Telangana HC Dissatisfied Over Slow Progress of Probe Into Sigachi Industries Explosion
Bench asks why no SIT or expert agency was appointed
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday expressed strong dissatisfaction over the slow progress of investigation into the Sigachi Industries factory explosion, which had claimed the lives of 54 workers on June 30. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin questioned why an incident of such grave magnitude continued to remain with the local police and why the government had not constituted a special investigation team comprising domain experts or entrusted the matter to a specialised agency such as the CB-CID for the inquiry.
The bench noted that the investigation was being conducted only by a deputy superintendent of police (DSP) level officer, despite the seriousness of the tragedy and the complex statutory lapses alleged in the case.
“(Do) You want us to monitor the probe,” the bench asked, observing that the manner in which the investigation was progressing and the way information was not being disclosed to the court appeared to compel judicial monitoring of the probe. The remarks came while the bench was hearing a public interest litigation filed by petitioner Kalapala Babu Rao seeking an independent and thorough investigation into the blast.
During the hearing, the court was informed that the police had examined 237 witnesses so far. The bench questioned how such an extensive exercise had not enabled the police to even form a preliminary opinion regarding the offences made out or the persons responsible for the disaster.
“Is examining 237 witnesses not enough for the police to file a chargesheet,” the Chief Justice asked, expressing concern that the investigation was “going on and on” despite the vast evidence already gathered.
“The incident is not of ordinary magnitude and still investigation is going on and on and on. Is the investigation is going on on the right lines? Have you taken statements from statutory agencies? An expert committee might be looking into the root cause. But officials who are supposed to implement statutes like factories act, etc, are not examined,” observed the bench.
Counsel Vasudha Nagaraj, appearing for the petitioner, referred to the report of the state government-constituted expert committee, which had pointed to serious violations on the part of Sigachi Industries. She submitted that the company had installed advanced machinery and commenced production in a structure approved in 1995, stored large quantities of hazardous materials illegally, and employed unskilled workers in highly dangerous conditions.
She stated that the families of several of the unskilled workers who died or were severely affected in the explosion were yet to receive the full compensation assured to them by the authorities.
Additional advocate-general T. Rajinikanth Reddy, appearing for the government, submitted that the expert committee’s findings had only recently been handed to the police and that the investigation was progressing in the right direction. He stated that 20 more witnesses remained to be examined and assured the court that the investigation would be completed within a week, following which necessary action would be initiated.
The bench reiterated its earlier concern that the state itself had acknowledged the lack of expertise within the local police to investigate a case of this nature. The judges observed that ordinarily, cases involving industrial accidents of such scale are assigned to senior officers of the rank of superintendent of police. The court noted with displeasure that, despite directions issued on November 4 to disclose the progress of investigation, the state’s counter-affidavit remained incomplete and lacked crucial documents.
Taking note of these shortcomings, the court directed the DSP, who is the investigating officer, to be present before it on the next date of hearing along with relevant records, including the case diary and documents connected with the probe. Sigachi Industries, represented by its counsel Rubaina S. Khatoon, sought time to file a response. The court granted the company two weeks to submit its affidavit. The matter was adjourned to December 9.
