The owners of the Satya Niketan PG building that collapsed this month, killing seven, failed to ensure structural safety and carried out unpermitted alterations without consulting any qualified structural engineer or architect, the Delhi Police has told the Delhi High Court in a status report, even as it said the exact cause of the collapse is yet to be determined.
New Delhi: The Delhi Police has told the Delhi High Court that the owners of the paying-guest (PG) building in Satya Niketan that collapsed earlier this month, resulting in the deaths of seven people, allegedly failed to ensure structural safety and did not obtain the advice of any qualified structural engineer or architect before carrying out repair and structural-modification work. The submission was made in a status report; the allegations are those of the investigating agency, the investigation is ongoing, and those named as accused are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The status report was filed before a Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) moved by a law student, Aniket Kumar Gupta, seeking urgent medical care and rehabilitation of affected students, compensation to victims, the safe relocation of students from unsafe premises, and the preservation of crucial evidence relating to the collapse.
What the police told the Court
According to the status report, 12 persons were rescued from the debris; seven, including five students and two labourers, were declared brought dead, while the rest sustained injuries. The police said a preliminary inspection found that an old or existing building had been subjected to additional construction and structural changes in the basement and upper floors without the requisite permissions from the competent authorities, and that these alterations had allegedly increased the load on the existing structure and affected its load-bearing capacity. The investigation also revealed, the police said, that the owners had failed to obtain land-use conversion permission despite commercially letting out the premises. The exact structural cause of the collapse, the police added, is yet to be determined and is subject to detailed investigation and expert inspection.
The status report states that, about 10 to 12 days before the incident, the accused, named as Urmila Gupta, her husband Hari Ram Gupta and their son Mahesh Gupta, had jointly commenced construction, structural alteration, modification and repair work in the building without obtaining approval from the competent authorities, and had engaged an “unprofessional and unqualified” contractor while not seeking the advice of any qualified structural engineer, architect or other competent expert. The two PG operators, the police alleged, had taken the premises on rent without obtaining proper verification of the building’s structural safety or design, and had failed to take adequate safety measures for the PG residents or to warn them of the potential danger from the ongoing work. The accused, the report alleged, left the spot instead of assisting in the immediate aftermath, and their conduct and individual roles are being examined. These are untested allegations, to be established, if at all, through evidence.
‘Investigation being conducted fairly’
The police told the Court that it was collecting documentary and scientific evidence, including records relating to ownership, electricity and water connections, construction and repair work, tenancy and rent agreements, permissions and approvals, medical records and post-mortem reports. It stated:
“That the investigation is being conducted fairly and in accordance with law. Further action shall be taken on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation and the expert opinion received from the competent authorities.”
The PIL, beyond immediate relief for the affected students, seeks the constitution of an independent judicial or technical committee to ascertain the precise cause of the collapse and to fix responsibility, along with a comprehensive structural and safety audit of PGs, hostels and other student-accommodation facilities across Delhi.
The Court’s directions so far
The High Court has, in the course of the proceedings, asked the authorities to double their efforts to save the lives of the students affected by the collapse. It directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to take up the issue at its highest executive level and to have an enquiry conducted into whether the buildings that collapsed had been constructed under valid permission. If it is found that the construction was carried out without valid permission, the Court said, the MCD shall fix the responsibility of the erring officials or employees for the lapse. The matter is listed for further hearing before the Division Bench.
Why it matters
The proceedings go beyond a single tragedy to a systemic problem: the safety of the paying-guest and hostel accommodation on which large numbers of students in Delhi, and other cities, depend. The police’s account, of unpermitted structural alterations, an unqualified contractor, no structural-engineer certification and a failure to obtain land-use conversion, describes the very kind of regulatory and safety gap that PILs of this nature seek to address, and the PIL’s demand for a citywide safety audit of student accommodation reflects a concern that such buildings often operate outside the framework of building-safety and land-use compliance. The Court’s focus, both on immediate relief for the affected students and on directing the MCD to fix accountability for any official lapse in permitting, signals that judicial scrutiny in such cases extends not only to the private parties in charge of a building but to the civic authorities responsible for enforcing building norms.
At the same time, the matter is at an early, fact-gathering stage. The police have themselves said that the precise structural cause is yet to be established and that expert inspection is awaited; the roles of the individuals named are still being examined; and the allegations in the status report are just that, allegations, which will have to be tested through evidence and, where charges are laid, at trial. Those named as accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence. The larger questions the PIL raises, compensation, rehabilitation, a technical committee to fix the cause, and a safety audit of student housing, will turn on the further orders of the Division Bench and the outcome of the investigation and any expert inquiry.
Case: Aniket Kumar Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others (PIL)
Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, Delhi High Court