S. K. MAHAJAN ( 1 ) IN the posh area of south Delhi in Green Park is located the Uphaar Cinema. Though it was constructed sometimes in 1973, however, after renovation in 1996/97, the first film released in this theatre on Friday, the 13th June, 1997 was "border". The film had a patriotic fervor and was based on the 1971 Indo-Pak war. During the matinee show of the film, immediately after the interval, the audience in the cinema hall saw smoke coming out of the side of the screen. Most of the patrons sitting in the hall thought it was some special effect which was a part of the film realising little that a fire had broken out in the cinema building. By the time they realised that the smoke had engulfed the hall because of the fire in the building it was too late for many of them to leave the balcony. The entire balcony area and the stairs leading to the balcony were so full of smoke that it had became impossible for many of the patrons to go out of the building and as a result thereof 59 people, which included infants and children, lost their lives because of asphyxiation and about 103 other persons sustained injuries. Immediately after the incident of fire, the Lieutenant Governor vide order dated 14th June, 1997 ordered an enquiry into the incident and appointed Mr. Naresh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (South), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to conduct the enquiry with the following terms of reference :- I) to look into the cause (s) and circumstances leading to fire; ii) to examine whether the Uphaar Cinema had the necessary clearances/ NOCs/licenses from various agencies/statutory authorities. If not, to fix responsibility for lapses of the agencies; iii) to suggest measures to prevent such incidents in future; iv) any other fact (s) relevant to the incident. THE Deputy Commissioner after recording the statement of witnesses and examining the documents submitted his report which will hereafter be referred to as the "naresh Kumar Enquiry Report". ( 2 ) THIS petition has been filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy. The members of the Association, we are informed, are either those who were injured in the fire or are relatives of those who were injured or killed in the fire. ( 2 ) THIS petition has been filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy. The members of the Association, we are informed, are either those who were injured in the fire or are relatives of those who were injured or killed in the fire. By this writ petition, besides claiming compensation, the petitioners have also tried to highlight the alleged shocking state of affairs existing in the cinema building and wholly inadequate safety arrangements made therein. The claim of the petitioners is that there was complete disregard of the statutory obligations prescribed under the law for prevention of fire hazards in public places. The grievance of the petitioners is that each and every public authority, not only failed in the discharge of its statutory obligations, but in fact acted in a manner which was hostile and foreign to the discharge of their public duties. The standards set under the statute and the rules framed for the purpose of preventing public hazards were observed only in their breach. License and permits were issued in complete disregard of the mandatory conditions of inspection and ensuring that the minimum safeguards were provided on the ground. Scores of cinema halls were and are permitted to run without any inspection and without any license. Permits are issued mechanically and perhaps, for a price. The petitioners, therefore, seek adequate compensation for the victims and punitive damages against the respondents for showing callous disregard to their statutory obligations and to the fundamental and indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, of the paying public, in failing to provide safe premises, free from hazards, that could reasonably be foreseen. The petitioners in the writ petition, as already mentioned above, besides claiming compensation have also sought for certain other reliefs as under:- A. Direct the respondents jointly and/or severally to produce all the records of F. I. R. No. 432 dated 13. 6. 97, P. S. Hauz Khas, New Delhi before this Hon ble Court and on the basis of the same, this Hon ble Court may be pleased to monitor the investigation from time to time, to ensure that no person guilty of any of the offences is able to escape the clutches of law and that the investigation is carried out as expeditiously as possible in a free and fair manner. B. direct the respondent No. 1 to ensure that no cinema hall in the country is allowed to run without license granted after strictly observing all the mandatory conditions prescribed under the laws and to further direct them to stop the operation of all cinema halls and to permit the operation only after verification of the existence of a valid license/permit by the licensing authority, under the Cinematograph Act. C. award damages against the respondents, jointly and severally, to the petitioners including all victims who lost their lives, the names and particulars of which, are given in Annexure B, through petitioner No. 1, a sum of Rs. 11. 8 crores (Rupees Eleven Crores and Eighty Lakhs Only) with the direction to equally distribute the same to the first degree heirs of all the victims evenly or in such manner as may be considered just and proper, by this Hon ble Court. D. award damages against the respondents, jointly and severally, to the tune of Rs. 10. 3 crores (Rupees Ten Crores and Thirty Lakhs Only) to the injured whose names and addresses are mentioned in Annexure C, to be distributed evenly or in such manner as may be considered just and proper, by this Hon ble Court. E. award punitive damages against the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 100 crores, jointly and severally, to petitioner No. 1 for the purpose of setting up and augmenting the Centralised Accident and Trauma Services and other allied services in the city of Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 may be directed to create a fund for the purpose and submit a detailed report to this Hon ble Court in accordance with which the said services will be set-up under the supervision of this Hon ble Court. F. pass such other order/orders as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. ( 3 ) SINCE the police after registration of FIR has already filed a charge sheet before the competent Court and the trial, we are informed, is going on, the petitioners have not pressed relief (A) claimed in the petition. ( 3 ) SINCE the police after registration of FIR has already filed a charge sheet before the competent Court and the trial, we are informed, is going on, the petitioners have not pressed relief (A) claimed in the petition. ( 4 ) THE respondents had taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the same involved disputed questions of facts and that the writ petition was not the appropriate proceeding for deciding the causation and responsibility for the unfortunate incident. By a detailed judgment dated 21st February, 2000, this Court has held that it could not be said that the petition was not maintainable. By the same order, this Court has also held that the petition against respondents 14, 17 and 19 to 21 was not maintainable, as they had no nexus. We have now heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of their individual negligence, role assigned to them in the causation of fire, extent of their responsibilities in preventing the fire and extent of their liability to pay compensation, if it was ultimately held that the respondents were jointly and/or severally responsible for complete disregard of their statutory obligations for preventing the fire hazards in pubic places. ( 5 ) ON behalf of private respondents, namely, the owners of the theater, it was argued, as was also argued prior to the delivery of the judgment dated 21st February, 2000 by this Court, that this petition was not maintainable as disputed questions of facts were involved in the case and the remedy available to the petitioner was to file a suit for compensation in which all these questions can be decided after the parties are permitted to lead evidence in the matter. Dr. Dhawan appearing on behalf of the private respondents has relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 17th August, 2001 in SLP (C ). No. 10288/2000 filed against the order of this Court dated 21st February, 2000 to contend that even after the judgment of this Court, the Supreme Court had granted them liberty to raise this question again. We are afraid, no such observation is made by the Supreme Court in its order dated 17th August, 2001 passed in the aforesaid matter. No. 10288/2000 filed against the order of this Court dated 21st February, 2000 to contend that even after the judgment of this Court, the Supreme Court had granted them liberty to raise this question again. We are afraid, no such observation is made by the Supreme Court in its order dated 17th August, 2001 passed in the aforesaid matter. Dealing with the contention of the private respondents that they had an apprehension that the High Court might adopt some procedure of appointing a commission to gather certain facts which, by itself, may not be sufficient to dispose of the matter and that the commission appointed would only to report whether the rules and regulations are complied with therein or not and not, the Supreme Court observed that whatever be the apprehension of the counsel, they could very well be pointed out to the High Court and address their arguments as to the manner in which a dispute of this nature could be resorted satisfactorily and as and when such arguments are raised, the High Court would consider them appropriately and the Supreme Court did not, therefore, find any justification to interfere with the order made by the High Court. It is thus clear that the Supreme Court has not interfered with the observations of this Court that a writ petition for claiming compensation under public law was maintainable. ( 6 ) BEFORE we deal with the arguments of the parties on the question of causation of fire and individual responsibility and liability of the respondents, we will like to refer to certain observations of this Court made in the order dated 21st February, 2000. While deciding the maintainability of the petition, this Court had held that now the law is that in cases where question of life and liberty arise, merely because some disputed questions of fact are sought to be raised, the Court would not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by way of lengthy, dilatory and expensive process of a civil suit. A party claiming to be aggrieved by the action of a public body or authority on the plea that the action is unlawful, high-handed, arbitrary or unjust is entitled to a hearing of its petition on the merits. A party claiming to be aggrieved by the action of a public body or authority on the plea that the action is unlawful, high-handed, arbitrary or unjust is entitled to a hearing of its petition on the merits. Merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India and Others reported as 1984 (3) SCC 161 , the Supreme Court held that the Court can appoint responsible persons as commissioners and ascertain facts for itself. The Supreme Court held that once the report of the commissioner was received, it would be supplied to the parties so that if they dispute any fact or data they may do so by filing an affidavit and the Court could then consider the report and the affidavits and it was then to the Court to decide what weight is to be attached to the facts and data stated in the report of the commissioner. As set out in Bandhua Mukti s case, it would not be correct to say that the reports of a Court appointed commissioner had no evidentiary value since statements in it were not tested by cross-examination. This case clearly shows that the courts have power to appoint commissioners whose reports will furnish prima facie evidence on the basis of which the writ Court can act. The following observations of the Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, 1987 (1) SCC 395 are also relevant for decision of this case and are being reproduced as under :- "before we part with this topic, we may point out that this Court has throughout the last few years expanded the horizon of Article 12 primarily to inject respect for human rights and social conscience in our corporate structure. The purpose of expansion has not been to destroy the raison detre of creating corporations but to advance the human rights jurisprudence. The purpose of expansion has not been to destroy the raison detre of creating corporations but to advance the human rights jurisprudence. Prima facie we are not inclined to accept the apprehensions of learned counsel for Shriram as well founded when he says that our including within the ambit of Article 12 and thus subjecting to the discipline of Article 21, those private corporations whose activities have the potential of affecting the life and health of the people, would deal a death blow to the policy of encouraging and permitting private entrepreneurial activity. Whenever a new advance is made in th field of human rights, apprehension is always expressed by the status quoists that it will create enormous difficulties in the way of smooth functioning of the system and affect its stability. Similar apprehension was voiced when this Court in R. D. Shetty case" brought public sector corporations within the scope and ambit of Article 12 and subjected them to the discipline of fundamental rights. Such apprehension expressed by those who may be affected by any new and innovative expansion of human rights need not deter the court from widening the scope of human rights and expansing their reach and ambit, if otherwise it is possible to do so without doing violence to the language of the constitutional provision. It is through creative interpretation and bold innovation that the human rights jurisprudence has been developed in our country to a remarkable extent and this forward march of the human rights movement cannot be allowed to be halted by unfounded apprehensions expressed by status quoists. But we do not propose to decide finally at the present stage whether a private corporation like Shriram would fall within the scope and ambit of Article 12, because we have not had sufficient time to consider and reflect on this question in depth. The hearing of this case before us concluded only on December 15, 1986 and we are called upon to deliver our judgment within a period of four days, on December 19, 1986. We are therefore, of the view that this is not a question on which we must make any definite pronouncement at this stage. But we would leave it for a proper and detailed consideration at a later stage if it becomes necessary to do so. We are therefore, of the view that this is not a question on which we must make any definite pronouncement at this stage. But we would leave it for a proper and detailed consideration at a later stage if it becomes necessary to do so. WE must also deal with one other question which was seriously debated before us and that question is as to what is the measure of liability of an enterprise which is engaged in an hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, if by reason of an accident occurring in such industry, persons die or are injured. Does the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher apply or is there any other principle on which the liability can be determined. