and
supervision of the Organizers.
There are sufficient indications on record to show that the
Contractor was not personally present during the period of erection
of the pandals, or the decoration thereof, nor was he present on
all or any of the days during the period of event i.e. between
06.04.2015 and 10.04.2015.
The contention of the Contractor that he had merely supplied the
materials, however, does not appear to be correct.
486. The Organizers have furthermore misled the Police
Authorities/Fire Safety Authorities, that the personnel of Marshal
Security are trained in fire fighting and fire safety.
487. The Police Authorities furthermore failed to estimate the
number of visitors who were expected to visit in the Exhibition.
As they proceeded on the basis that having regard to the number
of expected visitors crowd management may not be a problem.
488. The fire started from Hall 'B' and spread to Hall 'A' and
Hall 'C'. The cause of the fire was either short circuit or use of
substandard wires and cables or overheating.
489. To this Commission it does not appear that there was any act
of sabotage or mischief or that it is a case of "Vis Major".
xx
xx
xx
VII. NEGLIGENCE
xx
xx
xx
947. In the present matter, moreover, it has been noticed hereto
before that the Organizers were primarily liable to:-
SANJAY GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
a) obtain all permissions/NOCs from all concerned authorities
including the Managing Committee of the Meerut College; and
b) they being in control of the event, would be deemed to be the
occupier of the Exhibition premises, and thus had a special 'duty
to care' having regard to the fact that large number of persons
had-put up their stalls, and thousands of visitors had been visiting
the Exhibition.
948. The Organizers, in the opinion of this Commission, were wholly
negligent in so far as they organized the event without taking due
care and caution without obtaining the requisite permissions and
without complying with the relevant provisions of the statute."
X. DETERMIANTION OF LIABILTY AND ITS EXTENT
968. The liabilities of the parties to the reference have been
discussed heretobefore elaborately.
969. Laxity on the part of the authorities and the cavalier manner
in which actions have been taken by them deserves severe
criticism.
970. The Organizers, it will bear repetition to state, were not new
in the field, apart from the fact that for all intent and purport, they
are in the construction business.
971. The profession of the architects are governed by the
Architects Act, 1972. It is expected that they would not commit
any professional misconduct. Their ability and competence is not
in dispute. In the said capacity they are required to advise the
builders of the requirements of law which they are liable to comply
with. If they could not be negligent in discharge of their professional
duties, it was expected that they would not be negligent when
they were themselves event managers.
972. A building (the height specified in Section 3 of the U.P. Fire
Services Act, 2005 and the rules framed thereunder) may be
inspected by the authority to see that adequate precautions for
the purpose of fire prevention and fire safety have been undertaken.
For the purpose of construction of high rise buildings, steps are
required to be taken by the builders in this behalf, particularly
having regard to the fact such incidents of fire take place very
often in the country. In this context also the Architects and the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
147
Builders should have been aware of the provisions of 1944 Act
and the 2005 Act.
973. It has been contended that the Organizers were not aware
of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, or the rules framed
thereunder and the executive instructions issued in this behalf,
which by itself does not give them any immunity.
It is wholly unlikely that the Organizers were not aware of the
promulgation of the prohibitory order under Section 144 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is also wholly unlikely that they were not aware of the
Environmental laws governing the construction of the buildings.
974. It appears from the record that the Organizers for reasons
best known to them even did not take recourse to due diligence.
975. In Chanderkant Bansal Vs. Rajender Singh Anand
reported in (2008) 5 SCC 117, it is stated as under:-
"16. The words "due diligence" have not been defined in the Code.
According to Oxford Dictionary (Edn. 2006), the word "diligence"
means careful and persistent application or effort. "Diligent" means
careful and steady in application to one's work and duties, showing
care and effort. As per Black's Law Dictionary (18thEdn.),
"diligence" means a continual effort to accomplish something, care;
caution; the attention and care required from a person in a given
situation. "Due diligence" means the diligence reasonably expected
from, and ordinarily exercised by a person who seeks to satisfy a
legal requirement or to discharge an obligation. According to Words
and Phrases by DraiDyspnea (Permanent Edn. 13-A) "duediligence'', in law, means doing everything reasonable, not
everything possible. "Due diligence" means reasonable diligence,
it means such diligence as a prudent man would exercise in the
conduct of his own affairs."
976. Ignorance of different statutes and/or their relevant provisions
has been pleaded by the responsible officers of the District
Administration and Police Authorities, cannot be appreciated.
