0

Gujarat High Court Cracks Down on Safety Violations After Rajkot Fire Tragedy

Blog, legal news , , , ,

Background –

In a devastating incident in Rajkot, Gujarat, on 24th May, 2024, a fire at a play or game zone claimed the lives of at least 33 individuals. The blaze was reportedly ignited during welding operations. According to a preliminary report by the SIT, significant negligence by the promoters of the TRP Game Zone was identified. This fire incident occurred in September 2023 and followed a similar event where welding had previously caused a fire at the same location. Despite the fire brigade’s intervention to extinguish that earlier fire, fire department officials failed to address the evident lack of fire safety measures at the TRP Game Zone.

Update on the Issue –

On May 26, the High Court took suo motu cognizance of the Rajkot fire incident that resulted in 27 fatalities. The Court was alarmed by news reports suggesting that the gaming zone might have exploited loopholes in the Gujarat Comprehensive General Development Control Regulations (CGDCR) to construct illegal recreational structures. Gujarati newspapers reported that the gaming zone had erected temporary tin structures to circumvent permission requirements.

The Court vide order dated 13th June, 2024, observed that such gaming zones had emerged not only in Rajkot but also in Ahmedabad, posing significant public safety risks. Concluding that the disaster was prima facie man-made, the Court sought responses from the municipal corporations of Surat, Ahmedabad, Rajkot, and Baroda on the legal provisions allowing these gaming zones and recreational facilities to be established or maintained.

The Gujarat High Court directed the State government to establish a fact-finding committee to investigate the May 24 fire incident at the Rajkot gaming zone and scrutinize the inaction of senior Rajkot Municipal Corporation officers. Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi emphasized the need for a thorough inquiry, ensuring that any official found negligent would be held accountable.

Further, the Court ordered an investigation into the operations of all municipal corporations in the State, referencing other recent tragic incidents such as the Morbi bridge collapse and the Harni Lake boat tragedy. Additionally, the State was instructed to physically inspect schools, both State-run and private, that serve children aged 3 to 14 years, to verify fire safety measures and building permissions.

The Principal Secretary of the State Urban Development and Urban Housing Department was mandated to file a personal affidavit to submit the inquiry report. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 4. Advocate DM Devnani served as amicus curiae, assisting the Court in this case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Anurag Das

 

0

Indigency Status Misjudged: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order; Urges Quick Appeal Decision.

Blog , , , , , ,

CASE TITLE – ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA v. SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.

CASE NUMBER – (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 457)

DATED ON – 27.05.2024

QUORUM – Justice J.K. Maheshwari & Justice Sanjay Karol

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, who was the original claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, [Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) & 10th (Adhoc) Addl. District Court Jude, Jamnagar] in M.A.C.P.No.255 of 2011, was injured in an accident on 4th July 2010, while riding pillion on a bike, which was hit by a truck. Having sustained injuries, she was admitted for medical treatment at a hospital for a period of fourteen days and subsequently she underwent plastic surgery. At the time of the accident, she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, but, post the accident, she sustained permanent disablement, and hence had not been able to work thereafter. A claim was filed for Rs.10 lakhs with 18% interest and costs. The Tribunal vide Award dated 17th October 2016, awarded a sum of Rs.2,41,745/- with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied thereby, the claimant-appellant approached the High Court of Gujarat by way of Regular First Appeal No.2611/2017. Misc. Civil Application No.3/2018 was filed therein by which the claimantappellant prayed for permission to file the said First Appeal as an indigent person. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 7th August, 2018 dismissed the Misc. Civil Application

 

ISSUES

Whether the High Court of Gujarat had erred in it’s judgement and the Appellant should be recognized as an Indigent Person.

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Order XLIV Rule 3(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with determining the financial status of someone seeking to appeal as an indigent person.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The High Court of Gujarat whose order has been impugned stated that “the applicant– appellant cannot be considered to be indigent person and therefore, he has to pay court fees first. The Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that, till date, no amount is received by the applicant. It is open for the applicant to pursue the said remedy before appropriate forum. Present application cannot be entertained.” The Hon’ble  Supreme Court upon viewing this chose to first refer to one of it’sprevious judgements, where the definition of an Indigent Person was prescribed, “A person may proceed as poor person only after a court is satisfied that he or she is unable to prosecute the suit and pay the costs and expenses. A person is indigent if the payment of fees would deprive one of basic living expenses, or if the person is in a state of impoverishment that substantially and effectively impairs or prevents the pursuit of a court remedy.” The ground, upon which the claimant-appellant’s application to file the appeal as an indigent person was rejected, was that she had received compensation by way of the Award of the Tribunal, and therefore, she was not indigent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found this observation to be belied by the impugned order itself as the learned Single Judge had recorded the submission of the counsel for the claimant-appellant that no money stood paid to her at that point in time. So even though she had been awarded a sum, her indigency was not extinguished thereby. And thereby, held that the High Court was incorrect in rejecting the Misc. Application. They further viewed Order XLIV Rule 3(2), of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where it states that the inquiry into the question whether or not he is an indigent person shall be made by the Appellate Court. And noted that The Appellate Court, in accordance with the above, did not conduct any inquiry. The same was necessitated since nothing on record speaks of the claimant-appellant having filed the claim before the learned Tribunal as an indigent person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that she had not yet received the money and, therefore, at the time of filing the appeal she was arguably indigent. And second, that the statutory requirement under the C.P.C., as described above, was not met , therefore, held that the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside, and allowed the Appeal. They also stated that since the Award was given in 2016, and the appeal to be recognized as an Indigent was rejected in 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court instructed the High Court that the appeal filed by the claimant-appellant be decided expeditiously, and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

