MAHENDER KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No.1 has been running a shop in Regharpura, Karol Bagh. On 16.10.1998, the son of the petitioners died allegedly due to fire in fire crackers shop at corner of street No. 23, Regharpura, Karol Bagh. The licences for the said cracker shop were issued by respondent No. 1- Commissioner of Police, Delhi. According to the petitioners, Regharpura, being a congested area having various small shops, selling products such as cotton, mattresses, paints, eatables, etc. licence ought not to have been given in the said locality. It is also alleged that while granting licence to respondent No. 5 and 6, respondent No. 1 did not adhere to the prescribed norms, rules and regulations. It is also alleged that respondent Nos 7 and 8 (as per original memo of parties) committed various violations, while selling crackers in their respective shops. The petitioners are accordingly seeking compensation, amounting to Rs 20 lakh, besides a judicial enquiry in the above-referred incident.

(2.) In his counter-affidavit, respondent No. 1-Commissioner of Police has stated that on 16.10.1998, fire crackers stall No.3861/23, Regharpura caught fire and Master Rohit was removed from his shop, after breaking the shutter of his shop, by the fire services personnel. It is also claimed that respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were granted temporary licence for selling crackers on the eve of Diwali, after taking required precautions and Master Rohit was sitting inside the shop, shutter of which had been locked from inside and, therefore, got trapped in the shop.

(3.) In his counter-affidavit, respondent Rohtash, who died during the pendency of the writ petition, denied the allegations made in the writ petition and claimed that in fact the fire had started in the building in which the shop of the petitioner was located. According to him, his shop is situated across the road though it also engulfed his shop which is situated in a building across the road. He claimed that petitioner No. 1 rushed out of the shop when the building caught fire and while doing so, he downed the shutter of the shop, leaving his son Rohit inside. It is also claimed in the reply of the said respondent that all safety precautions had been taken by him though the cracker shops situated in the building in which the shop of the petitioner is situated were flouting the prescribed norms.