977. Mr. Ram Krishna, the District Magistrate was not even aware
of the provisions of under Section 54 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Even Mr. Shirish Dubey or Mr. S.S. Yadav were not aware of the
SANJAY GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
said provision. Mr. Ram Krishna could not plead ignorance of the
said provisions particularly when he was a designated authority
under Section 54 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
978. It appears that despite the fact that in terms of the 2005 Act,
the officers of the Fire Safety Department are under the control
of the Police Authorities, the requirements of law had not been
followed by the police authorities.
979. The conduct on the part of the college authorities cannot
also be lost sight of.
980. How and on what basis the Principal of the Meerut College,
Meerut had accorded his approval in principle raises serious doubt
in the mind of the Commission.
981. It has also been noticed hereinbefore that the Organizers are
guilty of misrepresentation in regard thereto before the SSP
Meerut, while filing an Application for grant of permission for
organizing the exhibition.
982. With the aforementioned backdrop, the reference in question
is required to be answered.
983. It has been noticed heretobefore that the manner in which
things proceeded leave no manner of doubt that, at all material
times, the Organizers were more than sure that the requisite
permissions would be granted to them on mere asking.
984. It has further been noticed heretobefore that no satisfactory
explanation has been given by the Organizers as to why instead
and in place of approaching the District Magistrate, Meerut at the
first instance, they filed an application for grant of permission
before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut on 01.02.2006,
having regard to the fact that even according to them, the Principal
of Meerut College, Meerut, had asked them to obtain necessary
permissions from both the District Magistrate, Meerut and Police
Authorities.
985. Under the 2005 Act, the police authorities exercised over all
control over the members of the fire services. Mr. Yadav, however,
put the onus on the District Administration. The fact remains that
in terms of the provisions of the Act, it was obligatory on the part
of the concerned authorities, be it the District Administration or
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
149
be it the Police Authorities to ask the fire department to cause
inspection to be made and a report submitted. It is difficult to
appreciate as to why such procedure was not followed either by
the District Administration or by the Police Authorities.
986. It must also be reiterated once over again that the College
Authorities granted formal permission and accepted the deposit
of Rs.40,000/- from the Organizers only on lst April 2006. It is
also a matter of some concern that he had allowed dumping of
the materials on the site even prior thereto.
987. Emboldened by the grant of the No Objection Certificate
and treating the same to be an order granting permission to hold
the exhibition both by the District Administration and Police
Authorities, the Organizers approached the Chief Fire Officer
with a letter. It was more by way of information and not a request
for inspection and issuance of permission to hold the exhibition, as
stated by Mr. Lakhan Tomar.
988. A casual mention was made for deployment of-fire-fighting
instruments but the amount prescribed therefor was not deposited.
The manner in which the said application was dealt with by the
Chief Fire Officer leaves much to desire. He asked the SFO to
make an inquiry. The regular SSFO was on leave at that time, but
he joined his duties on 04.04.2006.
989. Before the SFO submitted his joining report, Mr. Naresh
Kumar Singh who was the SSFO made a purported inspection
and submitted a report to the CFO evidently ignoring the procedure
prescribed namely to forward the report through the SFO.
According to Mr. Singh when the report was submitted both the
CFO and the SFO were sitting together.
990. So many persons lost their lives and a large number of persons
suffered serious injuries to their person and property because of
the acts, omissions and commissions on the part of the statutory
authorities of the State.
991. The State of Uttar Pradesh no doubt is liable to pay due
compensation to the kin of the victims, as also the injured persons,
because of acts of omission and commission on the part of its
officers.
However, as such omissions led to the benefit of the Organizers
and they had also organized the Exhibition in violation of the legal
SANJAY GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
provisions, they are also liable for their act of gross negligence.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and
the conduct of the Organizers and those of the public servants,
this Commission is of the opinion that the liability of the Organizers
was to the extent of 60% and that of the State was 40%."
5. Later, on 26.4.2017, a copy of the report was handed over to
the learned counsel for the State so that the report could be sent to the
competent authority of the State which shall apprise the Court about its
view on the report of the Commission. The objections filed by the
Organizers on 14.10.2015 to the said report were also handed over to
the learned counsel for the State to enable the State to file affidavit with
regard to its view and the action it intends to take. An amount of Rs.30
lakhs deposited by the Organizers in terms of the order dated 31.7.2014
was sent to the District Judge, Meerut for pro-rata distribution amongst
the victims.
