Case title:
Zamra Endeavours Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Police & Ors
Date of Order:
21st December, 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran
Parties:
Petitioner(s): 1. ZAMRA ENDEAVOURS PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR RIYAS M.A
Respondent(s): 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COMMISSIONER OFFICE, PARK VIEW MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM.
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALAMASSEY POLICE STATION 3RD FLOOR, MANATH TOWER, TOG RD, OPP. KALAMASSERY, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI, KERALA.
3. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF INDIA.ARCADE, BRIGADE ORCHADS, SPINAL ROAD, DEVANAHALLI, KARNATAKA.,
4. IMAM SALIH.
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’) determined whether the Convention Centre (Petitioner) should be allowed to continue operations at the Centre amidst the investigation on an incendiary incident being carried out at the venue. The Court assessed the facts and determined not allowing the petitioner to continue operations at the Centre would be unjustified and granted the petitioner’s request.
OVERVIEW:
- A fire occurred at the Convention Hall/Centre (Petitioner) on 29th October, 2023.
- Samples from the fire were sent for examination to the Forensic Laboratory after a criminal investigation was initiated.
- A petition was filed seeking to resume operations at the Centre/Hall, by the petitioner, citing several scheduled bookings as reasons.
- The matter is now presented before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Whether the petitioner can be allowed to operate Centre/Hall despite the ongoing investigation?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER:
- Several bookings are scheduled at the Centre/Hall and the operations should be allowed to resume to not inconvenience the customers.
- The investigations have been going on for over 60 days and it would be unfair to put the petitioners to prejudice for an indefinite period of time.
- There are no legal impediments to prevent the petitioner from resuming operations at the Centre/Hall, despite the ongoing investigations.
- The petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation procedures in the meantime.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:
- The Forensic lab was facing difficulties and required more samples for examination.
- The findings of the examination may warrant a potential intervention of the Central agencies.
- There had been a time-lapse of 60 days in the investigation, causing a delay in the forensic procedures.
- The potential intervention of the central agencies should not obstruct the petitioner’s rights.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- The Supreme Court acknowledged that petitioner’s rights cannot be infringed due to the investigations.
- The Court took note of the petitioner’s resolution of compliance with the investigations and laid directives for the Investigating Officer to collect fresh samples within the next 2 days.
- Petitioner’s request was granted by the Court and allowed resumption of operations at the Centre.
CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court allowed the petitioner to resume operations at the centre/hall, noting that halting operations would be unfair to the customers who had already booked the venue. The Investigating Officer was directed to collect the samples within the next two days, following the petitioner’s display of willingness to cooperate with any following procedures.
