NEW DELHI: A Delhi Court on Wednesday ordered to de-seal Uphaar cinema hall, which claimed 59 lives in a massive blaze during the screening of film ‘Border’ on June 13 1997.
Talking to the New Indian Express after the verdict, Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) president Neelam Krishnamoorthy said, "Since the hon’ble court in its wisdom has decided to release Uphaar cinema today and give it back to the convicts Sushil and Gopal Ansal, I am forced to ask a question. Who in this legal battle has lost and who has benefited ?"
"Today the value of Uphaar Cinema, a site of mass murder, has gone up exponentially to the tune of 26 to 30 times its value in 1997. The murderers therefore, with Uphaar back in their hands, have gained hugely with the value of real estate soaring. But we, the victims of Uphaar tragedy, what have we gained ? And where should we go to ask for justice?" he added.
The court held that there would be mno meangingful purpose served by keeping the property sealed any longer.
Tthe applicant seeking the de-sealing is Ansal Theatres and Club Hotels Private Ltd., a company formerly associated with real estate tycoons Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal, both of whom were convicted in connection with the fire tragedy case ..
“Since the trial has reached finality, absolutely no purpose would be served to keep the property sealed. The application is thereby allowed and property in question be de-sealed and released to the applicant being the rightful owner,” Principal District and Sessions Judge Sanjay Garg said in the order.
The order was passed after rejecting an objection raised by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) president Neelam Krishnamoorthy regarding the liability or loan on the theatre property.
Regarding the 26-year-old FIR of the case, the court said not only the trial stands concluded but even the appeal in the apex court stands disposed.
“In the view of this court, the concealment of these lines could not have helped the applicant in any way in disposing of this application in its favour. Thereby, the plea raised by Neelam Krishnamoorthy of tampering of the judicial record by the applicant is not acceptable,” the judge said.
As the AVUT head sought appropriate action against the applicant for filing a copy of a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case but deliberately, to misguide the court, leaving out a few lines at the bottom of a page. The judge said it was done “inadvertently”.
There was also allegations on tampering of judicial record, as Krishnamoorthy pointed out an FIR which was registered against the directors of the applicant company for tampering with judicial records in the case for which they were even convicted.
However, the court took note of the applican's argument, in which it was claimed there was “no deliberate attempt to conceal these lines from the said judgment and it happened inadvertently”.
“In the view of this court, the concealment of these lines could not have helped the applicant in any way in disposing of this application in its favour. Thereby, the plea raised by Neelam Krishnamoorthy of tampering of the judicial record by the applicant is not acceptable,” the judge said.