Vijayawada Fire Accident : 11 deaths, 1 case, 2 courts and 2 contradicting orders

29 August, 2020 | Ojasvi Chauhan

Vijayawada Fire Accident National

The 25th of August, 2020 turned out to be a very peculiar day for those following the proceedings related to the Vijayawada Fire Accident which unfortunately took the lives of 11 people.

The 25th of August, 2020 turned out to be a very peculiar day for those following the proceedings related to the Vijayawada Fire Accident which unfortunately took the lives of 11 people. On the very same day, 2 different courts dealing with different matters concerning the hospital authorities gave out 2 absolutely contradicting orders. Based on a petition filed by the Chairman of Ramesh Hospitals requesting the court to quash all proceeding against him, the HC of AP ‘stayed all further proceedings’ in the matter.

The order said, ‘ Considering the age of the petitioner & as the petitioner is a non-executive Chairman of Ramesh Hospitals, there shall be a stay of all further proceedings with regard to the petitioner’.

On the other hand, the court of V Additional Metropolitan Session Judge rejected the bail petitions filed by 3 accused including the COO of Ramesh hospitals who were in the aftermath of the accident stating that ‘ the investigation is still in progress & other prime accused are yet to be arrested and at this juncture, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may tamper the records, the evidence & may interfere with the evidence’.

Also read: Covid-19 update: India reports 76,472 new cases; tally crosses 34 lakh mark

Also read: MPs to get Covid-19 test done 72 hours before Parliament’s monsoon session: Speaker Om Birla

The same order of the Sessions court also goes onto say, ‘ Simply because the DMHO accorded permission to start the Covid-19 Care Center in the hotel, the petitioners cannot escape their responsibility in taking precautions to prevent fire accidents’.

Belittling the argument put forth by the petitioner’s counsel that the responsibility to take precautions rested with the hotel management, the order said, ‘ Another argument of the petitioners that it is the hotel management to undertake the repairs of the electrical fittings and to follow necessary fire safety measures, cannot be accepted because, the hospital management is occupying the hotel premises and starting the treatment to all the innocent Covid-19 patients and if any fire accident occurs, the damage and the loss will be caused to the hospital authorities and they will be sufferers and as such, it is the responsibility on the part of the petitioners and the hospital management to enquire about the fire safety measures of the hotel before entering into the MoU’.

Also read: NEET-JEE exams: Sensex betting racket busted in Kanpur, 7 held