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was evolved in the year 1866 and it provides that a person who for his own purposes brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril and, if he fails to do so, is prima facie liable for the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The liability under this rule is strict and it is no defence that the thing escaped without that person s willful act, default or neglect or even that he had no knowledge of its existence. This rule laid down a principle of liability that if a person who brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do harm and such thing escapes and does damage to another, he is liable to compensate for the damage caused. Of course, this rule applies only to non-natural user of the land and it does not apply to things naturally on the land or where the escape is due to an act of God and act of a stranger or the default of the person injured or where the thing which escapes is present by the consent of the person injured or in certain cases where there is statutory authority. Vide Halsbury s Laws of England, vol. 45. para 1305. Considerable case law has developed in England as to what is natural and what is non-natural use of land and what are precisely the circumstances in which this rule may be displaced. Vide Halsbury s Laws of England, vol. 45. para 1305. Considerable case law has developed in England as to what is natural and what is non-natural use of land and what are precisely the circumstances in which this rule may be displaced. But it is not necessary for us to consider those decisions laying down the parameters of this rule because in a modern industrial society with highly developed scientific knowledge and technology where hazardous or inherently dangerous industries are necessary to carry as part of the developmental programme, this rule, evolved in the 19th century at a time when all these developments of science and technology had not taken place cannot afford any guidance in evolving any standard of liability consistent with the constitutional norms and the needs of the present day economy and social structure. We need not feel inhibited by this rule which was evolved in the context of a totally different kind of economy. Lawhas to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the fast changing society and keep abreast with the economic developments taking place in the country. As new situations arise the law had to be evolved in order to meet the challenge of such new situations. Law cannot afford to remain static. We have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialised economy. We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that in any other foreign country. We no longer need the crutches of a foreign legal order. We are certainly prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes but we have to build our own jurisprudence and we cannot countenance an argument that merely because the law in England does not recognise the rule of strict and absolute liability in cases of hazardous or inherently dangerous activities or the rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher as developed in England recognises certain limitations and exceptions, we in India must hold back our hands and not venture to evolve a new principle of liability since English courts have not done so. We have to develop our own law and if we find that it is necessary to construct a new principle of liability to deal with an unusual situation which has arisen and which is likely to arise in future on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous industries which are concomitant to an industrial economy, there is no reason why we should hesitate to evolve such principle of liability merely because it has not been so done in England. We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say without any negligence on its part. Since the persons harmed on account of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity carried on by the enterprise would not be in a position to isolate the process of operation from the hazardous preparation of substance or any other related element that caused the harm the enterprise must be held strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of the social cost of carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. If the enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads. Such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for private profit can be tolerated only on condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not. Such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for private profit can be tolerated only on condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not. This principle is also sustainable on the ground that the enterprise alone has the resource to discover and guard against hazards or dangers and to provide warning against potential hazards. We would therefore hold that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. " ( 7 ) IT is thus clear that in a modern industrial society with highly developed scientific knowledge and technology where hazardous or inherently dangerous industries are necessary to carry as part of the development programme, the rule evolved in the 19th century at a time when all these developments of science and technology had not taken place consistent with the constitutional norms and the needs of the present day economy and social structure need not be inhibited by the rule in Rylands Vs. Fletcher. Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the fast changing society and keep abreast with the economic developments taking place in the country. New principles have to be evolved and new norms have to be laid down which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialised economy. Judicial thinking cannot be allowed to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for that matter of that in any other foreign country. New principles have to be evolved and new norms have to be laid down which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialised economy. Judicial thinking cannot be allowed to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for that matter of that in any other foreign country. We no longer need the crutches of a foreign legal order and we have to build our own jurisprudence and we cannot countenance an argument that merely because the law in England does not recognise the rule of strict and absolute liability in cases of hazardous or inherently dangerous activities or the rule laid down in Rylands Vs. Fletcher as developed in England recognise certain limitations and exceptions, we in India must hold back and not venture to evolve a new principle of liability since English Courts have not done so. We have to develop our own law and if we find that it is necessary to construct a new principle of liability to deal with an unusual situation which has arisen and which is likely to arise in future on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous industries which are concomitant to an industrial economy, there is no reason why we should hesitate to evolve such principle of liability merely because it has not been so done in England. We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it had undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer for the enterprise to urge that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part. It is in this background that we have to examine the present case as to whether or not there was any negligence on the part of the Delhi Vidyut Board in the installation and maintenance of its transformer from where the fire is stated to have started and whether or not there was any negligence on the part of other authorities in not observing the highest standards to ensure that no such incident of fire took place and even if such an incident takes place, there should be easy egress of the patrons from the cinema hall. We are of the opinion that even if there was no negligence but it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that there were statutory violations of the safety standards by the authorities, these violations may be sufficient for us to hold the respondents liable for compensation to the victims of the unfortunate incident and may be for damages. ( 8 ) A few facts relevant for deciding this petition may be briefly stated as under :- uphaar Cinema was started in 1973. In terms of the Cinematograph Act, a cinema cannot be run without obtaining license from the Licensing Authority as envisaged under Section 10 of the Act. In terms of Section 11 of the Act, the Licensing Authority as in 1973 was the District Magistrate. After the coming into force of the Commissioner of Police system in Delhi in 1978, the Commissioner of Police was notified as the licensing authority under the Act. Under Section 10 of the Act, license to be granted to a cinema hall can be either annualor temporary or casual. All cinemas in Delhi are, therefore, required to get their licenses renewed annually by moving an application in writing to the licensing authority. The licensing authority at the time of grant or renewal of the license is required to satisfy itself about the licencee having complied with the provisions of the Delhi Cinematograph Act and the Rules framed thereunder. When the cinema was originally constructed, the licence was being granted under the provisions of the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953. However, after the coming into force of the Commissioner of Police system, the Rules were amended and the Delhi Cinematograph Rules 1981 have now come into force. When the cinema was originally constructed, the licence was being granted under the provisions of the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953. However, after the coming into force of the Commissioner of Police system, the Rules were amended and the Delhi Cinematograph Rules 1981 have now come into force. In terms of Rule 3, the licence shall be granted in respect of a building which is permanently equipped with Cinematograph rules and in respect of which the requirements set forth in 1st schedule of these Rules are fulfilled. The first schedule to the Rules lays down the specifications with which compliance must be made before any annual licence is granted in respect of any building. Besides other things, the schedule lays down specifications regarding number of persons accommodated in the cinema hall and the manner in which the seats can be provided therein. The Rules insofar as they are relevant for accommodation, sitting, the width of gangways, stairways, exists, etc. read as under:- 6. ACCOMMODATION (1) the total number of spectators accommodated in the building shall not exceed twenty per hundred square feet of the area available for sitting and standing or twenty per 133-1/2 square feet of over all area of the floor space in the auditorium. 2. A notice showing the number of spectators permitted by the conditions of the license to be admitted to any one part of the building shall be exhibited at a prominent place either at the entrance of the building or in the auditorium. 7. SEATING (1) The seating in the building shall be arranged so that there is free excess to exists. (2)THE space assigned to each person shall not be less than twenty eight inches deep where backs are provided and not less than twenty four inches deep where backs are not provided and not less than twenty inches wide where arms are provided and eighteen where arms are not provided. (3) The rows of seats shall be so arranged that there is a clear space of not less than fifteen inches between the back of one seat and the foremost portion of the seat arm of frame behind measured between perpendiculars. (4) All seats, except those in private boxes, shall be securely fixed to the floor, and if battened together or made in inks, the complete ink shall be firmly attached to the floor. (4) All seats, except those in private boxes, shall be securely fixed to the floor, and if battened together or made in inks, the complete ink shall be firmly attached to the floor. (5) The distance between the front row of seats and the screen shall not be less than twenty five feet in case of cinema coming into existence after 13th March, 1952. 8. GANGWAY - (1) Gangway not less than forty-four inches wide shall be provided in the building as follows :- (A) Down each side of the auditorium. (B) Down the centre of the seating accommodation at intervals of not more than twenty-five feet. (C) Parallel to the line of the seating so as to provide direct access to exists, provided that not more than one gangway for every ten rows shall be required. (2) All gangways, exists and the treads of steps and stairways shall be maintained with non-slippery surfaces. (3) Druggets, matting and floor covering, if provided in gangways, shall be securely fastened to the floors. (4) The exists and the gangways and passages leading barriers provided in accordance with sub-rule (6 ). On no account shall extra seats be placed in the gangways or spectators be allowed to stand in the gangways at the time of performances in such a way as to block or effectively reduce their width. (5) If steps have to be inserted a gangway or passage there shall be no less than three steps at any one place. The treads shall not be less than fifteen inches wide and shall be of uniform width and height. (6) Rope barriers in gangways or elsewhere shall be fitted with clips or fastenings which will part in the centre on slight pressure, and shall not trail on the floor. (7) Guard rails not less than three feet six inches above floor level shall be provided on the parapet at the foot of gangways in galleries where the incline of gangway exceeds fifteen degrees. (9) STAIRWAYS - (1) There shall be at least two stairways each not less than four feet wide to provide access to any gallery or upper floor in the building which is intended for use by the public. (2) The treads and risers on each flight of stairs shall be of uniform width and height. (9) STAIRWAYS - (1) There shall be at least two stairways each not less than four feet wide to provide access to any gallery or upper floor in the building which is intended for use by the public. (2) The treads and risers on each flight of stairs shall be of uniform width and height. The treads shall not be less than eleven inches wide and the risers shall not be more than seven inches high. (3) There shall be no winders. (4) A continuous hand rail shall be fitted to each side of stairways. (5) No stairways shall discharge into a passage or corridor against or across the direction of exit. 10. EXITS : - (1) Every public portion of the building shall be provided with an adequate number of clearly indicated exists placed in such positions and so maintained as to afford the audience ample means of safe and speedy egress. (2) In the auditorium there shall be atleast one exit from every tier, floor, or gallery for every hundred persons accommodated or part thereof : PROVIDED further that an exit on or by way of stage or platform shall not be reckoned as one of exits required by this rule. (3) Every exit from the auditorium shall provide a clear opening space of not less than seven feet high and five feet wide. (4) Exits from the auditorium shall be suitably spaced along both sides and along the back thereof and shall deliver into two or more different thorough fares or open space from which there are at all times free means of rapid dispersal. (5) Every passage or corridor leading from an exit in the auditorium to a final place or exit from the building shall be of such width as will in the opinion of the licensing authority enable the persons who are likely to use it in an emergency to leave the building without danger of crowding or congestion. At no point shall any such passage or corridor be less than five feet wide and it shall not diminish in width in the direction of the final place of exit. (6) The combined width of the final place of exit from the building shall be such that there are at least five feet of exit width for every hundred persons that can be accommodated in the building. (6) The combined width of the final place of exit from the building shall be such that there are at least five feet of exit width for every hundred persons that can be accommodated in the building. (7) All exit doors shall open outwards and shall be so fitted that when opened they do not obstruct any gangway, passage, corridor, stairway or landing. (8) All exit doors and doors through which the public have to pass on the way to the open air shall be available for exit during the whole time that the public are in the building and during such time shall not be locked or bolted. (9) All exits from the auditorium and all doors or