( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition arises out of an unfortunate incident which took place in Uphaar theatre in the evening of 13th June, 1997. A fire took place in which a number of people were killed and/or injured. All the Petitioners are those who were injured in the fire or relatives of those who were injured or killed in the fire. By this Writ Petition the Petitioners seek to highlight, what according to them are a shocking state of affairs. They claim that there is complete disregard of statutory obligations, prescribed under the law, for prevention of fire hazards in public places.

( 2 ) THE grievance of the Petitioners is that each and every public authority, not only failed in the discharge of its statutory obligations, but in fact acted in a manner which was hostile and foreign to the discharge of their public duties. The standards set under the statute and the rules framed for the purpose of preventing public hazards were observed only by their breach. Licence and permits were issued in complete disregard of the mandatory conditions of inspection and ensuring that the minimum safeguards were provided on the ground. Scores of cinema halls were and are permitted to run without any inspection and without any licence. Permits are issued mechanically and perhaps for a price. The petitioners, therefore, seek adequate compensation for the victims and punitive damages against the Respondents for showing callous disregard to their statutory obligations and to the fundamental guaranteed and indefeasible rights under article 21 of the Constitution of India, of the paying public in failing to provide safe premises, free from hazards that could reasonably be foreseen.

( 3 ) THE Respondents have taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this Petition. At this preliminary stage the question of maintainability is being considered. At this stage, Court is not deciding merits. The facts referred to hereafter are as stated by the parties and not as and by way of a decision on merits or findings by the Court. All observations and/or reference to facts in this Order, will only be preliminary. Court will not be continuously repeating the word preliminary in this Order.

( 4 ) MR. Desai submitted that at this stage he was not making any submissions on the question of individual liability of each Respondent Mr. Desai submitted that this Writ Petition raises complex factual issues and disputed questions of fact. Mr. Desai further submitted that a Writ Petition is not an appropriate proceeding for deciding the causation and responsibility for the unfortunate incident. Mr. Desai submitted that this Court could not entertain such a Writ Petition. Mr. Desai submitted that even if the Court could entertain such a Writ Petition, this was not a Writ Petition which should be entertained by the Court. Mr. Desai submitted that this Petition arises out of a chain of complex events which culminated in the tragedy which took place at the Uphaar Cinema on 13th June, 1997 in which there were large scale casualties including fatalities. He submitted that the Petitioner have impleaded a large number of authorities, including Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Respondent No. 4), Delhi Vidyut Board (Respondent No. 6), Delhi Police (Respondent No. 3), Delhi Fire Service (Respondent No. 5) and Medical Services (Respondent No. 8 and 9) and various members of the Ansal family. He submitted that the tragedy resulted from an intricate/chain of events and the causation and culpability cannot be determined without a fair procedure, including detailed evidence tested by cross examination. Mr. Desai submitted that some of the complex questions that arise are as follows: (1 ) The precise cause of the incident (2) What is the role of each of the individual parties mentioned above? (3) Are they blameworthy? (4) How is the blame to he-apportioned? (5) Who are the people entitled to claim? (6) What is the amount of each claim? Mr. Desai submitted that