AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Proceedings have been initiated suo-motu in light of captioned media report about death of six persons by suffocation at Secunderabad. According to media report, place of occurrence is Swapnalok Complex in Patny, Secunderabad. There was short circuit on the seventh floor of the B-Block of the 10-storey building which spread to other floors.
In response to advance notice issued by the Registry of this Tribunal, response has been filed by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Collector, Hyderabad and Telangana State PCB. According to response of the Collector, Hyderabad, the incident took place at 8:00 PM on 16.03.2023 wherein six persons died at 11:15 PM and four were injured who were admitted to Yashoda Hospital. State Government has given Rs. 5 lakh each to the family members of the deceased ex-gratia which has been disbursed through the Minister for Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Cinematography, Government of Telangana. Response of the GHMC is that building permission was granted for ground, mezzanine and 6th floor but builder constructed 7th, 8th and 9th floors also and later sought regularization. Building has all-round set back of 10 mtrs. for free movement of fire vehicles. The particulars of persons who died are as follows:-
V.Shiva S/o Raju, Age: 22 Years
Triveni D/o Ramarao, Age: 22Years
Vennela D/o Ravi, Age: 22 Years
Pramila D/o Bhadru, Age: 22 Years
B.Sravani D/o Narsimha, Age: 22 Years
Prashant, Age: 23 Years
There were 103 shops in the complex but shop owners had not installed fire mitigating measures.
Report of the State PCB is inter-alia as follows:-
“
Ø The Complex is surrounded by North: Main Road, South: Residential, East: Suryakiran Complex and West: Sub-Road.
Ø A DG Set of capacity 1 x 200 KVA was installed.
Ø The complex comprises Two Blocks i.e. A and B. In each Block, there are 97 shopping centres and 63 offices are maintained in the complex.
Ø The representatives of the complex unable to furnish information of total area of the complex and Built up area.
The Complex was constructed prior to the EIA Notification, 2006. Hence, the Complex has not obtained Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006.
Further, it is to submit that the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana has registered 'Suo Motu WR (PIL) No.4 of 2023 based on the news item published in “Deccan Chronicle” English daily newspaper, Hyderabad edition dated 17.03.2023, 18.03.2023 and 19.03.2023 under the caption "6 DEAD IN SWAPNALOK BLAZE". The case was posted for hearing on 26.06.2023.”
It is not clear whether necessary Consent as applicable under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and any other requisite permissions have been obtained for construction of the project. It is also not clear what action has been taken for grave violations in raising huge commercial constructions without requisite permissions against persons raising constructions, against illegal occupation and against concerned authorities who failed to enforce the law inspite of knowing the violations.
In recent past, the Tribunal has come across several cases of deaths and injuries on account of failure of commercial/industrial establishment to follow prescribed environmental safety norms and failure of authorities to enforce safety norms. The Tribunal has held in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors., (1987) 1 SCC 395, MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC 481 and Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121, compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 Lakhs on above basis has to be paid to heir of the deceased. Injured are to be paid compensation between 2 lakhs to 10 lakhs depending upon nature of injury.
Relevant extract from order dated 28.03.2023 in O.A. No. 204/2023, In re: News item published in Newspaper The Hindu dated 07.03.2023 titled “Three children die during illegal mining in West Bengal” are as follows:-
“5. The Tribunal has dealt with number of cases of deaths and injuries to victims by failure to follow environmental norms and enforce right to environment which is part of right to life, heirs of the deceased and the victims have been held entitled to compensation on the principle of absolute liability arising out of doing hazardous commercial activity. Though such liability basically is of violator of law, where law violator is not made to pay compensation, the State has also been held to be liable to pay compensation as per its duty as welfare State to protect the citizen and also for failure to take steps to protect the citizens against hazardous illegal activities to prevent which is duty of the State. The Tribunal has acted consistently with parens patriae duty of the State in terms of law laid down inter alia in MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC 481 and Vadodra Municipal Corporation v. Purshottam v. Murjani & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 14. Some of the observations from Supreme Court judgements are:
“T.N. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. State of T.N., (2017) 6 SCC 734
The State stands on the position of a loco parentis to the citizens and when there are so many deaths of farmers in the State of Tamil Nadu, it becomes obligatory on the part of the State to express concern and sensitiveness to do the needful and not allow the impecunious and poverty-stricken farmers to resign to their fate or leave the downtrodden and the poor to yield to the idea of fatalism. The concept is alien in the welfare State and the social justice which is required to be translated in a democratic body polity. As is manifest from the assertions and the grievances that have been agitated, deaths are due to famine backdrop and other natural causes and also due to immense financial problem. The State, as the guardian, is required to see how to solve these problems or to meet the problems by taking curative measures treating it as a natural disaster. Silence is not the answer.
MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn., (2011) 14 SCC 481
The law is well settled that a constitutional court can award monetary compensation against the State and its officials for its failure to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens but there is no system or method to measure the damages caused in such situations Compensatory damages are intended to provide the claimant with a monetary amount necessary to recoup/replace what was lost, since damages in tort are generally awarded to place the claimants in the position he would have been in, had the tort not taken place; which are generally quantified under the heads of general damages and special damages. Punitive damages are intended to reform or to deter the wrongdoer from indulging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis for the claim. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate the claimant which he can claim in an ordinary private law claim in tort. Punitive damages are awarded by the constitutional court when the wrongdoer’s conduct was egregiously deceitful.”
We may also refer to some earlier orders of the Tribunal dealing with industrial and other accidents on account of violation of environmental norms in the State of West Bengal 1. News item published in the “Times of India” dated 20.11.2020 entitled “Six killed as blast tears through Malda Plastic recycling factory”, OA No. 272/2020 decided on 18.12.2020. 2. In re: News item published in The Economic Times dated 21.12.2021 titled “3 dead, 44 injured in flash fire at IOC’s Haldia refinery”, OA No. 440/2021 decided on 07.01.2022., where the Tribunal awarded compensation to the victims. Some extract from order dated 18.12.2020 in O.A. No. 272/2020, News item published in the “Times of India” dated 20.11.2020 entitled “Six killed as blast tears through Malda Plastic recycling factory” is reproduced below:-
“xxx…………………………………..xxx……………………………xxx
The Tribunal dealt with the issue by requiring payment of compensation to the victims, restoration of environment and adopting suitable safety measures to avoid such recurrence in the light of Expert Committee reports. In the present case, the State PCB hasacknowledged that the activity was illegal and the unit has now been found to be demolished. This cannot be sufficient step for enforcement of law and for remedy to the victims. The Tribunal fixed minimum interim compensation in such cases at Rs. 15 Lakhs in case of death, Rs. 5 Lakhs in case of serious injury and Rs. 2.5 Lakhs for simple injuries as follows Order dated 08.06.2020 in O.A. No. 22/2020 (WZ), Aryavart Foundation through its President v. Yashyashvi Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.:
“6. … we assess interim compensation for death to be 15 lacs each (taking into account multiplier of around 16 and loss of earning of about one lac a year, taking the minimum wage, apart from conventional sums), for grievous injury Rs. 5 lac per person, for other injuries of persons hospitalized Rs. 2.5 lac per person and for displacement at Rs. 25000/-per person.”
The State is under obligation to secure atleast this amount of compensation to the victims and if it is not able to do so, the State must pay this much amount of compensation out of its own funds, with liberty to recover the same from the persons responsible for the situation.
Accordingly, we direct the District Magistrate, Malda to give compensation in above terms to the victims within three months out of the State funds, excluding the amount already paid. It will be open to the District Magistrate to recover the amount from the concerned violators by taking coercive measures, as per law. The victims will be at liberty to seek any other relief in appropriate proceedings. This direction is without prejudice to the criminal liability of the management and the operators of such activities.”