openings (other than the main entrance) intended for egress from the building shall be clearly indicated by the word "exit" in block letters, which shall not be less than seven inches high and shall be so displayed as to be clearly visible in the light as well as in the dark. (10) All other doors of openings shall be so constructed as to be clearly distinguishable from exits. They may be indicated by the words "no THOROUGHFARE" arranged as in the figure below, but no notice bearing the words "no EXIT" shall be used in any part of the building. ( 9 ) CLAUSE 16 of the 1st schedule provides the fire precautions which are required to be taken by the cinema hall and the fire extinguishing appliances which must be readily available at the time of an emergency. Clause 16 of the 1st schedule reads as under:- FIRE PRECAUTIONS - (1) Fire extinguishing appliances suitable to the character of the building and of a pattern, class and capacity approved by the licensing authority shall be provided as prescribed by him; these appliances shall be disposed to his satisfaction so as to be readily available for use in case of fire in any part of the building. (2) There shall always be sufficient means of dealing with the fire readily available within the enclosure and these shall include a damp blanket, a portale chemical fire extinguisher and two buckets of dry sand. (3) All fire extinguishing appliances shall at all times be maintained in proper working order and available for instant use, and all chemical fire extinguishers shall be capable of withstanding a pressure of not less than 250 lbs. (3) All fire extinguishing appliances shall at all times be maintained in proper working order and available for instant use, and all chemical fire extinguishers shall be capable of withstanding a pressure of not less than 250 lbs. square inch. (4) during an exhibition all fire extinguishing appliances shall be in charge of some person or persons specially appointed for this purpose. Such persons need not be employed exclusively in looking after the fire appliances but they must not be given any other work during an exhibition which would take them away from the building or otherwise prevent them from being immediately available in case of danger or alarm of fire. ( 10 ) IN terms of the schedule there must be a clear space of not less than 15 inches between the back of one seat and the foremost portion of the seat arm of frame being measured between perpendiculars and the distance between the front row of seats and the screen shall not be less than 25 feet in case of cinema coming into existence after 13th March, 1952. In terms of the Rule, gangways shall not be less than 44 inches wide and shall be so provided that there is also gangway down on each side of the auditorium; a gangway down the centre of the sitting accommodation at intervals of not more than 25 feet; parallel to the line of the seating so as to provide direct access to exits, provided that not more than one gangway for every ten rows shall be required. All gangways, exits and the treads of steps and stairways are required to be maintained with non-slippery surfaces. There is also requirement of at least two stairways each not less than four feet wide to provide access to any gallery or upper floor in the building which is intended for use by the public. Every public portion of the building is required to be provided with an adequate number of clearly indicated exits placed in such positions and so maintained as to afford the audience ample means of safe and speedy egress. There is required to be at least one exit from every tier, floor, or gallery for every 100 persons accommodated or part thereof provided that for every upper floor or gallery there shall not be less than two exits. There is required to be at least one exit from every tier, floor, or gallery for every 100 persons accommodated or part thereof provided that for every upper floor or gallery there shall not be less than two exits. Exits from the auditorium should be provided suitably spaced along both sides and along the back thereof and shall deliver into two or more different thorough fares or open space from which there are at all times free means of rapid dispersal. ( 11 ) BEFORE issuing or renewing a licence, the licensing authority is required to obtain reports from the health and fire authorities. ( 12 ) IN the year 1975, there was a general cut of 10% in the rates which had already been fixed by the Delhi Administration for the sale of cinema tickets. The holder of the licence felt aggrieved by the said cut in the cinema rates and made a representation to the Delhi Administration pointing out that the expenses had gone up for a number of years and the rates which had been fixed were already proving unbearable. The representation of the holder of the Association of Motion Pictures exhibitors was considered by the Lt. Governor and the Administration agreed to relax the Rules and allowed the licencees to add to the existing number of seats in their cinema halls certain seats to make the good the loss caused to the licencees by the reduction in the rates by 10% made in 1975. Uphaar Cinema was also permitted to add 43 seats in balcony and 57 seats in the main hall. A notification to that effect was issued by the licensing authority on 30th September, 1976. As a result of the relaxation of the Rules, 43 seats were added in the balcony and 57 seats were added in the main hall. On receipt of a report from the Chief Fire Officer that the addition of seats was a fire hazard, the Lt. Governor on 27th July, 1979 issued a notification canceling with immediate effect the earlier notifications by which relaxation had been granted to the different licencees who were thereby allowed to increase the number of seats in their theatres. This notification was challenged by the cinema owners by filing a writ petition in this Court. Governor on 27th July, 1979 issued a notification canceling with immediate effect the earlier notifications by which relaxation had been granted to the different licencees who were thereby allowed to increase the number of seats in their theatres. This notification was challenged by the cinema owners by filing a writ petition in this Court. The writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 29th November, 1979. The Division Bench of this Court held that the Administration could not have granted the relaxations if such relaxations would have contravened the Rules to such an extent as to increase the risk of fire hazard or to expose the spectators to unhealthy conditions from the public health view point. Therefore, the advice of the fire and health authorities had to be taken before relaxation could at all be granted. A perusal of the file showed that the Chief Fire Officer was very reluctant to advise the making of relaxation in the rules if the safety of the visitors to the theatres would be affected thereby and he in his note observed as under :- " Even under the normal circumstances the exit facilities are seriously hampered by people rushing and it is felt that in case of panicky situation of a minor nature, the people will be put to great difficulty which may even result in stampede. In the circumstances, I feel that it would not be advisable to allow extra seats required by the Managements. In a few theaters, however, the difficulty may not be so acute. It at all any relaxation has to be considered under unavoidable circumstances, our reaction to the proposals but forward by the management of a few cinema houses may kindly be seen in the enclosure". ( 13 ) THE Court further observed that the Chief Fire Officer then considered certain individual cinema theatres and gave his opinion regarding each of them. The Chief Fire Officer, however, improved this report because he was made to understand that with a view to compensate the licensees for the economic loss caused to them by the restriction imposed on the rights of admission to the cinemas, some relaxation had to be made and some additional seats had to be permitted to be installed in the cinema theaters. But for these "unavoidable circumstances" the question of relaxation might not have been considered at all and the Chief Fire Officer also would not have advised freely that there was scope for the increase in the number of seats. However, the very fact that the Fire Officer had agreed to the increase of seats in some of the cinemas would also show that he was prepared to take that risk in consonance with the compliance with the Rules. The Administration, the Public Health authorities and the Chief Fire Officer ultimately agreed to make some of these relaxations. ( 14 ) THE Court, therefore, held that relaxation granted under the proviso to Rule 3 (3) was capable of being modified or revoked and the cancellation of the relaxation was, therefore, justified and legal. The matter, however, did not end there. The Court further observed that by simply withdrawing the relaxation would not automatically mean that all the additional seats which were installed in the cinema theaters were contrary to rules and must, therefore, be dismantled without any consideration as to how many of these seats were in consonance with the rules and how many were contrary to the rules. The Court, therefore, directed the administration to apply their mind to the additional seats with a view to determine which of them had contravened which rule and to what extent keeping in mind that the compliance with the rules was to be substantial and not rigid. ( 15 ) AFTER the notification dated 30th September, 1976 was issued permitting Uphaar Cinema to add 100 seats and before the judgment of the Court was delivered on 27th November, 1979, the Entertainment Tax Officer by an order dated 6th October, 1978 had permitted Uphaar Cinema to install 8 seats in the box and use the same subject to the condition that no tickets will be sold against those eight seats and only complimentaries will be issued. When the notification dated 27th July, 1979 was passed cancelling the additional seats permitted by the notification dated 30th September, 1976 and letter dated 27th July, 1979 was issued by the DCP (Licensing) to Uphaar Cinema informing them that with the cancellation of notification, the additional seats allowed to be added in the cinema hall stood withdrawn and they should immediately remove the seats, no reference was made to the withdrawal of the letter dated 6th October, 1978 by which the cinema was permitted to add eight seats in the private box. The effect of addition of these eight seats was that the "exit" on the right side of the balcony (when facing the screen) was closed and there was thus no way to go out of the cinema hall from the right side of the balcony except through the "exit" door at the extreme left top corner of the balcony. After the judgment of the Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1010/79, the then DCP (Licencing) issued a notice on 6th December, 1979 to the Uphaar Cinema calling upon it to explain as to why the 100 additional seats permitted to be added vide notification dated 30th September, 1976 should not be removed after the cancellation of the said notification vide the notification dated 27th July, 1979. No reference was made in this notice also to the additional seats added in the box vide the aforesaid 1978 order of the Entertainment Tax Officer. After giving a hearing to the licencee of the cinema, the then DCP (Licencing) by his order dated 24th December, 1979 observed that 6 additional seats (seat No. 8 in rows a to f) and all the 56 additional seats in the main hall were blocking vertical gangway causing obstruction to fire egress of patrons from the hall. It was observed by him that those 62 additional seats were in gross violation of paragraphs 7 (i) and 8 (i) of the Ist Schedule of Delhi Cinematograph Rules 1953 and must, therefore, be removed and the original number of vertical gangways in the hall must be restored. The DCP (Licensing), however, held that the remaining 57 additional seats in the balcony were found to be in substantial compliance of the rules and might, therefore, be retained. The DCP (Licensing), however, held that the remaining 57 additional seats in the balcony were found to be in substantial compliance of the rules and might, therefore, be retained. Even in this letter, no reference was made to the 8 seater box by which the "exit" at the rear right side of the balcony was closed. After the passing of this order, the licencee of Uphaar Cinema appeared to have sought permission to add 15 more seats in the balcony so as to make the total number of seats in the balcony as 302. This proposal was sent by the DCP (Licensing) to the Executive Engineer, PWD who by his letter dated 10th September, 1980 wrote to DCP (Licensing) that the total number of seats in the balcony were 287 and by adding these 15 seats, the total number of seats in the balcony would be 302; the number of exists at site were at present three and as per the Ist Schedule of Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953, the number of exits should be one per 100 seats and on account of which two seats would be in excess but at the time of removal of additional seats in October, 1979 during a meeting held in the room of the DCP where the DCP and the Chief Fire Officer were also present, it was decided that keeping in view the High Court s order for substantial compliance, the excess number of seats over the required number of exits should be allowed and, accordingly, so many cinemas were allowed to retain excess number of seats than the permissible limit of one exit per 100 seats and keeping that decision in view, these excess seats could also be allowed and the proposal of an additional 15 seats would be in conformity with the Delhi Cinematograph Rules 1953. On receipt of this recommendation from the Executive Engineer, PWD, the DCP (Licensing) by his order dated 4th October, 1980 permitted the cinema to install 15 additional seats i. e. 2 additional rows each of 3 seats in front of the exit in the balcony, one seat against back wall adjacent to seat number 38 and eight additional seats in the balcony by adding one seat in rows a to h by making three additional seats in three rows. As a result of the addition of these seats, though the number of vertical gangways remained the same, however, not only that the exit from the right side of the balcony was closed but even the vertical gangway to the extreme right of the balcony along with the wall was also closed and instead a vertical gangway was created between seat Nos. 8 and 9 on the right side of the balcony. Even the width of the gangways was reduced from 120 CMs to 90 CMs and there was clear absence of foot lights near the floor. ( 16 ) AS a result of the closure of the exit, a visitor to the cinema hall sitting at the extreme right side of the balcony had to come out from the left side exit door and there was thus only one stairways available for him to go to the ground floor so as to get out of the building. In terms of the rules, there must be two stairways available to the patrons for coming in and going out of the cinema hall. From the foyer of the balcony, if one wanted to go to the right side stairways, he wold come across a glass door which used to remain normally closed at the time of the start of the show, as, according to the management of the cinema hall, that stairway was used mainly by the patrons coming to see the next show of the film. According to Mr. Tulsi, these deviations in the balcony, namely, addition of additional seats, closure of exit, closure of gangway at the extreme right of the balcony, contributed to a large extent in obstructing smooth egress of the patrons from the cinema hall at the time of fire which contributed to a large extent to the deaths in the balcony because of asphyxiation. It is the case of Mr. Tulsi, learned counsel for the petitioners, that had this exit not been closed and the gangway had existed on the right side of the cinema hall, there would have been smooth egress by the patrons from the balcony through that exit as well which would have led them to the stairway and then out of the building. Tulsi, learned counsel