6. In pursuance of the said order, the State had filed its affidavit
disclosing inter alia the action taken against the responsible officials
including lodging of First Information Report and initiation of disciplinary
proceedings.
7. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Organizers has raised preliminary objection about the entertainment of
the writ petition by this Court in respect of private law liability of the
Organizers and contended that such liability does not fall within the scope
of Article 32 of the Constitution of India. To support such
contention,reliance was placed upon Nilabati Behera (Smt.) alias Lalita
Behera v. State of Orissa & Ors.3, Sube Singh v. State of Haryana
&Ors.4, Shri Sohan Lal v. Union of India & Anr.5, Radhey
Shyam&Anr. v. Chhabi Nath &Ors.6, Radhey Shyam & Anr. v.
Chhabi Nath &Ors.7, Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual
& Ors.8 and Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra
Shankar Patil9.
3 (1993) 2 SCC 746
4 (2006) 3 SCC 178
5 AIR 1957 SC 529
6 (2009) 5 SCC 616- (RadheyShyamI)
7 (2015) 5 SCC 423-(RadheyShyamII)
8 (1969) 1 SCC 585
9 (2010) 8 SCC 329
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
151
8. Nilabati Behera and Sube Singh are the cases involving high
handedness on behalf of a public servant and vicarious liability of the
State. Such cases would stand on a different footing. Radhey ShyamI is a case of a writ petition arising out of a purely civil dispute relating to
property and when the civil suit was pending before the Civil Court. In
Shalini Shyam Shetty, an order passed by the Bombay High Court was
challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such
writ petition was dismissed in view of concurrent findings of the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court arising out of a suit for eviction.
Radhey Shyam-II is a three-Judge Bench judgment examining the
question as to whether an order of the Civil Court was amenable to the
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The issues arising
in the aforesaid cases have no semblance with the facts of the present
case and are thus not applicable.
9. The findings in Shri Sohan Lal are not relevant in the present
case as such judgment of this Court arose in respect of restoration of
possession of a house, the title over which was disputed. One of the
claimants had approached the High Court in a petition under Article 226
of the Constitution. Therefore, purely civil dispute in relation to title to
the property was sought to be raised in a writ petition. In Praga Tools
Corporation, a writ petition was filed claiming writ of Mandamus against
a company and not against the conciliation officer in respect of any
public or statutory duty imposed upon him by the Act. Hence, it does not
provide any assistance in the present matter wherein the rights of the
victims are emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This
Court held as under:
"7. The company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated
under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor a
public duty imposed on it by a statute in respect of which
enforcement could be sought by means of a mandamus, nor was
there in its workmen any corresponding legal right for enforcement
of any such statutory or public duty. The High Court, therefore,
was right in holding that no writ petition for a mandamus or an
order in the nature of mandamus could lie against the company."
10. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned senior counsel appearing for the
writ petitioners, has referred to the judgment of this Court reported as
M.C. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of India &Ors.10 wherein, in case of
10 (1987) 1 SCC 395
SANJAY GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
oleum gas leakage from the factory premises of Shriram Foods and
Fertiliser Industries, a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India was entertained and the negligence was fixed. It was only in
respect of quantum of compensation, the matter was referred to the
Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board. Para 30 of the order reads thus:
"30. Before we part with this topic, we may point out that this
Court has throughout the last few years expanded the horizon of
Article 12 primarily to inject respect for human rights and social
conscience in our corporate structure. The purpose of expansion
has not been to destroy the raiso d'etre of creating corporations
but to advance the human rights jurisprudence. Prima facie we
are not inclined to accept the apprehensions of learned counsel
for Shriram as well founded when he says that our including within
the ambit of Article 12 and thus subjecting to the discipline of
Article 21, those private corporations whose activities have the
potential of affecting the life and health of the people, would deal
a death blow to the policy of encouraging and permitting private
entrepreneurial activity. Whenever a new advance is made in the
field of human rights, apprehension is always expressed by the
status quoists that it will create enormous difficulties in the way
of smooth functioning of the system and affect its stability. Similar
apprehension was voiced when this Court in R.D. Shetty
case [(1979) 3 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 1628 : (1979) 3 SCR
1014] brought public sector corporations within the scope and
ambit of Article 12 and subjected them to the discipline of
fundamental rights. Such apprehension expressed by those who
may be affected by any new and innovative expansion of
human rights need not deter the court from widening the
scope of human rights and expanding their reach and ambit,
if otherwise it is possible to do so without doing violence to
the language of the constitutional provision. It is through
