राष्ट्रीय (29/11/2013)
SUPREME COURT GRANTS RELIEF TO AMOD K KANTH IN UPHAAR CASE
| In a major relief to Mr. Amod K Kanth, a well
known IPS officer who had been summoned by a Metropolitan Magistrate in 2010 for his role as DCP Licensing 18 years prior to Uphaar Fire Tragedy in 1997, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have stayed the proceedings and impleaded Delhi Police. Senior Advocate Mr. Mukul Rohtagi who appeared alongwith Mr. Amarendra Sharan, vehemently argued on Mr. Kanth’s behalf, was able to convince the Hon’ble Court that Mr. Kanth could not be proceeded against for ‘negligence’ for various reasons. It was mentioned that in 1979 he had actually removed the additional seats in 50 cinema houses including Uphaar, which had been added as a sequel to populist reduction of rates during Emergency. Mr. Kanth had acted under the constant monitoring of the Hon’ble High Court which had stayed his orders challenged through 42 writ petitions, and directed ‘substantial’ and not ‘rigid’ and ‘inflexible’ compliance of the Cinematograph Rules. It was emphasized that in Uphaar Cinema as well. Mr. Kanth was able remove 63 out of 100 additional seats, retaining 37 seats in balcony on the advice of technical authority– which have now been found to be ‘valid’ by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in another Uphaar matter. Following the enforcement of Delhi Police Act 1978, the Commissioner of Police system was introduced and one of the DCPs held concurrent charge of DCP Licensing who controlled, among other licenses, the cinema houses as well. Prior to Amod K Kanth who took over as DCP (Licensing) in February 1979, no action was taken in any cinema houses to correct the situation created due to additional seats and, actually, some more seats were added, including eight seats in a box in the balcony of Uphaar cinema. During this period, the Entertainment Tax Officer, the erstwhile subordinate of the Dy. Commissioner, Delhi, was fully responsible for these changes. During his brief tenure of 15 months, Mr. Kanth remained highly pro-active and started cleaning the augean stable and corrected the situation in thousands of licensed premises under various Acts, including the Cinema houses. As Licencing Authority, he approached the Administrator (Lt. Governor of Delhi) requesting him to rescind the notifications that had allowed additional seats in over 50 cinema houses, including Uphaar. Overnight, following the de-notification, orders were issued and implemented through the District Police, which were challenged through 42 writ petitions in 1979 (clubbed under CWP no. 10.10 of 1979) under which Mr. Amod Kanth’s orders were stayed. Whereas, Mr. Kanth repeatedly filed affidavits taking a consistent stand that all additional seats must be removed, the Hon’ble High Court did not agree with his contention. For several months, all additional seats, including 100 seats in Uphaar cinema were allowed to be retained under the orders of the Hon’ble High Court despite extremely persuasive efforts made and affidavits filed by Mr. Kanth as DCP (Licencing). In the final order passed on 29 November 1979, the Hon’ble High Court gave a clear verdict that all additional seats could not be removed and that the technical authorities must look into each and every seat to find out whether they ‘substantially’ complied with the rules and gave a direction that the implementation should not be ‘rigid and inflexible’. Despite of these, Mr. Kanth as DCP (Licensing) was able to remove majority of seats in all cinemas of Delhi including 63 out of 100 seats in the Uphaar cinema. In Uphaar cinema, entirely under the Hon’ble High Court orders and under the technical/written advice of the Statutory Technical Authorities, namely, Chief Fire officer, PWD Ex. Engineer and Electrical Inspector, 37 seats were retained in the balcony. Subsequently, following the suspension of the Uphaar License in 1983, the Hon’ble High Court permitted this cinema to operate through temporary permits until the Tragedy took place in 1997. 18 years after Mr. Kanth had demitted the office, i.e. in 1997, the Uphaar Fire Tragedy took place in which 59 lives were lost. During the investigation carried out by the CBI, wherein Mr. Amod Kanth was formally examined and his statement recorded, plenty of evidences were found against the cinema owners and other authorities but nothing adverse was found against any officials of the Licencing Department of Delhi Police. In fact, the concerned officials told Mr. Kanth that in the entire history of cinema licencing, he was the most pro-active and careful officer. Sometime later, the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT), for completely unexplained reasons, started hounding Mr. Kanth and filed series of petitions in all possible legal and administrative forum. Initially, in 1998 itself, the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate dealt with the matter in great depth on a petition filed by accused Ex. Engineer PWD and passed an order clearing his position. On the direction of the Trial Court, at least twice, besides the initial investigation, the CBI investigated the role of Mr. Kanth and gave him a clean chit in the final report u/s 173(8)Cr.PC finding not a single evidence against him. Meanwhile, the application u/s 319 Cr.PC filed by AVUT was examined by the Trial Court in great depth and not a single evidence being on record, the matter was disposed off in the final judgment. The role of successive DCPs (Licencing), was repeatedly examined by the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court of India in various matters and nothing was found against anyone or Mr. Kanth. Out of blue, the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar took cognizance of one of the applications filed by AVUT and issued summons on 12-08- 2010. This order was challenged vide CRL MC No.2746/2010 by Mr. Amod Kanth in the High Court of Delhi and an order was passed on 26-08-2010 by the High Court of Delhi granting relief to Mr. Kanth by exempting his presence in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate and taking cognizance of serious legal lacunae, i.e., absence of sanction and approval orders u/s 197 Cr.PC, under Delhi Police Act and under Cinematograph Act, all of which legally warrant the same, in case of any such cognizance being taken against Mr. Kanth as licencing authority acting in the colour of office as a quasi-judicial authority. Despite the order from one bench of the High Court, concealing the entire fact and the legal lacunae pointed out, AVUT filed another petition in another bench of the Hon’ble High Court vide no. W.P(C) 6238/2011, which has since being challenged. Most surprisingly, AVUT has requested the Hon’ble High Court for staying the very same proceedings in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate against Mr. Kanth, which they had themselves initiated. On 13-10-2011, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (vide C.A.No. 7114-15/2003) passed a categorical, decisive and comprehensive judgment completely exonerating the Licencing Authority of Delhi Police in general and Mr. Kanth’s role in particular with reference to the retention of 37 additional seats (out of 100) which is the key point for all petitions filed by AVUT in various legal fora. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment, particularly with reference to paras 29, 32 & 41 are worth perusal. Through this Special Leave Petition (SLP-Crl. No. 9409/13) the order of the High Court which did not stay the Magistrate’s order was challenged, as above, and now Mr. Kanth’s contentions have been accepted. |
Copyright @ 2019.