for the petitioners, that had this exit not been closed and the gangway had existed on the right side of the cinema hall, there would have been smooth egress by the patrons from the balcony through that exit as well which would have led them to the stairway and then out of the building. It is submitted by him that because of the exit being closed and the other stairway not being available, there was almost a chaos in the cinema hall at the time of fire which resulted in delay in the egress of patrons and they died, on coming out of the balcony, because of asphyxiation. ( 17 ) BESIDES the deviation in the gangways, arrangement of seats and exit, etc. , inside the balcony the other major deviation, according to Mr. Tulsi, was raising of the 3 feet high parapet wall at one end of the ground floor, almost behind the transformer room, to the ceiling level. Submission of Mr. Tulsi is that in the original plan, the Municipal Corporation had approved only a 3 feet high parapet wall but the cinema owners not only raised the same to the ceiling level but also constructed a dispensary by its side above the ramp thus the ramp going to the basement was virtually closed. Contention of Mr. Tulsi, therefore, is that had this wall been not in existence, the smoke coming out of the transformer room would have gone out from the open space where this wall existed and the same would have not reached the balcony through the stairway and thus the tragedy could have been averted. It is also the submission of Mr. Tulsi that by construction of the dispensary the owners had violated the building bye-laws and the way to the ramp was closed which also contributed to the smoke not going out in the open and thus reaching the balcony floor through the stairway. Another deviation in the building argued by Mr. Tulsi was that the owners had constructed an independent intermediate floor of RS Joist on the ground floor. It is the contention of Mr. Tulsi that as the intermediate floor was constructed of wood, the same contributed to the spreading of fire and smoke reaching the balcony floor of the building through the stairway. ( 18 ) DR. Tulsi was that the owners had constructed an independent intermediate floor of RS Joist on the ground floor. It is the contention of Mr. Tulsi that as the intermediate floor was constructed of wood, the same contributed to the spreading of fire and smoke reaching the balcony floor of the building through the stairway. ( 18 ) DR. DHAWAN appearing on behalf of the cinema owners has tried to controvert the allegations of the petitioners insofar as the deviations in the structure of the building and/or in the arrangement of seats in the hall were concerned. It is submitted by Dr. Dhawan that no additional seat was added without the sanction of the licensing authority. He submits that the seats in the cinema halls were in substantial compliance of the rules and the same were added after no objection certificates were given by the Chief Fire Officer as well as by the Executive Engineer. It is submitted that after closing the gangway by the side of the wall, the owners had introduced a new gangway in the middle in lieu of the same and hence there was no voluntary closure of the right side gangway by the owners. He submits that three exit doors were provided as per rules in the balcony and closure of the right side gangway and the exit gate made no difference nor was there any violation of the rules. He submits that placing of additional seats in the right gangway by the side of the wall and creating the box on the right side resulted in automatic closure of the exit gate and the owners, therefore, provided an extra exit gate at the same level of the balcony on the left side and their being thus no reduction in the exit doors, no difference has been made by closure of the exit on the right side of the balcony. He submits that the provision of Section 12 (i) (a) of the Cinematograph Act stipulates the substantial compliance with rules and principle of substantial compliance has also been upheld by the Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 29th November, 1979. He submits that the DCP (Licensing) while examining the number of exit gates at the time of sanctioning additional 15 seats had held that three gates for 302 seats amounted to substantial compliance of the rule of providing one "exit" gate per 100 patrons. He submits that the DCP (Licensing) while examining the number of exit gates at the time of sanctioning additional 15 seats had held that three gates for 302 seats amounted to substantial compliance of the rule of providing one "exit" gate per 100 patrons. ( 19 ) THE other major structural deviation in the building alleged by the petitioners is the construction of the rear wall at the back of the transformer room. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the wall as originally sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was only a 3 feet high parapet wall but the respondents have now raised it to the ceiling level and, according to the petitioner, construction of this wall has contributed, to a large extent, the smoke not going out of the building and going to the balcony through the stairway. Mr. Tulsi, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his argument that this wall was constructed in violation of the building bye-laws and in violation of the building plan sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has placed reliance upon the inspection report dated 11th August, 1997 prepared by the Engineers of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another report dated 2nd August, 1997 prepared by the Engineers of the Public Works Department. The contention of Dr. Dhawan, however, is that this wall was duly sanctioned and there was thus no question of the same being unauthorised. It is submitted by him that in the plans submitted by the owners for additions/alterations of the building and sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 20th May, 1972, this wall was proposed to be built up to the ceiling level along with the ramp. It is submitted that in 1973 again additions/alteration plans of the building were submitted to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and these plans were sanctioned on 22nd March, 1973. Contention of Dr. Dhawan is that in the plans which were sanctioned in 1973, the wall was shown to have been constructed and the same was not shown to be deleted and the wall, therefore, stood erected and is continuing to exist since 1972. It is also his contention that neither the Commissioners appointed by the Court in their report dated 30th November, 2000 nor the Naresh Kumar Enquiry Report makes a mention about this wall being unauthorised. It is also his contention that neither the Commissioners appointed by the Court in their report dated 30th November, 2000 nor the Naresh Kumar Enquiry Report makes a mention about this wall being unauthorised. It is also his contention that even the DCP (Licensing) in his various inspection reports submitted from time to time has not made any mention of this wall being unauthorised or being a deviation from the original building plan. It is, therefore, submitted that the argument about construction of 12 feet high rear wall is only red herring. ( 20 ) STILL another deviation upon which emphasis has been laid by Mr. Tulsi is the construction of a mazzanine floor on the R. S. Joist. It is submitted by Mr. Tulsi that the wooden floor constructed by the respondents/owners of the building so as to create a mazzanine floor on the R. S. Joist was burnt with fire and contributed to the spread of smoke to the upper floors of the building. The contention of Dr. Dhawan, however, is that the wooden flooring on the R. S. Joist was removed as far back as in 1983 and it was never put up again. It is submitted by him that absence of ash and remnants of the wood on the floor clearly show that there was no wooden planks at the time of fire taking place in the building. It is submitted that existence of R. S. Joist would not in any manner contribute to the flow of smoke to the higher floors. It is submitted that the R. S. Joists could not be removed as they were embedded permanently in the columns of the building and their removal would have caused danger to the stability of the structure itself. ( 21 ) IT would not be out of place to mention here that the licence of the cinema was sought to be suspended by the Licensing authority in June, 1983 for alleged violations of different provisions and rules under the Cinematograph Act and the rules framed thereunder and the cinema was required to obtain clearance certificates from various authorities within four days failing which it was threatened that the licence would be revoked. On receipt of this notice from the licensing authority, the cinema owners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi being C. W. P. No. 1347/83. On receipt of this notice from the licensing authority, the cinema owners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi being C. W. P. No. 1347/83. On 28th June, 1983 when the matter came up before the Court for hearing, the Court stayed the operation of the order suspending the licence of the respondent/owners. This stay, we were informed, continued till the date of unfortunate incident. Before suspending the licence, an inspection of the cinema was carried out on 9th June, 1983 and 17th June, 1983 by a joint team of the representatives of the licensing branch of the Delhi Police, Delhi Development Authority and Delhi Fire Service. This inspection was carried out under instructions of the Lieutenant Governor following incidents of fire in L. P. G. Godown Shakur Basti and Gopala Towers at Rajindra Place with a view to detect deviations from structural plans and violations of safety regulations and other conditions of the licence. The violations noticed by the inspecting team after its visits on 9th and 17th June, 1983 were as under :- 1. ACCORDING to the sanctioned plan, the basement is to be used for parking of vehicles. A portion of the basement, however, has been covered and let out to M/s. East Coast Breweries and Distilleries who are using some portion of the area let out to them as their office and the rest for storing crates of Beer. 2. AS per the sanctioned plan, the distance between the stilt floor and the floor of the auditorium should be 7 6". An additional floor has been created between the stilt floor and the floor of the auditorium by providing a wooden plank flooring. A part of it has been let out to M/s. Nariers whereas the rest of it is lying vacant. The creation of additional space is a gross violation of the plan sanctioned by the MCD. 3. 3rd floor has been let out to various organisations namely, Trade Pumps Sales Private Limited, Public Construction Company, Besai Builders and Sarin and Associates whereas the same was sanctioned for offices of the administration of the cinema. 4. WOODEN planks have been removed as noticed at the time of second inspection but steel posts and RS Joists are still intact. 5. 4. WOODEN planks have been removed as noticed at the time of second inspection but steel posts and RS Joists are still intact. 5. A homeopathic dispensary was noticed between the stilts floor and the floor of the auditorium which has been created by providing wooden plank flooring. This structure is not only unauthorised but is also a fire hazard. 6. A part of the basement, made inaccessible from the basement level and having access from ground floor, was noticed in use of a printing press. This is not only a violation of building bye-laws but is also a big fire hazard. 7. A part of the basement meant for electric installation is being used for storage of combustible materials. This structure is also found to be highly objectionable from the fire safety point of view. 8. ON the top floor, an office has been created forming part of the staircase plus a left over it and attending to the portion above the toilet shown in the sanctioned plan. 9. ONE room at second floor mentioned as store in the completion certificate is being used as office of M/s. Anil Chopra and Company. 10. Many offices were noticed on the top floor for which no permission seems to have been taken as required under condition 17 of the licence. 11. THE space marked for a restaurant has been let out to a bank. ( 22 ) THESE deviations, according to the DCP (Licensing) amounted to contravention of conditions 1, 2 and 17 of the licence conditions, rule 23 and 47 of the Delhi Cinematograph Rules and paragraphs 2 and 18 of the First Schedule appended thereto. He, therefore, issued a notice to the cinema to show cause as to why the licence be not revoked under Rule 8 of the Rules. After considering the reply received from the cinema, order dated 27th June, 1983 was passed suspending the licence of the cinema for four days. As already mentioned above, this order was stayed by the Delhi High Court by its order dated 28th June, 1983. The licensee besides filing writ petition in this Court had also filed an appeal against the order dated 27th June, 1983 before the Lieutenant Governor. As already mentioned above, this order was stayed by the Delhi High Court by its order dated 28th June, 1983. The licensee besides filing writ petition in this Court had also filed an appeal against the order dated 27th June, 1983 before the Lieutenant Governor. While the appeal was pending before the Lieutenant Governor, the parties agreed to the constitution of a committee to verify and report whether the facts which were recorded and termed as violations in the order dated 27th June, 1983 existed or not. The committee in its report mentioned that objections at Sl. Nos. 1, 5 and 7 had been removed and as regards objections at Sl. Nos. 2 and 4, they were also partly removed. The committee in its report noted that while wooden planks from the intermediate floor had been removed, R. S. Joists were not removed and since the contention of the owner was that they were added so as to give stability to the columns, they should be permitted to remain there. The Lieutenant Governor in his order directed that the space meant for the management s office on third floor has been rented out to commercial organisations and the defendants had to remove that objection and restore the space to its authorised use. The Lieutenant Governor also directed to restore the space on the second floor for the purpose sanctioned under the plan by getting it vacated from the commercial firm to which it was given on rent. Insofar as the sanction granted by the licensing authority to convert the restaurant into a bank and other violations, the Lieutenant Governor gave further directions as under:-- " As regards objection at Serial No. 11, the committee has reported that the space meant for restaurant as per the sanctioned plan has been let out to a bank but this was done with the permission of the then Licensing Authority vide its letter No. F. 2 (48)/eto/1052 dated 11. 3. 1976. It is surprising that the Licensing Authority should have assumed the function of the local body by approving this deviation from the building plan sanctioned under the building bye-laws. The purpose of a restaurant is entirely different from that of a bank. 3. 1976. It is surprising that the Licensing Authority should have assumed the function of the local body by approving this deviation from the building plan sanctioned under the building bye-laws. The purpose of a restaurant is entirely different from that of a bank. Whereas a restaurant in a cinema is approved for the convenience of the patrons, opening a bank in the cinema premises is a purely commercial proposition from the point of view of the licensee. In any case, it is a deviation from the sanctioned building plan. The appellant should approach the local body to get it regularised/compounded. AFTER a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct as below :- THE respondents shall remove the objections mentioned at Serial Nos. 3, 6, 9 and 10 by 31st August, 1984. THE appellant shall make an application to the concerned local body i. e. Municipal Corporation of Delhi for regularisation/compounding of the objections mentioned at Serial Nos. 2, 4, 8 and 11 within a period of 7 days from the date of this order and the said local body shall dispose of this application within a period of one month. Such of the objections as the local body is not willing to regularise, shall be removed by the appellant by 31st August, 1984. THE appellant shall report compliance of the directions at No. 1 and 2 above to the Licensing authority on or before 1st September, 1984. THE appellant shall also give an undertaking to the Licensing authority, in the form and manner prescribed by it, that he shall not again indulge in any of the violations that he has removed on his own or in terms of this order. IN case, any one of the directions is not complied with, the order dated 27. 