BENGALURU: Alleging that the Commission of Inquiry seems to have proceeded in a biased manner, M/s DNA Entertainment Networks Private Limited, moved the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the report submitted by the Justice John Michael D’Cunha Commission into the M Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede incident that claimed 11 lives on June 4.
The event management company in its petition said the Commission acted as if it was a fault-finding commission rather than a fact-finding one.
The company petitioned the HC to issue directions to the state not to take any coercive action based on the report. The company said the haste with which the inquiry was conducted gives one the impression that the state government wanted to save its skin and that the Commission was a mere eyewash in order to pacify the general public. The government had given one month from June 5 to submit the report and the Commission filed the report on July 11.
The DNA, represented by its Director, Sunil Mathew, stated that notice was served to it along with three of its Directors by the Commission. Varadhana Thimmaiah and Sunil Mathew appeared on behalf of their company on June 19 and 20 and produced several documents pertaining to the permission taken for the event, the arrangements made inside the stadium, the traffic advisories issued by the Bengaluru Traffic police for the event and the invitations given for the event by Cabinet ministers, ruling political party, etc.
Mathew submitted that answers given by him during his deposition on June 20 were not recorded accurately, and he requested to rectify the same and sought a copy of the deposition so that he could point out the question numbers, the answers to which were recorded incorrectly.
It also requested the Commission to provide copies of the depositions of all the witnesses and documents marked and permit him to cross-examine the other witnesses who have given evidence adverse to the interest of the petitioner and or any of its representatives. A personal hearing was also sought before the final report was made in the matter by the Commission. However, without providing any opportunity as contemplated under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, and without responding to the requests, the Commission filed its report on July 11 without following the procedure contemplated under the Act.
Without giving an opportunity, through media reports, the DNA was informed that two of its officials in the management have been indicted in the report and that several remarks and serious allegations have been made, which affect the reputation of the petitioner and its officials. Thus, the impugned report is vitiated even for that reason, the DNA claimed.
The petition is likely to come up for hearing on Friday.