E-Paper
HC reserves verdict on plea
THE ALLAHABAD High Court has reserved its judgement on a writ petition filed by one Siddharth Manohar, one of the organisers of the consumer fair at Meerut, which was devasted in a fire on April 10, 2006. Manohar has challenged the FIR lodged against him in connection with the devastating fire at Victoria Park in Meerut, which resulted in the death of several persons. In the petition, Manohar, claiming himself only to be the architect of the of the show, said that he could not be held responsible for the tragedy.
THE ALLAHABAD High Court has reserved its judgement on a writ petition filed by one Siddharth Manohar, one of the organisers of the consumer fair at Meerut, which was devasted in a fire on April 10, 2006. Manohar has challenged the FIR lodged against him in connection with the devastating fire at Victoria Park in Meerut, which resulted in the death of several persons. In the petition, Manohar, claiming himself only to be the architect of the of the show, said that he could not be held responsible for the tragedy.
Apart from it, he has given several grounds on the basis of which he has sought stay on his arrest and has also made a request to the court to quash the FIR lodged against him with regard to the Meerut fire tragedy. An FIR was lodged at Civil Lines police station, Meerut, on April 10, 2006, under Sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 337, 338, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
This order was passed by a Division Bench, comprising Justice RC Deepk and Justice MK Mittal, after hearing counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the aggrieved public and the government counsel.
Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, senior advocate GS Chaturvedi said the pandal of the consumer fair caught fire due to unforeseen circumstances. It was stated that the tragic incident had taken place on the last day of the show and everything went off well on all the four previous days. Even if it was assumed that it was a case falling within the ambit of section 304A (negligence), the conversion to this section into 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) was not proper and the same proves mala fide.
Opposing the petition on behalf of the aggrieved public, senior advocate Satish Trivedi, while refuting the claim of the petitioner that he was only an architect, contended that his petition itself showed that he was one of the organisers.
Besides, there was nothing to show that ‘no objection certificate’ was obtained for organising this giant show. The fair was nothing but a commercial venture and it was the responsibility of the organisers to ensure safety of the people.
He contended that any interference of the court at this stage would not be proper, as the investigation was going on and prima facie the allegations were to be looked into by the investigative agency. He said that this case was a very serious one.