Indigency Status Misjudged: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order; Urges Quick Appeal Decision.

Blog , , , , , , , , ,

CASE TITLE – ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA v. SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.

CASE NUMBER – (Neutral Citation) 2024 INSC 457

DATED ON – 27.05.2024

QUORUM – Justice J.K. Maheshwari & Justice Sanjay Karol

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, who was the original claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, [Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) & 10th (Adhoc) Addl. District Court Jude, Jamnagar] in M.A.C.P.No.255 of 2011, was injured in an accident on 4th July 2010, while riding pillion on a bike, which was hit by a truck. Having sustained injuries, she was admitted for medical treatment at a hospital for a period of fourteen days and subsequently she underwent plastic surgery. At the time of the accident, she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, but, post the accident, she sustained permanent disablement, and hence had not been able to work thereafter. A claim was filed for Rs.10 lakhs with 18% interest and costs. The Tribunal vide Award dated 17th October 2016, awarded a sum of Rs.2,41,745/- with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied thereby, the claimant-appellant approached the High Court of Gujarat by way of Regular First Appeal No.2611/2017. Misc. Civil Application No.3/2018 was filed therein by which the claimant-appellant prayed for permission to file the said First Appeal as an indigent person. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 7th August, 2018 dismissed the Misc. Civil Application

 

ISSUES

Whether the High Court of Gujarat had erred in it’s judgement and the Appellant should be recognized as an Indigent Person.

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Order XLIV Rule 3(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with determining the financial status of someone seeking to appeal as an indigent person.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The High Court of Gujarat whose order has been impugned stated that “the applicant– appellant cannot be considered to be indigent person and therefore, he has to pay court fees first. The Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that, till date, no amount is received by the applicant. It is open for the applicant to pursue the said remedy before appropriate forum. Present application cannot be entertained.” The Hon’ble  Supreme Court upon viewing this chose to first refer to one of it’sprevious judgements, where the definition of an Indigent Person was prescribed, “A person may proceed as poor person only after a court is satisfied that he or she is unable to prosecute the suit and pay the costs and expenses. A person is indigent if the payment of fees would deprive one of basic living expenses, or if the person is in a state of impoverishment that substantially and effectively impairs or prevents the pursuit of a court remedy.” The ground, upon which the claimant-appellant’s application to file the appeal as an indigent person was rejected, was that she had received compensation by way of the Award of the Tribunal, and therefore, she was not indigent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found this observation to be belied by the impugned order itself as the learned Single Judge had recorded the submission of the counsel for the claimant-appellant that no money stood paid to her at that point in time. So even though she had been awarded a sum, her indigency was not extinguished thereby. And thereby, held that the High Court was incorrect in rejecting the Misc. Application. They further viewed Order XLIV Rule 3(2), of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where it states that the inquiry into the question whether or not he is an indigent person shall be made by the Appellate Court. And noted that The Appellate Court, in accordance with the above, did not conduct any inquiry. The same was necessitated since nothing on record speaks of the claimant-appellant having filed the claim before the learned Tribunal as an indigent person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that she had not yet received the money and, therefore, at the time of filing the appeal she was arguably indigent. And second, that the statutory requirement under the C.P.C., as described above, was not met , therefore, held that the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside, and allowed the Appeal. They also stated that since the Award was given in 2016, and the appeal to be recognized as an Indigent was rejected in 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court instructed the High Court that the appeal filed by the claimant-appellant be decided expeditiously, and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

The State of Gujarat had no jurisdiction to entertain the prayers seeking remission of the convicts: Supreme court

Blog, blog , , , , ,

Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India & Ors.

Case No: WP (CRL.) NO.491 OF 2022

Decided on: 08.01.2024

Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna

 

 Facts of the Case

In the wake of the 2002 Gujarat riots, Bilkis Yakub Rasool, a young pregnant woman, endured the unimaginable – a brutal gang rape fueled by communal hatred and the tragic loss of her entire family. The Central Bureau of Investigation took over the case, leading to charges against 20 individuals – including police personnel and doctors – for gang rape, murder, and rioting. The trial was eventually transferred to a neutral location due to safety concerns. Ultimately, 11 individuals were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Now, she challenges the early release of 11 convicts, arguing for justice both for herself and all victims of the riots. Citing the gravity of the crimes, her own lasting trauma, and concerns for her safety, Ms. Rasool’s writ petition seeks to ensure continued imprisonment for the perpetrators and uphold the principles of accountability in the face of heinous communal violence.

