The Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to the Vice-Chairman of the Lucknow Development Authority over the recent fire tragedy at a coaching centre in Lucknow that reportedly claimed the lives of 15 students.

A Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan also asked the Lucknow authority to explain why effective action had not been taken against persons who allegedly violated the approved land-use conditions prescribed under the city's Master Plan.

"This Court is constrained to issue notice in the contempt proceedings. As it is an admitted position that no effective action has been taken against those who have blatantly violated the sanctioned land use prescribed under Master Plan."

Demolition Order Was Passed in 2016

Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha informed the Court that the fire occurred in a building that was allegedly being used for commercial activities.

The Court was told that a demolition order had been passed against the building on May 10, 2016. However, the order was recalled by the same authority on July 5, 2016, on technical grounds.

According to the Amicus Curiae, even after the technical issue was rectified, no effective action was taken against the building until the fire tragedy occurred.

Proceedings Expanded to Examine the Issue Across India

The Lucknow fire incident came to the Supreme Court's attention during the pendency of proceedings that had originally arisen from unauthorised construction and land-use violations in Chennai.

While hearing that matter, the Court took serious note of residential properties being converted for commercial use in violation of building regulations, approved land-use patterns and city Master Plans.

The Supreme Court subsequently expanded the scope of the proceedings to examine the problem across India. Authorities in States and Union Territory capitals were asked to file affidavits disclosing the extent to which residential areas were being used for commercial purposes.

LDA Added as a Respondent

During the hearing, the Court was informed that the Lucknow Development Authority was not originally a party to the proceedings.

However, the LDA filed an affidavit and an application seeking to be impleaded. The Court thereafter added the authority, through its Vice-Chairman, as one of the respondents in the case.

SIT Report to Be Filed in Sealed Cover

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi informed the Court that a Special Investigation Team had been constituted after the Lucknow coaching centre fire and that the investigation team had already prepared its report.

The Supreme Court directed that the SIT report be placed before it in a sealed cover on the next date of hearing.

Vice-Chairman Directed to Remain Personally Present

LDA Vice-Chairman Prathmesh Kumar, who was present before the Court, was directed to remain personally present on the next date of hearing.

The Bench said that he would be required to explain why appropriate orders should not be passed against him for the alleged failure to comply with the Court's directions and for the lack of effective action against unauthorised land-use violations.