In the present case, death of the children is patently due to violation of established norms. The State Authorities failed to enforce the law and prevent the incident. Apart from illegal engagement of children, the mining in the river bank is not shown to be by any Authority of Law, such as, mining lease, replenishment study, DSR and Environment Clearance. No safeguards have been used in the process. Thus, the State cannot escape liability for violation of environmental norms. While primary liability is of the persons engaged in illegal mining on ‘Absolute Principle’ laid down in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors., (1987) 1 SCC 395, when the violators have not been made to pay, it is the liability of the State to pay the compensation and recover the same from the violators. Liability for compensation is in addition to liability under the Criminal Law.
Further, vide order dated 11.06.2021 passed in O.A. No. 44/2021 titled as In re: News item published in The News Indian Express dated 12.02.2021 titled “At least 19 dead in Virudhunagar firecracker factory blast, more than 30 injured” the Tribunal held:-
“xxx …………………………..…..…….xxx…………………….………….xxx
…Compensation can be assessed on reasonable basis guided by restitution principle atleast at floor level, leaving other remedies of the victims open. Thus, broadly agreeing with the Committee, we direct that the scale of compensation should be Rs.20 lakhs in respect of each of the deceased victims and Rs.15 lakhs to persons who have burns in excess of 50% and Rs.10 lakhs for persons who have burns from 25 to 50% and Rs.5 lakhs for persons who have injuries between 5 to 25%. Victims who were treated as outpatients and who had but minor degree of burns or other forms of simple injuries shall be paid Rs.2 lakhs.”
….xxx………………………xxx……………………………………xxx
In view of above, we direct the District Magistrate, Siliguri/Darjeeling to ensure payment of compensation @ ₹20 Lakh each to the heirs of the deceased and ₹5 Lakh to the injured, after deducting the amount already paid. The payment may be made within one month and make the violators accountable under Environmental Law be taken simultaneously at the earliest.
The State PCB may exercise its regulatory authority under the environmental laws - the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act and Rules 1986, in coordination with any other concerned authority.”
There are several other cases where same view has been taken.
In re: Gas Leak at LG Polymers Chemical Plant in RR Venkatapuram Village Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh, OA No. 73/2020 decided on 01.06.2020.
Aryavart Foundation through its President vs. Yashyashvi Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., OA No. 85/2020 (Earlier OA 22/2020) (WZ) decided on 03.02.2021.
Bonani Kakkar vs. Oil India Limited & Ors., OA No. 43/2020(EZ) decided on 19.02.2021.
News item published in the local daily “Economic Times” dated 30.06.2020 titled “Another Gas Leakage at Vizag Factory kills two, critically injures four…”, OA No. 106/2020 decided on 22.12.2020.
News item published in the “Indian Express” dated 01.07.2020 titled “Tamil Nadu Neyveli boiler blast: 6 dead, 17 injured”, OA No. 108/2020 decided on 22.12.2020.
News item published on 13.07.2020 in the local daily named “India Today” titled “Massive fire engulf Vizag chemical plant, explosions heard, injuries reported”, OA No. 134/2020 decided on 22.12.2020.
News item published in the “Times of India” dated 20.11.2020 entitled “Six killed as blast tears through Malda Plastic recycling factory”, OA No. 272/2020 decided on 18.12.2020.
News item published in the “Indian Express” dated 23.11.2020 entitled “Maharashtra: Two Killed, eight injured in methane gas leak in sugar factory”, OA No. 274/2020 decided on 16.08.2021.
In RE: News item published in the local daily “Indian Express Sunday Express” dated 28.06.2020 titled “Gas Leak in Agro Company Claims life of one”, O.A No. 107/2020 decided on 08.01.2021.
In re : News item published in Navbharat Times dated 24.12.2020 titled “Gas leaks in IFFCO Plant, 2 Officers dead”, O.A. No. 04/2021 decided on 04.06.2021.
In re: News item published in The Indian Express dated 07.01.2021 titled “Four workers dead due to toxic gas leak in Rourkela Steel Plant”, O.A. No. 09/2021 decided on 11.02.2021.