After the petitioner- victim filed a transfer petition, the trial was transferred from Ahmedabad to the competent and neutral court in Mumbai. Even after the Special judge convicted the 11 accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment, the trial court thereafter acquitted the remaining 5 police personnel and 2 doctors. Against the trial court when the state filed criminal appeals before the Bombay High Court it upheld the conviction of 11 persons accused. The high court further claimed the improper investigation by the Gujrat Police.

Respondent no. 3 filed a criminal application before the Gujrat High Court challenging the non-consideration of his application for premature release under Sections 433 and 433A of CrPC.            The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India conveyed its approval under Section 435 of the CrPC for the premature release of all 11 convicts.

This present writ has been filed to quash the orders of acquittal.

Legal Provision

Section 432 of CrPC –

Power to suspend or remit sentences.

When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without Conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.

  1. Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the. presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.
  2. In this section and in section 433, the expression” appropriate Government” means,-
  3. in cases where the sentence is for an offence against, or the order referred to in sub- section (6) is passed under, any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government;
  4. in other cases, the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed.

Section 433 in CrPC –

Power to commute sentence —

The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced commute

(a) a sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);

(b) a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for a fine;

(c) a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced, or for a fine;

(d) a sentence of simple imprisonment, for a fine.

Section 435 of CrPC states the powers conferred by sections 432 and 433 upon the State Government to remit or commute a sentence, in any case where the sentence is for an offence

Issue

  • Whether the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the constitution, is maintainable?
  • Whether the State of Gujrat had jurisdiction to entertain the prayers seeking remission of respondents?

Court Decision and Analysis

The Apex court held that the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the constitution, is maintainable and that the petitioner therein didn’t need to have filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Gujarat High Court.

In view of Section 432 (7) read with Section 432 (1) and (2) of the CrPC, the court held that the Government of the State of Gujarat had no jurisdiction to entertain the prayers seeking remission of respondent Nos.3 to 13 herein as it was not the appropriate Government within the meaning of the aforesaid provisions. Subsequently, the remission orders are illegal and therefore quashed.

The court further ruled that the May 13, 2022 judgment was null and void due to the party seeking it concealing and misrepresenting crucial information.

The Gujarat remission orders for the 11 convicts (10.08.2022) were unlawful due to:

  1. Usurpation of power: Gujarat lacked authority, Maharashtra governed.
  2. Inapplicable policy: Gujarat’s remission policy didn’t apply to convicts.
  3. Ignored opinion: The Mumbai court’s opinion (required) was disregarded.
  4. Unpaid fine: The fine imposed by the Mumbai court and confirmed by Bombay HC remained unpaid, invalidating remission.

The court held that the plea of ‘protection of liberty’ of the 11 respondents cannot be accepted and that the Rule of Law must prevail.

 Hence, the present writ petition was allowed in the aforesaid terms, and all other pending applications were disposed off.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by- Bhawana Bahety

click to view judgement

0

The Gujarat High Court rejects Anticipatory Bail to person charged with exam impersonation

Blog ,

Title: Ajayraj @ Vijendrasinh Kirodilal Meena v. State of Gujarat
Decided on: 03 November, 2023

+ CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 18552 OF 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar
Introduction

An accused cheater in a competitive exam and forger has been denied anticipatory bail by the Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad. Concerns were raised in the 2014 case over the applicant’s purported involvement in forging documents and impersonation.

Facts of the Case

The FIR was filed in an undisclosed year (2016) based on a private FSL report, even though the claimed offense occurred in the year 2014. Additionally, the charge sheet lists the applicant as an absconder, despite the fact that the police have never been to the applicant’s residence. Additionally, the applicant is prepared and eager to assist with the investigation. Furthermore, he asked for permission to approve the current application because no information needs to be retrieved or found out from the applicant, and no custodial questioning is necessary at this time.

Courts analysis and decision

A man accused of cheating in a clerk test was denied anticipatory release by the Gujarat High Court, which emphasized the need to punish malpractices severely in order to safeguard honest candidates and preserve the integrity of competitive exams. The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), specifically Section 438, which addresses anticipatory bail, is the legal provision that is impliedly mentioned. The court emphasized how crucial it is to protect competitive exam integrity, pointing out the harm that dishonesty causes to earnest applicants. It rejected anticipatory bail and emphasized the accused’s active participation in a premeditated offense that affected larger social interests. This served to explain the need for custodial interrogation.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

1 2