Gujarat High Court refuses challenge in Vadodara boat sinking case

While hearing a matter relating to the Vadodara boat sinking incident, the Gujarat High Court on Friday (October 18) dismissed a plea filed by certain partners of Kotia Projects seeking implementation, after observing that the “partners associated with company are trying to stall the process” where the court was examining the compensation to be given to victims from the “partner firm’s pocket.”

The high court further observed that the partner firm was not reported on behalf of any director/partner, “but through the director/partner”, adding that despite the notice being issued to the firm over a month ago, it remained without representation. On January 18, 2024, a boat capsized in Lake Harni, resulting in the death of 12 children and two teachers who were having a school picnic. The private company – M/s Kotia Projects was entrusted to develop the lake project by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC).

During Friday’s hearing, the state attorney general informed a division bench Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi that at the last hearing the contractor was not present, so the matter was kept today “particularly for this purpose”.

After the court asked whether the contractor was present today, a lawyer said that the notice to the defendant company was served on Vineet Kotia, who was his client. However, he said that Vineet Kotia retired from Kotia Projects in November 2020.

At this stage, the high court asked orally: “Do you have Vakalatnama to appear on your behalf?…this company which is M/s Kotia Projects is implied in the writ petition, correct. The notice has been sent. We have not imposed the director in a personal capacity, but the Kotia Project is an entity that will appear through the director. So, if you have any director Vakalatnama, come along. We are on the issue of paying compensation. If you do not show up, we will go ahead and decide the issue”.

While stating that his client had retired before the incident, the court said orally that an affidavit should have been presented to the court on this point. During the court consultation, the lawyer said that there was no registered retirement deed and asked for some time. The high court, however, said it would not grant a stay, although it noted that there was neither an affidavit nor a retirement deed recorded before it today.

Meanwhile, another lawyer stated that he was appearing before four other partners of the company seeking implementation in the matter. However, the high court orally noted that it was not analyzing the individual partners nor deciding the rights of the partners, noting that the partner company itself was a legal entity.

“We have (before us) the partner firm itself is a legal entity, correct. Anyone associated with the partner firm must introduce themselves and present their answer. Don’t play this game. This is not a chessboard. We are not allowing you to do that. These oral instructions should not be accommodated. We are not worried about you…If you are making any submission, please register Vakalatnama in the name of M/s Kotia Projects. So far there is no vakalatnama from anyone”, the court said orally.

Thereafter, while dictating its order, the high court noted the appearance of the lawyer on behalf of Vineet Kotia as well as his claim that he received instructions from his client stating that he was not the director but rather a partner of the partner company and that he has retired from the partner company long before the incident in question.

The court, in its order, then observed: “All these allegations made in the bar association are not supported by any material on record, despite due notice for about more than a month, there is no response to this court. The prayer… cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there is nothing on record that can substantiate Mr. Vineet Kotia’s claim… that he has no concern for the partner company…the partner firm was not represented by the name of any director or partner. It is rather through the director/partner. Even if it is accepted for a moment that Mr. Vineet Kotia has no concern for the partner company till date, no other partner of the company appears before us. No other partner came forward to represent defendant no. 4 (firm). Therefore, we consider that the interviewee did not. 4 remains unrepresented despite receipt of notice of this PIL and therefore proceeds to decide the matter with the help and assistance of the lawyers appearing in the matter“.

With regard to the application filed by four other partners seeking implementation “in their individual capacity”, the court said that when asked whether they represented the company, the court was informed that there are 13 partners in total and four of them cannot represent society. enterprise.

Rejecting the implementation request of the four partners, the high court thereafter said in its order: “It should be noted that the request for membership by four individual partners is nothing more than an attempt to stop this process, as the partner company can be represented by any of the partners. From the aforesaid submissions of two lawyers appearing on behalf of the partners of the company namely M/s Kotia Projects, it is evident that the partners associated with the partner company are trying to stall the process in which the court is examining the issue of granting compensation to victims from the pocket of the partner company. Noting this attitude of the partners of the company M/s Kotia Projects who were notified of the present petition, we see no reason to adjourn the matter today to facilitate the recently imploded defendant…(company) to engage counsel. We pursued the matter with the conclusion that no one appeared on behalf of M/s Kotia Projects despite prior notice about one and a half months ago“.

He then proceeded to hear the matter and inquired into the issues listed for consideration. The Advocate General submitted that the main issue for consideration was the award of compensation to the victims of the incident. A lawyer for one of the victims later stated that an affidavit regarding the claims had been filed.

He said an ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 4 Lakhs was paid by the state government and Rs. 2 Lakhs were remitted from the Prime Minister’s Fund to the relatives of the deceased victims. Regarding the injured, an amount of Rs 50,000 was paid by the state government and Rs 50,000 from the PM fund.

The high court later questioned orally: “What is the situation of the injured? How serious are the injuries? If they have any permanent disabilities?“The lawyer, however, claimed that he represents a relative of the victim who lost his son and all the victims are residents of Vadodara.

The court then told the amicus curiae present in the matter: “Can you give us the correct number. What is the situation of the victims to decide the issue….to determine the amount of compensation.” The amicus further claimed that he will receive instructions regarding the factual aspect and details.

The Court said orally that the help of the Vadodara Collector may be sought in furnishing the details. At this stage, the Advocate General submitted that the details of all deceased and injured persons will be provided to the amicus curie.

The court later in its order said: “In order to ascertain the amount of compensation to the victims, namely family members of the deceased and also injured victims, which is to be paid by the offending contractor, namely M/s Kotia Projects – defendant no. 4 of this document, we request the Collector – Vadodara to carry out investigation and present the details of victims of both categories before us. Said data must contain the name, age and address of the victims. The application filed on behalf of one of the victims dated 12.09.2024 will be considered on the next fixed date after receipt of the Collector’s report”.

It later listed the matter on October 25.

Case Title: REGISTRATION OF WATER BODIES SUCH AS RESERVOIRS/PONDS/RIVERS/LAKES IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT, & ANR. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY OF HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS.