Rajkot fire tragedy: Gujarat HC says municipal commissioner can’t claim innocence
The Gujarat high court said the Rajkot municipal commissioner cannot get away by saying that he was not aware, and the town planning officer or town planner did everything
The Gujarat high court, on Friday, during a hearing related to the TRP Game Zone fire incident in Rajkot earlier this year, emphasised that the city’s municipal commissioner cannot shirk responsibility by claiming that he had “delegated his duties and powers” to a subordinate who failed to inform him about the incident.
The division bench, comprising chief justice Sunita Agarwal and justice Pranav Trivedi, was addressing multiple petitions concerning fire safety in municipal corporation areas across Gujarat. This included a suo motu case initiated by the court after a devastating fire on May 25 claimed the lives of 27 people, including four children, in Rajkot.
The bench was also hearing Writ Petition PIL No. 118 of 2020, which was registered following a fire at Shrey Hospital in Ahmedabad on August 6, 2020. During Friday’s proceedings, advocate Amit Panchal, representing one of the petitioners, informed the court that Rajkot Municipal Corporation had responded to an order passed on August 23. The court had scheduled the hearing to listen to the victims and discuss compensation, as well as consider holding erring officials accountable.
Chief justice Agarwal noted two key aspects: the directives issued in the PIL (118/2020) to the municipal commissioners, including the Rajkot Municipal Commissioner, who had submitted an affidavit on March 8, 2022, affirming compliance with the court’s instructions. These directions were detailed in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the August 23 order.
{{/usCountry}}Chief justice Agarwal noted two key aspects: the directives issued in the PIL (118/2020) to the municipal commissioners, including the Rajkot Municipal Commissioner, who had submitted an affidavit on March 8, 2022, affirming compliance with the court’s instructions. These directions were detailed in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the August 23 order.
{{/usCountry}}The order raised concerns that the victims had not received adequate compensation and pointed out that the erring officials, identified in the Special Investigation Team (SIT) report, should personally compensate the victims. The court order also indicated that municipal commissioners who failed in their supervisory duties could be held liable to pay compensation from their own pockets.
{{/usCountry}}The order raised concerns that the victims had not received adequate compensation and pointed out that the erring officials, identified in the Special Investigation Team (SIT) report, should personally compensate the victims. The court order also indicated that municipal commissioners who failed in their supervisory duties could be held liable to pay compensation from their own pockets.
{{/usCountry}}The direction was issued on August 23 to the respondents including various municipal corporations to ensure that effective steps are taken forthwith for the fire prevention and safety and for the protection of the life and property of citizens in various types of buildings and temporary structures in the state of Gujarat. The respondents were to ensure that all the buildings in the state have adequate disaster management infrastructure and proper firefighting and rescue equipment as required in the National Building Code and also required by the Standing Fire Advisory Council, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
{{/usCountry}}The direction was issued on August 23 to the respondents including various municipal corporations to ensure that effective steps are taken forthwith for the fire prevention and safety and for the protection of the life and property of citizens in various types of buildings and temporary structures in the state of Gujarat. The respondents were to ensure that all the buildings in the state have adequate disaster management infrastructure and proper firefighting and rescue equipment as required in the National Building Code and also required by the Standing Fire Advisory Council, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
{{/usCountry}}The respondents were directed to issue Occupancy Certificates in Gujarat only after ensuring compliance with fire safety requirements under the Gujarat Fire Prevention Act, 2013. A Fire Department No Objection Certificate must be submitted for Building Use permission, as per the August 23 order. They were also asked to provide a list of buildings needing fire safety systems.
Referring to this order, chief justice Agarwal further said on Friday that it applies not only to permanent structures but also to temporary ones.
“What we have said in this order is that Rajkot municipal commissioner cannot get away by saying that he was not aware, and the town planning officer or town planner did everything,” the chief justice said.
The court rejected the claim that the commissioner was unaware of the situation. “Fact-finding committee reports saying the commissioner did his best are not acceptable,” the chief justice observed during the court hearing on Friday.
The court also raised the issue of a pending demolition related to the TRP Game Zone fire in the past. The bench noted that a scheduled demolition had not been carried out and orally indicated that a notice be issued to the Rajkot municipal commissioner to explain why he should not be held responsible for this lapse.
The state advocate general, Kamal Trivedi, argued that the Rajkot Municipal Corporation had outlined its corrective efforts in a new affidavit. However, the court was unconvinced, stating that such justifications only arise when “you are in court... once the petition is off the list, the same issues persist.” The chief justice added, “This incident happened due to a lack of control.”
The court also demanded an apology from the commissioner. Justice Agarwal said, “Apology comes only if you accept the failure. Shifting responsibility and claiming innocence is not acceptable.”
The bench noted that the commissioner had made commitments to the court but failed to ensure compliance, leading to a serious violation of court orders.
After counsel Trivedi requested to withdraw the latest affidavit, the court permitted the withdrawal and instructed the commissioner to submit a fresh response addressing its August 23 observations. The next hearing of the matter is slated for September 27.
