The petitioners sought transfer of the investigation into the incident to CBI as well as the refund of ticket prices to the spectators. However, the court said that at this stage, it is not inclined to interfere and stay the investigation.
The Calcutta High Court refused to interfere at this stage in a probe being conducted by a special investigation team (SIT) over chaos during Argentine football legend Lionel Messi’s event at Salt Lake stadium in Kolkata on December 13.
A division bench presided by Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul held that the investigation and enquiry in the case is in the preliminary stage and no material could be placed before it to establish that “investigation/enquiry is vitiated or polluted”.
The petitioners in three PILs sought transfer of the investigation into the incident to CBI as well as the refund of ticket prices to the spectators, a section of whom had gone on a rampage over not being able to see their favourite star and early conclusion of the event following a messy situation on the ground.
Court says not inclined to interfere at this stage
Some people were seen jostling around Messi, thus blocking the view of those seated on the stands.
Rejecting a prayer for interim relief on the matter, the court said that at this stage, it is not inclined to interfere and stay the investigation.
The division bench, also comprising Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, said that it could not be established that members of the SIT had any interest in the event in question and for this reason, “we are not inclined to interfere into investigation at this stage”.
The bench, which passed the order after conclusion of the hearing on Monday for the three PILs, said that it is trite that an investigation cannot be directed to be transferred to CBI or to any other agency on mere asking or merely because a party has levelled allegations.
It said that in rare and exceptional cases, only such directions can be issued when it can be established with accuracy and precision that the investigation in question is vitiated or faulted.
The court directed the state government and the organiser of the event to file their affidavit-in-opposition to the petitioners’ contentions in four weeks.
It said that the petitioners can file their affidavit-in-reply to those within two weeks therefrom.
Next hearing in February
The three PILs, which were heard analogously, will be taken up for hearing again in the week commencing on February 16, the bench said.
The counsel for the West Bengal government argued before the court that the state did not sell the tickets and that it was an event organised by a private event management company.
Claiming that the investigation was being done in right earnest by the SIT, he stated before the court that the state’s director general of police (DGP) was issued a show cause letter over the incident.
The owner of the event management company, Satadru Dutta, was arrested by the police soon after the programme on December 13, in connection with the fiasco.
Dutta’s lawyer submitted before the division bench that they were unaware as to how so many people, who milled around Messi, blocking the view of the spectators, entered the ground, as the police were in charge of the entry points.
He further stated that the football legend’s events were also held in Hyderabad, Mumbai and Delhi and that all went off smoothly.
Billwadal Bhattacharya, the lawyer for Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari, who is one of the petitioners, questioned the source of funds for organising the event and prayed for a court order for an investigation by a competent central agency.
Senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, representing another petitioner, submitted before the court that the enquiry committee formed by the state is not a judicial commission, but is simply an administrative one.
The court noted that the state produced a gazette notification of the formation of the committee.
The state’s lawyer further stated that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had, soon after the incident, expressed regret for the fiasco and that her government formed the committee comprising a retired high court judge and top officers of the administration.
End of Article