6. 1983 of the Licensing Authority shall come into operation. " ( 23 ) THE Lieutenant Governor expressed his displeasure over the manner in which the case was handled in the past by various authorities and wanted the Chief Secretary to examine the case from that angle and fix responsibility for lapses wherever they occurred. ( 24 ) A few other deviations alledged by Mr. " ( 23 ) THE Lieutenant Governor expressed his displeasure over the manner in which the case was handled in the past by various authorities and wanted the Chief Secretary to examine the case from that angle and fix responsibility for lapses wherever they occurred. ( 24 ) A few other deviations alledged by Mr. Tulsi, learned counsel for the petitioner, were as under :- I)THE exhaust fan provided in the transformer room opened inside the car parking area because the right side open space was closed by constructing 3 feet parapet wall upto the ceiling level; II) Room of the size of 14' X 7' adjoining the transformer room was constructed and used as a ticket counter; III) the restaurant and the portion of the ticket foyer in the front was sublet to Syndicate Bank. ( 25 ) AS already mentioned above, the case of the respondents is that the 3 feet high parapet wall was raised up to the ceiling level only after the plans were sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 30th May, 1972 and since the wall was constructed after the plans had been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the allegations about the exhaust of the transformer room opening inside the car parking area, according to the licensee, had no relevance or bearing on the spread of fire. It is also the case of the respondents that the canteen and a portion of the foyer in front of the ticket counter on the ground floor was converted into a bank after necessary permission was granted by the authorities. Similarly, according to the respondents, insofar as the construction of the counter adjoining the transformer room was concerned, the same was constructed near the car parking exit door as per the completion certificate. ( 26 ) AS already mentioned above, immediately after the incident of fire, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi had instituted an Inquiry Committee headed by Mr. Naresh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (South), Government of NCT of Delhi. Mr. Naresh Kumar after recording the evidence of some of the witnesses and after perusal of the material placed before him, submitted his report known as Naresh Kumar Enquiry Report. By our order dated 29th February, 2000 we had also appointed Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Senior Advocate, Delhi High Court, Mr. T. K. Dutta, Head of Civil Engineering Department, IIT, New Delhi and Dr. By our order dated 29th February, 2000 we had also appointed Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Senior Advocate, Delhi High Court, Mr. T. K. Dutta, Head of Civil Engineering Department, IIT, New Delhi and Dr. Sanjeev Jain in Mechanical Engineering Department, IIT, New Delhi as Court commissioners to visit the site and to submit report as to whether or not all rules and regulations and statutory provisions were complied with and if not to what extent. The Court commissioners have submitted their report indicating the structural deviations alleged to have been committed by the owners of the cinema hall. The report of the commissioners giving floor-wise deviations/violations by the owners of the cinema may be reproduced as under :- 13. FLOORWISE DEVIATION/violations A. BASEMENT FLOOR : (I) four partition walls were constructed in the basement hall meant for parking (Deviation and Violation-BBL 14. 12. 2; There was no proof of the approval granted by the Authority ). (II) inflammable materials such as seats, frames, planks were stored in the basement. (Violation-BBL 14. 12. 1. 1) (III) a number of rooms such as air washer room next to the blower room; rooms/offices next to A/c ducts and the lift well; stores below the ramp were made in the basement. (Deviation and Violation-BBL 14. 12. 1. 1 ). Offices were not airconditioned and not included in far. (IV) a temporary wooden structure was made in the basement (Deviation and Violation-BBL 14. 12. 1. 1) (V) one of the stairs leading to basement was closed by wooden planks and occupied by M/s. Shegal Carpets. (Deviation and Violation-BBL 16. 4. 3. and 16. 4. 4.) (VI) an air washer system was provided. (Deviation- indicative of building not being air-conditioned at al times of usage ). (VII) airconditioning plant room does not conform to the safety code IS660-1963, 3. 1. 3.-3. 1. 6 and 3. 3. regarding ventilation, emergency, exits, fire extinguisher, First aid equipment, Gas masks, Servicing space. (VIII) staircase leading to the basement was not of enclosed type serving as a fire separator (Violation-BBL 14. 12. 1. 1) B. GROUND FLOOR/stilt FLOOR: (I) some modifications were made in the sanctioned manager's room such as removal of adjoining toilet, conversion of the front wall into a glass partition/door. (Deviation) (II) the space sanctioned for restaurant was let out to a bank and other offices (found sealed ). (Deviation ). 12. 1. 1) B. GROUND FLOOR/stilt FLOOR: (I) some modifications were made in the sanctioned manager's room such as removal of adjoining toilet, conversion of the front wall into a glass partition/door. (Deviation) (II) the space sanctioned for restaurant was let out to a bank and other offices (found sealed ). (Deviation ). (III) a ticket booth was constructed near the car parking entry door. (Deviation ). (IV) the partition walls between the L. T. , Transformer and h. T. Rooms were altered, keeping the same outer envelope. (Deviation ). (V) a dispensary behind the transformer rooms, over a portion of ramp, was constructed. (Deviation ). (VI) one toilet adjoining A. C. Duct was constructed (Deviation ). (VII) cars were found parked in front of entry/exit from the transformer room (Violation BBL 16 ). (VIII) horizontal framing of R. S. Joists was erected on the ground floor. Moreover, it was not strengthening any part of the existing structure. On the contrary, it appears that the structure was erected to create additional space. In fact, a part of the framing was used to support a office near the staircase (Deviation ). (IX) cycles and Scooters were found parked in front of the stairs (coming from the lower foyer) to the car parking area (Deviation and Violation-BBL-16 ). (X) a portion of the said wall around the staircase surrounding the lift was made up of glass panels. One of the glass panels was of full door size and found broken (Violation-BBL 16. 4. 3 ). (XI) the ladies toilet in the lower class foyer was found closed. (Violation-BBL Table 17 ). C. FIRST FLOOR: (I) two additional refreshment counters were constructed in the rear stall foyer (Deviation ). (II) one additional seat was added in the rearmost row near the left side exit door (Deviation) (III) an alteration was made in the ladies toilet by removing one of the areas earmarked for Air- conditioning duct. (Deviation ). (IV) two washrooms, originally sanctioned, were not existing (Deviation ). D. MEZANINE FLOOR: (I) one additional refreshment counter was constructed (Deviation ). (II) an air-conditioning unit was installed in the area sanctioned for Air-conditioning duct/wash room. (Deviation ). E. SECOND FLOOR/balcony: (I) the addition of (37+15) seats were made in the balcony over and above the 250 originally sanctioned. (IV) two washrooms, originally sanctioned, were not existing (Deviation ). D. MEZANINE FLOOR: (I) one additional refreshment counter was constructed (Deviation ). (II) an air-conditioning unit was installed in the area sanctioned for Air-conditioning duct/wash room. (Deviation ). E. SECOND FLOOR/balcony: (I) the addition of (37+15) seats were made in the balcony over and above the 250 originally sanctioned. Although permission was granted by D. C. P. (Licensing), but sufficient care was not taken to facilitate fire egress of the patrons sitting on the right side of auditorium. THE two gangways and one exit on the right side were closed and only one central gangway was provided in lieu of these. Due to this eccentric placement of the exits, the central exit was catering to at least about 200 people, much more than norm of one exit per 150 people. (Violation:dcr, Sch. 1 No. 12 ). It may be mentioned that as per the rules in force before 1981, the norm was one exit per 100 people. (II) inspection room was converted to a 18 seater box. (Deviation ). (III) a toilet block was converted into an office. (Deviation ). (IV) operators rest room and sweeper's room with toilet were converted into a retiring room with an attached toilet and office. (Deviation ). F. THIRD FLOOR: (I) the sanctioned administrative area was converted into office complex using wooden partitions and let out to various companies without independent means of escape. (Deviation and violation DCR Sch. 1 No. 2 ). (II) a few offices were also constructed around the lift well with wooden Floors and let out. Part of the sanctioned toilet block was also converted into an office. (Deviation ). G. TERRACE FLOOR: (I) the existing machine room is bigger in size than sanctioned. (Deviation ). ( 27 ) BESIDES the violations pointed out by the DCP (Licensing) in his report which was made the basis of suspension of licence in the year 1983 and which have been reproduced earlier in this order, Mr. Naresh Kumar in his report has observed as under :- " It was also noticed that there was some major deviations from building bye-laws which contributed converting the whole building into a death trap for innocent people. The office of Shegal Carpet is situated in the staircase which leads to the exit from the building. Naresh Kumar in his report has observed as under :- " It was also noticed that there was some major deviations from building bye-laws which contributed converting the whole building into a death trap for innocent people. The office of Shegal Carpet is situated in the staircase which leads to the exit from the building. That staircase has been converted into the office and given on rent to the Shegal Carpet. They did not even pause to think of the consequences of this deviation. THE other interesting deviation noticed during the course of the inquiry was that the portion which was meant for restaurant had been let out to a Bank. A lot of correspondence has been made by the Licensing authority in this regard with the licensee but it seems that the licensee was not interested in abiding by the laid down provisions of law. " ( 28 ) BESIDES the above structural deviations/violations, the Committee appointed by this Court as well as Naresh Kumar Inquiry Report have also made observations about the addition of seats, shortening of gangways, closure of the right side exit in their respective reports. To what extent these violations/deviations have been contributed to the spread of fire would be discussed by us at a later stage. ( 29 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Tulsi, the car parking area was over parked with more than double the number of cars for which the car parking was meant. It is his submission that the manner in which the cars were parked enhanced the danger of fire from the transformer. He has relied upon the statement of the sweeper Sunil and the parking assistant Vijay Kumar who have both stated in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the police that the cars were parked in front of the transformer. Mr. R. K. Sethi, car parking contractor in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C has stated that he was not given any instructions by the owners of the cinema not to let cars be parked in front of the transformer room. It is not in dispute that right in front of the transformer room or in its vicinity, the cars were parked and it is also not in dispute that the contessa car parked next to the transformer room was the first to catch fire. It is not in dispute that right in front of the transformer room or in its vicinity, the cars were parked and it is also not in dispute that the contessa car parked next to the transformer room was the first to catch fire. To what extent, the improper parking of cars and over crowding of the parking area has contributed to the spread of smoke is a question to be examined by this Court, however, we have no hesitation in holding that the parking area was not only over crowded but the cars were also not parked in a proper manner and were parked in the vicinity of the transformer room which could be a fire hazard. ( 30 ) ANOTHER point on which the parties are in issue is the installation of the transformer. While according to Mr. Tulsi, the transformer was installed by the Delhi Vidyut Board (Formerly known as Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking) in total violation of the rules and bye-laws framed for installation of such transformer and that was done with the consent and connivance of the owners of the cinema and the owners of the cinema had agreed to the installation of the transformer on the first floor of the building so as to get a favour from the Delhi Vidyut Board. Contention of Dr. Dhawan is that the licensee had no choice but to provide space for installing transformer by the Delhi Vidyut Board and the same was not provided for getting any favour from the Delhi Vidyut Board. ( 31 ) AFTER construction of the theatre, an application was made for electricity connection on 29th July, 1972 by the licensee. Since the load required by the theatre was exceeding 100 KW, it was required to have HT connection and for HT connection, the consumer is required to provide a built up space for installing HT panel. Accordingly, the theatre was informed of the said requirement vide letter dated 13th September, 1972. The Executive Engineer (Planning) vide his note dated 30th November, 1972 intimated the concerned engineer that built up accommodation of 10. 5' X 15' size may be accepted from the party for housing HT panel. Accordingly, the theatre was informed of the said requirement vide letter dated 13th September, 1972. The Executive Engineer (Planning) vide his note dated 30th November, 1972 intimated the concerned engineer that built up accommodation of 10. 5' X 15' size may be accepted from the party for housing HT panel. While the matter was under process, the Executive Engineer (D-VII) vide his letter dated 5th January, 1973 requested the theatre to hand over a suitable building of 45' X 75' for installation of a sub-station of Delhi Vidyut Board and its HT and LT panels. This type of large space is required only for a colony developed by the Delhi Development Authority and is not applicable to the individual consumers. After protracted correspondence, Mr. Sushil Ansal, Managing Director of the licensee agreed to give the premises to Delhi Vidyut Board for setting up their sub-station on the ground floor of the building at a nominal rent of Rs. 11/- per year. The theatre had agreed to give two rooms measuring 10'6" X 30' and 10'6" X 15' for Delhi Vidyut Board transformer and HT/lt panels and also undertook to execute the civil maintenance work. Since the party had agreed to give a space for setting up a sub-station, Delhi Vidyut Board not only set up a sub-station on the ground floor of the car parking area but a transformer exclusively for the use of the theatre was also installed along with the same. Initially a transformer of 500 KVA was installed in the sub-station which was subsequently augmented to 750 KVA and then in July, 1989 it was augmented to 1000 KVA. ( 32 ) FOR installation of the transformers, certain rules have been framed both under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as well as under the Indian Electricity Act. Under rules 32 and 33 of the Indian Electricity Rules proper earthing is to be provided on the consumers premises. Under Rule 36 before any conductor or apparatus is handled adequate precautions shall be taken, by earthing or other suitable means, to discharge electrically such conductor or apparatus, and any adjacent conductor or apparatus if there is danger therefrom. Under rules 32 and 33 of the Indian Electricity Rules proper earthing is to be provided on the consumers premises. Under Rule 36 before any conductor or apparatus is handled adequate precautions shall be taken, by earthing or other suitable means, to discharge electrically such conductor or apparatus, and any adjacent conductor or apparatus if there is danger therefrom. Every person who is working on an electric supply line or apparatus or both shall be provided with tools and devices such as gloves, rubber shoes, safety belts, ladders, earthing devices, helmets, line testers, hand lines and the like for protecting him from mechanical and electrical injury. No person is supposed to work on any live electric supply line or apparatus and no person shall assist such person on such work, unless he is authorised in that behalf, and takes the safety measures approved by the Inspector. Under Rules 42 and 43, the owners of all circuits and apparatus shall so arrange them that there shall be no danger of any part thereof becoming accidentally charged to any voltage beyond the limits of voltage for which they are intended. Fire buckets filled with clean dry sand and ready for immediate use for extinguishing fires, in addition to fire extinguishers suitable for dealing with electric fires, shall be conspicuously marked and kept in all generating stations, enclosed sub-stations and switch stations in convenient situation. The fire extinguishers shall be tested for satisfactory operation at least once a year and record of such tests shall be maintained. Two or more gas masks shall be provided conspicuously and installed and maintained at accessible places in every generating station with capacity of 5 MW and above and enclosed sub station with transformation capacity of 5 MVA and above for use in the event of fire or smoke. Under Rule 50 the energy shall not be supplied, transformed, converted or used or continued to be supplied, transformed, converted or used unless a provision is made for a circuit breaker by HV consumers having an aggregate installed transformer/apparatus capacity above 1000 KVA and supplied at 11 KV and above 2500 KVA supplied at higher voltages. Under Rule 50 the energy shall not be supplied, transformed, converted or used or continued to be supplied, transformed, converted or used unless a provision is made for a circuit breaker by HV consumers having an aggregate installed transformer/apparatus capacity above 1000 KVA and supplied at 11 KV and above 2500 KVA supplied at higher voltages. Under Rule 50 A in the case of supply and use of energy in multi-storeyed buildings more than 15 metres in height, the supplier/owner of the installation shall provide at the point of commencement of supply a suitable isolation device with cut out or breaker to operate on all phases except neutral in the 3 phase 4 wire circuit and fixed in a conspicuous position at not more than 2. 75 metres above the ground so as to completely isolate the supply to the building in case of emergency. Under Rule 51, at the time of installation of a transformer all conductors (other than those of overhead lines) are required to be completely enclosed in mechanicaly strong metal casting or metallic covering which is electrically and mechanically continuous and adequately protected against mechanical damage unless the said conductors are accessible only to an unauthorised person or are installed and protected to the satisfaction of the Inspector so as to prevent danger. Under Rule 61, the provision of providing neutral conductor of a phase, 4 wire system and the middle conductor of a 2 phase, 3 wire system shall be earthed by not less than two separate and distinct connections with a minimum of two different earth electrodes of such large number as may be necessary to bring the earth resistance to a satisfactory value both at the generating station and at the sub-station. Under Rule 61 A, earth leakage protective device is all circuit breakers are to be provided in case of earth fault or leakage of current. Under Rule 63, before installation of a transformer approval of the Inspector under the Rules is required to be taken. Under Rule 64 and Rule 64 A, at the time of installation of the transformer relays must be provided and cable trenches inside the sub-station and the switch station containing cables are to be filled with sand, pebbles or similar non-inflammable materials or completely covered with non-inflammable slabs. Under Rule 64 and Rule 64 A, at the time of installation of the transformer relays must be provided and cable trenches inside the sub-station and the switch station containing cables are to be filled with sand, pebbles or similar non-inflammable materials or completely covered with non-inflammable slabs. All systems and circuits are required to be so protected so as to automatically disconnect the supply in abnormal conditions by provision of relays and bouchold. Under Rule 65, all apparatus, cables and supply lines are to be maintained in healthy conditions and tests carried out periodically as per the relevant codes of practice, as per Bureau of Indian Standards. Records of all tests, trippings, maintenance works and repairs of all equipments, cables and supply lines are also required to be kept in such a way that this record may be compared with the earlier ones. ( 33 ) BOTH, according to Mr. Tulsi as well as Dr. Dhawan, the entire framework right from the installation to maintenance was defective and rules were followed more in breach than in observance. It is submitted that neither circuit breakers nor the relays were provided nor the earthing was provided at the generator. It is submitted that at the time of installation of the 1000 KVA transformer, approval as per Rule 63 was not taken and cable trenches were not provided nor bouchold were provided as provided under Rule 64 A. It is submitted that the Delhi Vidyut Board had not kept any maintenance schedule which was required to be kept not only in terms of the Rules but also in terms of the Bureau of Indian Standards. ( 34 ) IN his letter dated 16/17th July, 1997 the additional Chief Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board wrote to the DCP (Crime) that manual circuit breakers were provided but they could not operate due to absence of relays. He, however, stated in his letter that the relays were getting stolen all over Delhi and even at Uphaar Cinema, relays were found missing. According to him, no space for parking of cars was shown in sketch at the time of sanction of installation of the transformer, in front of the transformer room. He also stated that no intimation was available with the Delhi Vidyut Board indicating that the cinema was ever cautioned in writing that they should not permit the parking of cars in the vicinity of sub-station. He also stated that no intimation was available with the Delhi Vidyut Board indicating that the cinema was ever cautioned in writing that they should not permit the parking of cars in the vicinity of sub-station. He said that it was the primary responsibility of the cinema management to ensure that no inflammable materials are brought near sub-station equipments so that sparking which are inherent features of electric system do not result in escalation. As per the joint inspection of the transformer carried out after the fire, protective relays were not found in the transformer and there was no kerb at the entrance of the Delhi Vidyut Board transformer room to prevent the flow of oil outside. Fire fighting equipments were also not provided in the transformer room except that sand was available for that purpose. No maintenance record of the transformer was available except that it was installed on 9th July, 1989 and maintenance was carried out on 27th January, 1997. The Delhi Vidyut Board in its counter affidavit has not mentioned anything about the provision of relays, circuit breakers, earthing nor any maintenance record of the transformer has been filed by the Delhi Vidyut Board. ( 35 ) IT will be useful to give here a short background as to how the electricity was being received at the Delhi Vidyut Board (sub-station) installed on the ground floor of Uphaar Cinema and how it was transmitted from the sub-station to the consumers. The power to the sub-station is received from the 33/11 KV grid sub-station installed at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences via Green Park main and K-84 sub-stations. Power is received on the HT panels at 11000 Volts from where it is divided into two channels, one is leading to 1000 KVA DVB transformer and the other goes to 500 KVA Uphaar Cinema transformer. In this petition, we are only concerned with the 1000 KVA DVB transformer. At both the transformers, 11000 volts power supply is stepped down to 440 volts on LT side. The 440 volts power supply from the DVB transformer goes to LT panel in the switch gear room for onward distribution to the adjoining locality of Green Park Extension, commercial complex and to a few tenants in the Uphaar Cinema building. At both the transformers, 11000 volts power supply is stepped down to 440 volts on LT side. The 440 volts power supply from the DVB transformer goes to LT panel in the switch gear room for onward distribution to the adjoining locality of Green Park Extension, commercial complex and to a few tenants in the Uphaar Cinema building. From Uphaar Cinema transformer the 440 volts power supply is taken to the LT panels of the Cinema located in the basement from where it is supplied to various points inside the cinema. DVB sub-station, as already mentioned above, is required to be maintained by the Delhi Vidyut Board. As stated above, earlier the DVB had installed a transformer of 750 KVA in its sub-station but after the fire in their transformer sometimes in 1989, the Delhi Vidyut Board augmented the power supply to the sub-station and installed 1000 KVA transformer in July, 1989. In terms of Rule 63 of the Indian Electricity Rules, before making an application to the Inspector for permission to commence or re-commence supply after an installation has been disconnected for one year and above at high or extra high voltage to any person, the supplier shall ensure that the high or extra high electricity supply lines or apparatus belonging to him are placed in position properly joined and duly completed and examined. The supply of energy shall not be commenced by the supplier unless and until the Inspector is satisfied that the provisions of Rules 65 to 69 both inclusive have been complied with and the approval in writing of the Inspector had been obtained by him. The owner of any high or extra high installation shall before making an application to the restoration of approval or addition thereto test every high or extra high voltage circuit or additions thereto, other than an overhead line, and satisfy himself that they withstand the application of the testing voltage set out in Rule 65 (i) and duly record results of such tests and forward to the Inspector. In cases where the owner makes addition and alterations to his installation, he shall not connect to the supply. In cases where the owner makes addition and alterations to his installation, he shall not connect to the supply. It is thus clear that when the Delhi Vidyut Board had installed 1000 KVA transformer in place of 750 KVA installed earlier, it was required to obtain written approval of the Electrical Inspector apparatus or electric supply lines, comprising the said alterations or additions unless and until such alterations or additions are approved in writing by the Inspector. Under the Rules, the transformer must have relays, cable box, earthing, etc. and it was also required to provide a kerb so that the leaking oil does not go out of the transformer room. Despite mandatory provisions of Rules 65 to 69 and despite the requirement of approval of the Inspector in writing before installation of the transformer, nothing has been placed on record to show that any such approval was ever taken by the Delhi Vidyut Board at the time of installation of 1000 KVA transformer in July, 1989. Though it is the contention of learned counsel for the Delhi Vidyut Board that relays were provided but they were stolen, however, despite our repeated querries, no record had been produced to show that relays were ever issued by the store for installing the same in the transformer and the same were stolen nor any report was ever lodged about the theft of these relays. ( 36 ) IN terms of clause 6. 1 of IS:10028 the maintenance schedule has been prescribed for unattended sub-stations. In terms of the aforesaid clause, the sub-station is required to be inspected as frequently as possible. Delhi Vidyut Board has also formulated its own norms for inspection of sub-stations. In terms of these norms, sub-station is required to be inspected by Inspector/foreman once in a month, by a Suprerintendent once in three months, by the Assistant Engineer once in a year, by the Executive Engineer 10% at random and by the Superintending Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer 2% at random. No record has been produced to show that inspection in terms of the schedule or norms was ever carried out. What to speak of inspection in terms of the schedule, no records have been produced to show that any inspection was carried out between July, 1989 and 22nd January, 1997. No record has been produced to show that inspection in terms of the schedule or norms was ever carried out. What to speak of inspection in terms of the schedule, no records have been produced to show that any inspection was carried out between July, 1989 and 22nd January, 1997. No one is aware whether oil and filter in the transformer were ever changed during the aforesaid period of eight years. In this regard, the statement of Hari Babu, Foreman recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. may be relevant when he states that he was Foreman at the sub-station R. K. Puram and he had carried out inspection of the DVB transformer at Uphaar Cinema on 22nd January, 1997 with the help of Ram Kumar, Fitter and some helpers. He states that at the time of inspection, protective system (protection relays) were not available and the same was brought to the notice of the Assistant Engineer Mr. P. C. Bhardwaj. Though Mr. Hari Babu was posted at R. K. Puram sub-station from 30th January, 1996 to 10th February, 1997 but except this one inspection stated to have been carried out on 22nd January, 1997, no other inspection was carried out by any other technician or engineer. ( 37 ) IN his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Mr. P. C. Bhardwaj, Assistant Engineer DVB has stated that he was posted at R. K. Puram sub-station from October, 1994 to June, 1997 when he was suspended. He states that in addition to the duty of continuity of supply and system improvement for sub-stations, the Assistant Engineer has to do the duty of preventive maintenance of sub-stations. He states that as per norms, the Assistant Engineer is required to carry out inspection of every transformer under him once in a year, Inspector carries out inspection once in a month and Superintendent at sub-station once in three months. He states that though he joined the sub-station in October, 1994, he did not carry out inspection of the sub-station located on the ground floor of Uphaar Cinema in 1995 as the date i. e. 27th February, 1995 which was fixed for inspection was declared a Gazetted holiday. He states that in 1996 he carried out inspection on 14th May, 1996 and in 1997 