In re: News item published in The News Indian Express dated 12.02.2021 titled “At least 19 dead in Virudhunagar firecracker factory blast, more than 30 injured, O.A. No. 44/2021 decided on 03.03.2022. 13. In re: News item published in Times Now News dated 23.02.2021 titled “Karnataka: Six killed in quarry blast in Hirenagavalli, Chikkaballapur”, O.A. No. 59/2021 decided on 22.04.2022.
In re: News item published in The Hindu dated 23.02.2021 titled “Two dead, 5 missing in fire at UPL Plant”, O.A. No. 60/2021 decided on 14.12.2021.
In re: News item published in The Times of India dated 28.02.2021 titled “Delhi : Man charred to death as illegal factory catches fire”, O.A. No. 65/2021 decided on 31.08.2021.
In re: News item published in The Hindu dated 14.03.2021 titled “Safety lapses led to reactor blast at pharma unit”, OA No. 79/2021 decided on 31.08.2021.
In Re: News item published in the “Indian Express” dated 04.11.2020 titled “Ahmedabad: Nine killed as godown collapses after factory blast”, OA No. 258/2020 decided on 23.03.2021.
In re: News item published in The Times of India dated 08.06.2021 titled “18, mostly women, killed in fire at Pune chemical unit”, OA 130/2021 decided on 01.02.2022.
Rakesh Suresh Chandra Kapadia v. Gujarat Pollution Control Board & Ors., OA No. 31/2021 (WZ), decided on 08.11.2021.
In re: News item published in The Hindustan Times dated 17.06.2021, titled “Blast in firecracker unit in Maharashtra’s Palghar, at least 10 injured”, OA No. 134/2021 decided on 25.06.2021.
In re: News item published in The Indian Express dated 12.07.2021 titled “Six killed in factory fire: Owner held, raids on to nab second accused”, OA No. 171/2021 decided on 07.09.2021.
In re: News item published in The Indian Express dated 07.01.2022 titled “Gujarat: At least 06 dead, 20 sick after gas leak at industrial area in Surat”, OA No. 05/2022 decided on 18.01.2022.
In re: News item published in India Today dated 26.12.2021 titled “7 dead in boiler explosion at noodle factory in Bihar’s Muzaffarpur, probe ordered”, OA No. 02/2022 decided on 22.04.2022.
In re: News item published in The Economic Times dated 21.12.2021 titled “3 dead, 44 injured in flash fire at IOC’s Haldia refinery”, OA No. 440/2021 decided on 07.01.2022.
In re: News item published in The Tribune dated 22.02.2022 titled “7 killed in blast at firecrackers factory in Himachal Una”, OA No. 143/2022 decided on 08.03.2022.
In re: News item published in Hindustan Times dated 05.03.2022 titled “Bhagalpur: 14 dead in firecracker unit blast”, OA 198/2022 decided on 27.05.2022.
In re: News item published in The Times of India dated 12th April, 2022, titled “Six killed in chemical factory blast in Gujarat”, OA No. 272/2022 decided on 12.04.2022.
In re: News item in NDTV dated 14.04.2022 titled “6 killed, 12 injured after fire breaks out at Andhra Pradesh Pharma Unit”, OA No. 284/2022 decided on 20.04.2022.
In re : News item published in Business Standard dated 09.02.2023 titled “Blast at JSPL’s Raigarh plant kills two workers, two others injured”, OA No. 110/2023 decided on 28.02.2023
We would have normally followed the above orders but since we are informed that same issue is being dealt with by the High Court in Suo Motu WR (PIL) No.4 of 2023 and is listed for hearing on 26.06.2023, we dispose of this application leaving the matter to be dealt with by the High Court in the said matter. However, concerned authorities are not debarred from ensuring payment of compensation to victims and ensuring compliance of requisite norms, following due process of law, subject to further orders of the High Court.
The application is disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to Chief Secretary, Telangana, District Magistrate, Hyderabad, Registrar, Telangana High Court and Telangana State Legal Services Authority.