Date:03/12/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/03/stories/2006120313290400.htm

New Delhi

Uphaar fire tragedy case hearing on December 12

Locus standi of AVUT in question

New Delhi: A Delhi court hearing the Uphaar fire tragedy case will decide on December 12 whether an association representing the victims have the locus standi to intervene in the matter or not.

The court reserved its order on the issue as the accused Ansal brothers -- Sushil and Gopal -- owner of the Uphaar cinema has opposed AVUT's (Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy) intervention to argue the case.

They have challenged the locus standi of the AVUT as a party to the criminal litigation.

However, Association counsel K. T. S. Tulsi told Additional Sessions Judge Mamta Sehgal that the Association has the locus standi to argue the case along with the prosecution.

He said the Association was representing the victims of the tragedy who are seeking justice.

The defence argued that AVUT is not an association of victims who have died in the tragedy rather of their kins and relatives. So it raised a question mark on the `locus standi' to interfere in the proceedings.

Under the criminal law the relatives are not termed as victims or complainants who can be allowed to participate in the sessions trial. The Association has no locus stand to address the court by engaging a private counsel, he told the court.

Tulsi on the contrary contended that there is enough of evidence to book Amod Kant, the then DCP (licensing) had allegedly granted permission of the 43 additional seats and 56 seats in the balcony in the hall which blocked the exit point causing the death of innocent lives. (MORE) PTI STM APS 12021939 DEL

CBI, the investigating agency in the case, has also submitted before the court that nine tenants, including a bank, at Uphaar complex were drawing power from the very same DVB transformer which caused the blaze on the evening of June 13, 1997.

The 12 accused, including theatre owners Sushil and Gopal Ansal have been variously charged with offences like sections 304-A (causing death by negligence), 33 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) and relevant provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. PTI