the inspection was carried out on 22nd January, 1997. He states that in 1996 he carried out inspection on 14th May, 1996 and in 1997 the inspection was carried out on 22nd January, 1997. He states that during the inspection in 1997 everything was found correct except that DC relays (protection relays) were missing. He further states that the protection system was not available at DVB transformer at Uphaar Cinema as protection relays were stolen from there and he pointed out the non-availability of the protection system in the check list dated 22nd January, 1997. He further stated that despite the protection relays having not been provided, protection system was available at All India Institute of Medical Sciences grid sub-station for the safety of DVB transformer at Uphaar Cinema in case of over current and abnormality in the electric supply. ( 38 ) THE record produced during the hearing and the statement of the witnesses show that the Delhi Vidyut Board was clearly negligent in the maintenance and installation of its transformer installed on the ground floor of the Uphaar Cinema. Though by order dated 29th February, 2000 while appointing the Commissioners, we had directed them to submit report as to whether or not all rules, regulations and statutory provisions were complied with and if not to what extent, the Commissioners have given their report only regarding deviation in structure of building and installation of seats inside the cinema hall. They have not given any report as to whether or not the Delhi Vidyut Board had complied with all the rules, regulations and statutory provisions in the installation of the transformer. We have, therefore, ourselves gone through the admitted evidence on record to find out the violations committed by the Delhi Vidyut Board in the installation and maintenance of the transformer. ( 39 ) NOTHING has been placed on record to show as to what follow up steps were taken by the Delhi Vidyut Board to ensure that no fire takes place after the fire was reported in the transformer in 1989 and the transformer was changed from 750 KVA to 1000 KVA. ( 39 ) NOTHING has been placed on record to show as to what follow up steps were taken by the Delhi Vidyut Board to ensure that no fire takes place after the fire was reported in the transformer in 1989 and the transformer was changed from 750 KVA to 1000 KVA. Even Naresh Kumar in his report has commented upon the state of affairs of the transformer installed on the ground floor of the car parking area in the cinema and has pointed out the discrepancies therein as under :- STATE OF AFFAIRS OF DVB 1000 KVA TRANSFORMER INSTALLED IN GROUND FLOOR CAR PARKING AREA IN UPHAAR CINEMA (I)PROTECTION SYSTEM - (a) 1000 KVA transformer of DVB had not been protected against over-current, Earth fault and excessive gas pressure (Buchholtz Relay) - [violation of Rule 64 (A) of IE Rules, 1956] (B) Records of all tests, tripping and maintenance work and repairs of the equipments, cables and supply cables had not been maintained in such a way that these records could be compared with the earlier ones, so that it could be helpful in tracing the recurrence of the faults. [violation of Rules 65 (6) of the IE Rules] (II)PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE - DVB has not produced any record of the tests carried out during routine maintenance work i. e. Testing of Transformer oil, Testing of Protection relays and Insulation resistances result (Megger results) of the transformer winding and its supply cables etc. , value of Earth resistance of the sub-stations. Loose connections, damaged cable insulation, direct connection with L. T. switches without any fuses in the circuit, clearly shows that the sub-station had not been maintained in a healthy condition. [violation of a 65 (5) of IE Rules] (III) INSTALLATION - (a) The lay out of the DVB transformer was not in accordance with the rules/specifications laid down in BIS and IE Rules, 1956. The space around the transformer is approx. 0. 95 meter whereas it should be 1. 25 mtrs. for proper circulation of Air. [violation of IS 1886-1967 (fig-2)] (B) Electrical cables were found laid in a haphazard way and it was difficult to distinguish which cable is connected to which transformer/ht breaker. The space around the transformer is approx. 0. 95 meter whereas it should be 1. 25 mtrs. for proper circulation of Air. [violation of IS 1886-1967 (fig-2)] (B) Electrical cables were found laid in a haphazard way and it was difficult to distinguish which cable is connected to which transformer/ht breaker. [ Violation of Rule 41 of IE Rules, 1956] (C) Cable trenches were not to proper size and due to over crowding of HT/lt cables, most of these cables were lying on the sub-station floor. Cable trenches had not been found covered with slabs of non-inflammable material. [violation of Rule 62 (2) (g) of IE Rules, 1956] (D) Arrangement had not been made to stop the flow of transformer oil from the sub-station to the other parts of the building, in the event of transformer tank being ruptured/ damaged. Figure-1 of I. S. 1886-1967 shows typical arrangement for a transformer of about 500 KVA rating. (E) All the non-current carrying metals associated with the DVB sub-station i. e. Transformer, H. T. Breakers etc. had not been effectively earthed to a grounding system or mat which will limit the touch and stop potential to tolerable values and maintain the resistance of the earth connection to such a value as to make operation of the protective device effective. [ Violation of 67 (1) of I. E. Rules, 1956] ( 40 ) IN brief, the state of affairs at the site of DVB transformer clearly indicates that standards prescribed for such a power installation system in IE Act/rules and BIS have not been adhered to at all. This further reflects on the functioning of the Board. ( 41 ) THE contention of Mr. Tulsi, insofar as the quantum of damages is concerned, is that the quantum of damages to be awarded by the Court depends upon the nature of wrongful act in the overall fact situation of the case. It is his submission that the respondents not only owed a duty of care but were also under a statutory obligation to ensure compliance of the standards prescribed by law; the very existence of standards in the form of statutory rules show that the risk was of a foreseeable nature. It is his submission that the respondents not only owed a duty of care but were also under a statutory obligation to ensure compliance of the standards prescribed by law; the very existence of standards in the form of statutory rules show that the risk was of a foreseeable nature. He submits that the facts of the case make out a crying need for grant of exemplary and punitive damages against the respondents; the wanton, reckless, malicious and oppressive character of the acts of the respondents allegedly writ large on the face of the admitted facts, according to Mr. Tulsi, deserve grant of exemplary damages. It is submitted that it was necessary to punish the respondents so that others were deterred from indulging in extreme misconduct of similar nature in future and the enormity of misconduct of the public authorities as well as the owners in committing breaches with impunity of each and every public duty required a deterrent warning. It is submitted that the exemplary and punitive damages could have reference to the future rather than past and they were meant to admonish not only the respondents but serve as a warning to all others who were similarly situated so as not to repeat the wrongful act. For the grant of exemplary and punitive damages Mr. Tulsi has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath, 2000 (6) Supreme Court Cases 213 and Ornago Chemical Industries Vs. Union of India, 1979 (4) Supreme Court Cases 573. He also relied upon the judgment of the US Supreme Court in Honda Motor Company Vs. Oberg, 1994 US Supreme Court Vol. L. 193a. In this case, the Honda Motor Company was held liable for injuries received by Oberg while driving three-wheeled all terrain vehicle manufactured and sold by them and it was held that if in committing the wrong complained of, the defendant had acted wrongfully, willfully and maliciously with a design to oppress and injure the plaintiff, the jury in fixing the damages, may disregard the rule of compensation and beyond that may as a punishment to the defendant and as a protection to the society against violation of personal rights and social order, award such additional damages that they may deem proper. The US Supreme Court further laid down the following substantial criteria for awarding punitive damages :- 1. The US Supreme Court further laid down the following substantial criteria for awarding punitive damages :- 1. LIKELIHOOD at the time that serious harm would arise from the defendants misconduct; 2. The degree of the defendant's awareness of that likelihood; 3. The profitability of the defendant's misconduct; 4. The duration of misconduct and any concealment of it; 5. The attitude and conduct of the defendant upon discovery of misconduct; 6. Financial condition of the defendant; and 7. The total deterrent effect of other punishment imposed upon the defendant. ( 42 ) SUBMISSION of Mr. Tulsi, therefore, is that since the sole intention of the private respondents, namely, the owners of the cinema to add more seats in the cinema hall and in the process close the right side vertical gangway and the right side rear exit, was to get more profits, the Court should impose punitive damages upon the owners. It is also the contention of Mr. Tulsi that it is the most reckless, wanton, malicious and oppressive breach of statutory duty by the licensee and the licensing authority by closing down not only the gangway leading to the exit on the right side of the balcony but the exit itself leading to the staircase which has led to the tragic incident otherwise at least half, if not more of the public present in the balcony, could have come out unharmed, the cause of death of 59 persons was the most wanton and reckless act of the respondents and not the fire. It is submitted that the rules and bye laws were designed to cater for the safe escape of the public in case of fire and if the rules with regard to the gangways and exits were complied with, many innocent lives might have been saved in spite of the fire. It is submitted that the persistence of the licensee with various other breaches of the rules and deviations in spite of their being required to remove the same for decades make them liable for exemplary and punitive damages. It is also his contention that the licensing authority, the Delhi Vidyut Board, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Fire Service were jointly and severally liable alongwith the licensee for their failing to ensure compliance with the rules as were required under the statute. It is submitted that if the cost of one ticket is taken as Rs. It is also his contention that the licensing authority, the Delhi Vidyut Board, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Fire Service were jointly and severally liable alongwith the licensee for their failing to ensure compliance with the rules as were required under the statute. It is submitted that if the cost of one ticket is taken as Rs. 50/- which was the cost on the date of the tragedy, the profit per seat per day would come to Rs. 250/- for five shows. The period of 1979 to 1997, according to Mr. Tulsi, comes to 6570 days and the profitability, therefore, with regard to each seat comes to Rs. 16,42,500/- and number of extra seats in the balcony being 52, the total profitability would come to Rs. 8,54,10,000/ -. ( 43 ) WHETHER or not the criteria of profitability of the owners to be taken into consideration at the time of grant of damages is a question which we may have to examine at a later stage, however, insofar as the calculation of the profitability is concerned, in our view, the same appears to have been slightly exaggerated. The cost of one balcony ticket is taken by Mr. Tulsi as Rs. 50/- , which was the cost in 1979, but it could not be the rate throughout between 1979 and 1997. The cost of the balcony ticket in or about 1979 may be Rs. 15 or Rs. 20 and the same position might have continued till the middle of 80's. Moreover, one could not imagine that all the five shows of the day during the entire 365 days a year would have been housefull. Assuming the average rate of ticket in the balcony between 1979 and 1996 to be Rs. 30/- and of the 150 shows in a month assuming 50% shows to be houseful, the owners will be getting approximately Rs. 2250/- per seat per month or Rs. 27,000/- per seat per year and in 18 years the owners may have earned Rs. 4,86,000/ -. We may not be in error in estimating that the owners may have earned Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lacs only) from all these additional seats. 2250/- per seat per month or Rs. 27,000/- per seat per year and in 18 years the owners may have earned Rs. 4,86,000/ -. We may not be in error in estimating that the owners may have earned Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lacs only) from all these additional seats. This may not be the exact income earned by the owners of the cinema hall but this figure is only one of the indices which may indicate what the damages should be in the event of their being awarded. ( 44 ) IT is submitted by Mr. Tulsi that the conduct and attitude of the licensee and their officers in filing false and misleading affidavits not only before the licensing authority but also before the Lieutenant Governor as well as this Court about their having removed the breaches pointed out from time to time by the licensing authority calls for award of punitive damages against them. It is submitted that it was a case of composite negligence on the part of the licensee, the licensing authority, Government of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi Fire Service, Delhi Vidyut Board and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. It is submitted that closure of right side gangway and exit by the licensee after permission for the same was granted by the licensing authority and the construction of 3 feet high parapet wall up to the ceiling level have contributed most in spreading the fire and to the cause of death and injuries. It is submitted that it was incumbent upon the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to ensure that 3 feet high parapet wall was not constructed up to the ceiling level and even assuming the plans had been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the same were clearly in violation of the safety standards prescribed for places which are visited by large number of public. It is submitted that it was a case of composite negligence and not a case of contributory negligence. He submits that in case of contributory negligence, the victim contributes to the accident or loss while in a case of composite negligence it is the negligence of the parties who were negligent in the performance of their duties or obligations and since it is a case of negligence of all these authorities, it was a case of composite negligence and their liability is joint and several. It is submitted that if at all apportionment is required to be done, it is only for purposes of enabling one of the joint tortfeasors to recover the rest of the amount from the other joint tortfeasors, however, the liability of all the joint tortfeasors will remain joint and several. ( 45 ) IT is submitted that fire in the transformer may be the cause of the smoke, but that fire by itself was not the cause of the death. It is contended that the cause of the death was the manner in which the death trap was laid for the patrons by the licensee in collusion with the licensing authority in the blatant disregard of the rules for safety. The eruption of fire in the building either by electrical short circuiting or otherwise is not an unforeseeable eventuality and the fact that it is foreseeable is clear from the safety requirements engrafted in the rules of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as well as the Delhi Cinematograph Rules as also the rules framed under the Indian Electricity Act. It is submitted that since the fire was a foreseeable contingency, the requirements with regard to adequate egress ought to have been insisted upon so that in case of fire, patrons could escape to safety through gangways and exits on either side of the hall and the balcony leading to the staircase so as to discharge them in the open. It is submitted that the cinema was owned by the Ansal Group of Industries and their annual turn over was to the tune of Rs. 200 crores and they had projects in hand worth Rs. 1,500 crores. It is submitted that any amount of punitive damages less than Rs. 100 crores was not likely to have the desired deterrent effect on the owners of the Uphaar Cinema nor the same would have any significant deterrent effect on the owners of other cinema halls across the country. ( 46 ) DR. RAJEEV Dhawan, Senior Advocate, argued on behalf of the respondents that the public law remedies by way of writ petitions are normally limited to giving directions, providing interim and final injunctive reliefs and quashing decisions which are violative of the fundamental rights or violation of law. ( 46 ) DR. RAJEEV Dhawan, Senior Advocate, argued on behalf of the respondents that the public law remedies by way of writ petitions are normally limited to giving directions, providing interim and final injunctive reliefs and quashing decisions which are violative of the fundamental rights or violation of law. He submits that the scope of providing damages in public law is limited to specific situations and circumstances where the State deliberately deprives a person of his personal liberty in cases such as causing death, grievous injury, custodial violence and the like. He submits that the judgments already cited by this Court in its earlier judgment dated 21st February, 2000, namely, Sebastian M. Hongray Vs. Union of India - 1984 (3) SCC 82; Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141 ; Bhim Singh Vs. State of Jandk, (1985) 4 SCC 677 M. L. A. ; PUDR Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 265 ; PUDR Vs. Police Commissioner, Delhi (1989) 4 SCC 730 ; Saheli Vs. Commissioner of Police (1990) 1 SCC 422 ; Nilabati Behara Vs. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 ; Arvinder Singh Bagga Vs. State of U. P. , (1994) 6 SCC 585 ; Inder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 702 ; Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Vs. State of Punjab, (1996) 4 SCC 742 ; Ajaib Singh and Anr. Vs. State of U. P. and Ors.- 2000 (3) SCC 521 related to cases where the State had deliberately deprived a person of his personal liberty or related to cases of causing death, grievous injury, custodial violence, etc. by the public authorities. It is submitted by him that the remedy of damages in public law is not available for each and every transgression of fundamental rights and thus even if there is an error arising out of an arbitrary action or denial of permission which may result in damages of crores or there is a transgression of freedom of religion or any other fundamental right, the remedy of damages is not available. It is submitted that ultra vires acts by themselves did not give rise to damages and for this he relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 416. ( 47 ) IN D. K. Basu Vs. It is submitted that ultra vires acts by themselves did not give rise to damages and for this he relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 416. ( 47 ) IN D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal (Supra) it was held that the claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private law for damages for tortious acts of the public servants. Public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty bound to do. The award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter for the tortious act committed by the functionaries of the State. The award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter for the tortious act committed by the functionaries of the State. The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies and not in derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit. Dr. Dhawan also relied upon thejudgment reported as M. C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, 1987 (1) Supreme Court Cases 395 to contend that to justify the award of compensation, the requirement is that infringement must be gross, patent, incontrovertible and ex facie glaring. It is also his submission that the remedy of damages was an extra ordinary remedy where there was gross violation arising out of deliberate action or malicious action resulting in deprivation of personal liberty. It is submitted that the exemplary damages in public law were not to be confused with damages in private law for which private law remedies were available. The damages available for constitutional wrongs were by very nature exemplary and have a limited meaning and were not intended to be compensatory in nature. In support of his contentions, he refers to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Nilabati Behara Vs. State of Orissa, 1993 (2) Supreme Court Cases 746 and Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, 1996 (3) Supreme Court Cases 212. In Nilabati Behara Vs. State of Orissa (Supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that it would, however, be appropriate to spell out clearly the principle on which the liability of the State arises in such cases for payment of compensation and the distinction between this liability and the liability in private law for payment of compensation in an action on tort. State of Orissa (Supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that it would, however, be appropriate to spell out clearly the principle on which the liability of the State arises in such cases for payment of compensation and the distinction between this liability and the liability in private law for payment of compensation in an action on tort. It may be mentioned straightway that award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 by the Supreme Court or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort. This is a distinction between the two remedies to be borne in mind which also indicates the basis on which compensation is awarded in such proceedings. We shall now refer to the earlier decisions of this court as well as some other decisions before further discussion of this principle. The compensation is in the nature of `exemplary damages' awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach ot its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law. " ( 48 ) IN Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action and Others Vs. Union of India and others (Supra), the Supreme Court had held that even if it is assumed that the Court cannot award damages against the respondents in proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India that would not mean that the Court could not direct the Central Government to determine and recover the cost of remedial measures from the respondents. It was held that Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 expressly empowered the Central Government to made all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of environment. It was held that Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 expressly empowered the Central Government to made all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of environment. The right to claim damages was left by institution of suits in appropriate Civil Courts and it was held that if such suits were filed in forma pauperis, the State of Rajasthan shall not oppose those applications for leave to sue in forma pauperis. ( 49 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, the contention of Dr. Dhawan is that the relief of monetary compensation as exemplary damages in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Courts for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. It is submitted that the quantum of damages being exemplary but not compensatory in nature is, therefore, limited to the public law purposes of quantifying public law wrong and not the private damages suffered. It is submitted that the test of awarding exemplary damages in private law is not applicable to public law. He further submits that the normal award in cases of genocide, mass burial, etc. has been between Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1. 5 lacs and in the case of Common Cause and Shiv Sagar Tiwari's case Vs. Union of India, 1996 (6) Supreme Court Cases 599 and Capt. Satish Sharma Vs. Union of India, 1996 (6) Supreme Court Cases 667, the amount of damages was higher since there was a proven malafide and corruption at cabinet minister level and those cases, according to Dr. Dhawan, were reversed in law. It is submitted by Dr. Dhawan that the cases in which the compensatory damages have been determined by way of writ petition were those where 1) there was no disputed questions of facts; 2) liability has been admitted; and 3) the damages were discernible from the facts. Dhawan, were reversed in law. It is submitted by Dr. Dhawan that the cases in which the compensatory damages have been determined by way of writ petition were those where 1) there was no disputed questions of facts; 2) liability has been admitted; and 3) the damages were discernible from the facts. He submits that the public law cases cannot be tried as civil suits and thus the only damages available in law law were in the nature of exemplary damages and even if damages were quantified, those must be done on the basis of settled principles and mere averment of compensation of Rs. 20 lacs per person or Rs. 1 lac per person was without any basis and was not enough. It is argued that the settled principles were based on the law laid down in tort and motor vehicle cases where multiplier methods were applied. For this he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar [ (2001) 8 SCC 197 ]; M. S. Grewal and Another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and Others [2001 (8 SCC 151]; G. M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs) and Ors. [ (1994) 2 SCC 176 ]; Bhagawan Das Vs. Mohd. Arif [1987 ACJ 1052]; Chairman Andhra Pradesh State Road Corporation Vs. Shafiya Khatoon and Others [1985 ACJ 212]; and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. G. Ramanaiah - [ 1995 (1) SCC 551 ] to contend that in an action for tort as to whether the plaintiff was found to be entitled for damages, the matter should not be stretched too far to punish the defendant by awarding exemplary damages except when their conduct, specially those of the Government and its officers, was found to be oppressive, obnoxious and was arbitrary and was sometimes coupled with malice. It is submitted by Dr. It is submitted by Dr. Dhawan that exemplary damages has a limited meaning in the realm of public law and it can only be awarded for violation of a specific constitutional wrong where the State deliberately deprives the person of his personal liberty in cases such as causing death, grievous injury, custodial violence and alike and the exemplary damages in public law should not be confused with damages in private law for which private law remedies were available and no liability whatsoever can be fastened on the basis of the ultra vires act unless specific allegations of malafide were pleaded and proved. It is the contention of Dr. Dhawan that Delhi Vidyut Board was solely responsible for the fire tragedy and the fire had spread to the car parking area from the Delhi Vidyut Board transformer. He submits that the smoke was the inevitable effect of fire which emanated from the transformer maintained and installed by the Delhi Vidyut Board without any permission/license from the Electrical Inspector and since many people had escaped from the balcony it could not be said that the escape routes from the balcony were closed by closing the gangways and the exit. The contention of Dr. Dhawan is that the Uphaar Cinema management had done their best in rescue operation and in speedyevacuation of the patrons and there was no violation of either the building bye laws or the Delhi Cinematograph Rules and all the seats, gangways, exits in the balcony were duly authorised by the licensing authority. ( 50 ) THE contention of Mr. Milan Banerjee and Mr. P. P. Malhotra, Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the Delhi Vidyut Board is that the tragedy had taken place due to complete and clear negligence on the part of the management of the Uphaar Cinema. It is submitted that the negligence of the management of the Uphaar Cinema consisted in permitting/allowing parking of cars in front of the transformer room and an area of 16' was to be left as a manouvring area for the movement of cars and if the cars in front of the transformer room had not been parked, the transformer oil spill had to travel at least 16 feet outside the transformer room so as to reach any car and the occurrence might not have taken place. It is submitted that the oil in that circumstances had spread in all directions and the tragedy could have been avoided. It is submitted that there was a clear negligence on the part of the management of Uphaar cinema in not giving directions to the parking contractor or the parking attendant not to permit any car to be parked in front of the transformer room and not to permit parking of more than 15 cars in the parking area. It is submitted that admittedly on the fateful day more than 28 cars were parked inside the parking area on the ground floor whereas there was a provision only for 15 cars in such parking area. It is submitted that the negligence of the management of Uphaar Cinema is also clear from the fact that they had excess seating capacity by at least 52 seats in the balcony and the right side gangway as well as right side exit had been closed. It is submitted that by closing the exit which leads to the foyer towards the staircase on the right side, the patrons could not come out and use the second staircase which resulted in almost a stampede as everyone was trying to go towards the only staircase available for going out of the cinema building and which also they were not able to find because of the dense smoke and darkness. It is submitted that the construction of 12 feet high parapet wall in place of 3 feet high parapet wall prevented the escape of smoke and there was no other way for the smoke to go except to go to the balcony area through the staircase. 12 feet high parapet wall at the back of the transformer room not only prevented the escape of smoke but also prevented fresh air from coming in. It is submitted that the management of Uphaar cinema had not provided emergency lights in the balcony nor was there any fire alarm and even the public address system was not functioning. It is submitted that non-availability of any help or guidance at the time of tragedy, non-illumination of any exit signs, indifferent and callous attitude of the management and running of the picture for about 10 minutes on generator even after the fire resulted in spreading of smoke and caused the delay in the escape of patrons from the balcony area. It is submitted that non-availability of any help or guidance at the time of tragedy, non-illumination of any exit signs, indifferent and callous attitude of the management and running of the picture for about 10 minutes on generator even after the fire resulted in spreading of smoke and caused the delay in the escape of patrons from the balcony area. It is also the contention of Mr. Malhotra that there was no compliance much less substantial compliance of the Delhi Cinematograph Rules and false affidavits were filed from time to time by the management in Courts to the effect that the deviations had been removed. It is submitted by Mr. Malhotra that the Delhi Vidyut Board transformer was properly maintained and the fact that no fire was noticed in the transformer room clearly show that the fire had spread because of the oil coming in contact with the cars. It is submitted that the deaths have occurred in the balcony due to asphyxia and oil being quenching material, it could not catch fire and the entire theory of the fire having spread from the transformer was, therefore, baseless.