Supreme Court Judgment on Writ Petition.

M/S Green Park Theatres v Association of Victims of Uphaar
Petitioner: M/S Green Park Theatres
Respondent: Association of Victims of Uphaar
Date: 17/08/2001
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Doraiswamy Raju
 
Facts: A fire broke out at Uphaar theater 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 there under for the purpose of preventing a hazards of breaking out of fire was not observed. The license and permits to the theater 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.
Contentions:  Petitioners before the Supreme Court, 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 theater 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 theater. 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.
Conclusion: The court concluded that 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. The Court is 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.
Decision: The Petition is rejected.
SUBMITTED BY:- SHUBHANGI GUPTA.