Read Time: 07 minutes
The court stated, “This is very very wrong what you (DDA) are doing, only protecting your colleagues”, while strongly criticizing the actions of the DDA and MCD, as both authorities were shifting blame regarding the jurisdiction of the drain.
The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, criticized the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) over their officers granting completion certificate to the contractor without inspecting the site which led to the death of a mother with her 3-year-old child by falling into the unbarricaded drain.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held, “Your officers (DDA) are providing completion certificate without duly inspecting the site. The drains were uncovered. Your staff was not available at the site”.
Advocate Manu Chaturvedi, representing MCD, stated that the DDA itself acknowledged that its contractor worked on the drain and left a portion of it open and unbarricaded. The court questioned the Investigating Officer (IO) about the specific point where the victim fell. The court inquired whether the rest of the area was fenced and covered.
However, Advocate Adnan Yousuf, representing the petitioner, responded that fencing was done after the incident and that too by the police as part of their investigation. Advocate Adnan Yousuf further mentioned that the deceased's aunt, who was walking behind her, witnessed the entire incident and that a JCB had to be called at night to break the slabs in between.
Advocate Adnan Yousuf argued that the DDA and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) themselves had safety guidelines, which they failed to follow. Per the guidelines, while the construction work is ongoing, the area shall be safely fenced and barricaded. The completion certificate is to be granted after the work is completed and the site has been duly inspected ensuring all safety requirements are met. Advocate Adnan Yousuf argued that neither the DDA nor the MCD followed their own bylaws and only covered the drain after the incident.
The IO informed the court that all records had been collected and included in the submitted status report. The IO admitted that no fencing or barricading was ever done and that the engineer in charge was responsible for checking and then issuing a completion certificate. However, construction was completed on July 23, with a completion certificate being issued. The court asked whether the supervisor who issued the completion certificate without proper inspection had been questioned, to which the IO confirmed that the supervisor had been called for questioning.
The court reprimanded the DDA, stating that its officers were issuing completion certificates without properly inspecting the site, leaving drains uncovered and staff unavailable at the site. The court further criticized the DDA for merely protecting their colleagues.
Standing counsel Prabhsahay Kaur, representing DDA, argued that the police report itself indicated that the portion of the drain under MCD's jurisdiction was left open, but the court was not satisfied with this explanation.
The court questioned the IO about the timeline for completing the investigation, to which the IO responded that it would be completed within one month.
Accordingly, the court adjourned the matter to September 5, directing the police to file a complete report till then.
The court, during the last session, conveyed its disbelief regarding the condition of the drain, stating that the waste had accumulated over a span of years rather than days. It also criticized the MCD for inadequate supervision and failure to hold officials accountable, cautioning that another tragedy could arise if the area remained unbarricaded during the ongoing monsoon season.
Case Title: Jhunnu Lal Srivastava v Delhi Development Authority
Please Login or Register