creative interpretation and bold innovation that the human
rights jurisprudence has been developed in our country to a
remarkable extent and this forward march of the human rights
movement cannot be allowed to be halted by unfounded
apprehensions expressed by status quoists. But we do not
propose to decide finally at the present stage whether a private
corporation like Shriram would fall within the scope and ambit of
Article 12, because we have not had sufficient time to consider
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
153
and reflect on this question in depth. The hearing of this case
before us concluded only on December 15, 1986 and we are called
upon to deliver our judgment within a period of four days, on
December 19, 1986. We are therefore, of the view that this is not
a question on which we must make any definite pronouncement
at this stage. But we would leave it for a proper and detailed
consideration at a later stage if it becomes necessary to do
so."(Emphasis Supplied)
11. Mr. Pahwa also referred to an order passed by the Delhi High
Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in a judgment
reported as Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v. Union of
India &Ors.11. The claim was of compensation for the victims against
the respondents for showing callous disregard to their statutory obligations
and to the fundamental and indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India of the public in failing to provide safe
premises, free from hazards that could reasonably be foreseen. In that
case, afire broke outatUphaar Theatre, New Delhi in the evening of
13.6.1997. The High Court after examining the various precedents held
as under:
"102. On this law it cannot be said, at this stage that the petition is
not maintainable. Even otherwise we find that this is not a matter
in which highly disputed question of fact arise. This appears to be
a matter in which facts could be ascertained very easily. The
Rules and Regulation are clear and unambiguous. Everybody
knows them or should know them. It cannot seriously be disputed
that the private respondents, who were or are owners of Uphaar
Cinema were (as are all cinema owners) bound to strictly comply
with them. It cannot be seriously disputed that the Government
agencies are entrusted with duty to ensure that the Rules and
Regulations were complied with. It cannot be seriously disputed
that a theatre is one place where a large number of people have
to sit in an enclosed area for a fairly long period of time. There is
a potential threat to life and safety if fire, leakages of gas, etc.
take place. This potential threat has to be guarded against. At the
stage, therefore, it cannot be said that the cinema owners/
employees (past/present) cannot be held to be under an obligation
to provide and maintain all standards of safety and/or that they
11 2000 SCC OnLine Del 216
SANJAY GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
are not liable to compensate for loss of fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 21 if harm has arisen by virtue of their
not guarding against such hazard. Prima facie it appears that under
the doctrine of strict liability on Public Law (as set out above) the
liability would be then even if there is no negligence on their part.
The Government and its agencies would also be liable for not
having ensured strict compliance with Rules and Regulations which
have been created to ensure safety. At this stage it appears to us
that this is the case in which there can hardly be any dispute. The
Rules and Regulations are clear and known. The affidavits of the
public authorities support petitioners and admit that there was noncompliance. In fact, Mr. Rawal's arguments have necessarily been
that Rules and Regulations were not complied with. Mr. Rawal
sought to justify the lapse of not ensuring compliance by blaming
it on the Orders of the High Court. At this stage, it appears to us
that Orders of this Court only stayed the suspension of licence for
four days and/or the Order of the Lt. Governor. It prima
facie appears that the Orders of the High Court did not justify
grant of temporary permits for such a long period of time.
Admittedly, the fire took place on 13th June, 1997. Admittedly, a
number of people have been killed and/or injured. Admittedly, fire
fightingequipments and/or ambulances arrived on scene late.
Admittedly at that time and even now the CATS Centre which
was to have been created as far back as 1986 has not yet been
established. There also does not appear to be much dispute on
fact that number of seats had been increased, size of gangway
reduced, one exit closed by creating a private viewing box, etc. It
can easily be ascertained whether there have been unauthorised
deviations. The building is still standing. These are matters which
can easily be verified by the Court by appointment of
Commissioners. The Commissioners, who would be responsible
persons, knowledgeable in the field would visit the site in presence
of all parties and ascertain facts. The Report of the Commissioner
would show whether Rules and Regulations were complied and
whether there have been deviations or not. It is clarified that Court
is not giving any findings at this stage and is not holding that there
have been breach of Rules and/or Regulations and/or unauthorised
deviations and/or failure to enforce. All that the Court is saying is
that at this stage it cannot conclude that the petition is not
maintainable."
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
155
12. The High Court further in the above matter also directed the
Court Commissioners to visit the site and submit a report as to whether
or not all Rules, Regulations and statutory provisions were complied
with and if not, to what extent.