Paridhi Arya
Published on: April 14, 2022 at 08:03 IST
The Division Bench comprised of Justice Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian asked the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to appoint District Judge or Additional District Judge to calculate the Compensation in Meerut Fire Case, 2016.
The Report should send and work should be done by Judicial Officer in day to day basis and it should be completed in two weeks.
On this matter first Report submitted by the Commission was Rejected by Supreme Court then one-man Commission appointed which found the Negligence on part of Organizers.
The Advocate representing the Organizers argued that it is Private Law liability and so outside the Scope of Article 32 of Constitution.
The Court made it clear that this Case has same findings as of Uphaar Fire Tragedy. The Court said “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 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,” it had said in the Uphaar Case. “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.” added by Court.
The Court had allowed Compensation in the proportion 60:40 of organizers and State respectively.
“The Victims or their families visited Exhibition on the invitation of the Organisers and not that of the contractor. The organisers 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,” stated by Court.
Observed by Court “They cannot now take shelter on the ground that the contractor who was given work order on 9.3.2006 was an independent contractor and the victims should seek remedy from him. As observed earlier, the contractor has worked for the organisers and not for the victims. Hence, the organisers alone are responsible to protect the Life and Liberty of the Victims.”
