Order 92

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH BHATT
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL
JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000419-2025
CBI vs. Abhishek Gupta & Ors.
CBI No. 36/2025
RC No.08(S)/2024/SC-1
PS/Branch: CBI/SC-I/New Delhi
U/s: 61(2)/r/w 105 of BNS, 2023
IA No. 45/2026
12.03.2026
ORDER
1. This is an application for further investigation filed as
protest petition by father of deceased Nevin Dalvin, who
alongwith two other students is claimed to have died on
27.07.2024 due to the flooding of basement Library of Rau’s IAS
Study Circle at BP-11, Rajinder Nagar, Central District, Delhi.
2. The applicant has stated that he had came to know about
the incident through media on 27.07.2024.
3. After the incident, FIR was registered on 28.07.2024 and
Delhi Police started investigating the matter. However, thereafter
(vide order dated 02.08.2024) the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,
transferred the investigation to CBI.
Hon’ble High court in para
no.39 had specifically mentioned that CBI shall carry out a full-
fledged investigation regarding the aforesaid incident, including
but not limited to the criminal negligence, dereliction of duties,
corrupt practices indulged in by any person including the
officials of local authorities, we expect all the local authorities to
cooperate with the aforesaid investigation as three young lives
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 1 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 1 of 20 --
were snuffed out apparently due to greed and/or negligence
and/or failure to discharge duty.
4. Subsequently, CBI filed charge sheet on 26.09.2024 and
supplementary charge sheet on 24.04.2025 but as per the
applicant, IO has not conducted free and fair investigation.
5. It is mentioned that it was admitted that height of the
building BP-11 was more than 15 meters which was even noted
by the BSES during inspection but the owners of the building
have taken the sanction by misrepresentation. The occupancy and
completion certificate were issued on 09.08.2021 under the
signatures of the Executive Engineer Kumar Mahendra. The
sanction was granted on 13.05.2019 which was done under
misrepresentation and inspection carried out by MCD officials.
As per law the sanction was to be signed by the commissioner
but the said sanction was issued under the signatures of AE. CBI
has not investigated the matter as to how AE could have signed
on behalf of Commissioner under section 336 of Delhi Municipal
Act, 1957. The completion-cum-occupancy certificate clearly
mentions that the basement was consisting of lift, lobby, car lift,
stilt consisting of car lift but neither the basement nor the stilt
area of the building was having any such structure. The
investigation is silent on these aspects which clearly shows that
there was deliberate and willful effort to save the Commissioner
MCD. Ms. Neelam Rani had applied for sanction of BP-11 but
had died on 09.03.2021 and after gap of 5 months of her death a
completion-cum-occupancy certificate was issued by MCD. As
per rules, MCD was required to inspect the building as to
whether the structure has been erected as per plan but CBI had
not investigated on this issue and did not even look into the fact
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 2 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 2 of 20 --
as to how in presence of a dead person the MCD officials had
conducted the inspection of the said building. Consequently, if
the sanction was accorded under misrepresentation, the same
could have been canceled as per section 338 of Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act but no such action was taken by the
MCD/Commissioner. There is no explanation given in the
investigation as to why Commissioner, MCD did not seize the
building BP-11 which was an unauthorized construction. As per
Section 346 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, within one
month of completion of the erection of the building, a notice was
required to be given to the Commissioner and thereafter, after
inspection if the same is found correct, completion/sanction was
to be given. CBI has not given any details as to when the building
was completed or when the MCD officials had inspected the
building in question and if any observations were made by the
officials at the said time. There is no explanation as to how the
completion certificate was issued to a dead person. There is also
no investigation on the fact that as per the site plan, the lift and
lift lobby were existing in the basement but the same was not
found at site. The building was more than 15 meters of height
and there is no explanation as to how the completion certificate
was issued by the MCD without mandatory fire NOC. CBI has
not investigated as to which MCD officials were involved in
issuance of such illegal completion certificate.
6. It is further stated that as per record, two students Kanishka
Tiwari and Kishore Singh Kushwaha, prior to incident in
question, had filed complaint with Delhi Police. CBI has failed to
show as to what action was taken on those complaints, it appears
that the CBI is shielding the corrupt officials. As per document
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 3 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 3 of 20 --
no.61 page no. 17, Superintendent Engineer, Karol Bagh Zone
MCD had carried out inspection and action under 343, 344 (1) of
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was initiated but replied that on
the said day police protection was not available and coaching
centre was filled with number of students and owner of the
property was not available on site, as such survey could not be
completed. CBI has failed to investigate on this aspect as to who
were those officials of MCD who had not done their duty as per
law despite the fact that two earlier complaints regarding the
flood have already been submitted to the MCD.
7. As per document no.18 the property no. BP-11 had paid
dues under the amnesty scheme but the said building was a
commercial building and the said amnesty scheme was not
applicable. The same seems to have been done by the corrupt
officials of MCD by violating the law but CBI had not
investigated on these aspects. The Deputy Commissioner, Karol
Bagh Zone and Superintendent Engineer, Karol Bagh Zone,
MCD were required to be interrogated and investigated but CBI
has not done the same and tried to shield both of them who are
liable for the lapses of their duty.
8. As per document no.53 accused Ved Pal had submitted
inspection report dated 31.01.2024 mentioning that the under
ground tank with capacity of 1.5 lakh liters was not available in
BP-11 but after 6 months i.e. on 01.07.2024 bearing signatures of
accused Udai Veer Singh and several other Delhi Fire Services
officials, have mentioned that such a huge tank of 1.5 lakh liter
capacity was provided and constructed. CBI has not investigated
as to how such a huge tank was constructed in an already
constructed building. Similarly, the inspection report 31.01.2024
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 4 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 4 of 20 --
and 01.07.2024 does not mention as to how the lift mentioned in
the same was not pointed out when the same was not found.
Similarly, since the building was more than 15 meters why all
those Delhi Fire Services officials have not been investigated
and made accused as there was clear cut dereliction of duties and
they had facilitated the owners of the building to procure a
completion certificate without getting NOC from the fire
department. It is further stated that when the underground tank of
1.5 lakh liter capacity was not seen, how fire NOC was issued.
CBI had failed to investigate and interrogate the Executive
Engineer of the said area despite the fact that he was stated to
have been suspended due to the incident in question and on
direction of the Hon’ble High Court dated 02.08.2024.
9. CBI has failed to investigate the matter regarding the role
of Delhi Jal Board officials who had committed dereliction of
duties in regard to the drainage system of BP-11. Even the
documents relating to sewage connection were not seized by the
CBI. CBI seems to be shielding corrupt officials of Delhi Jal
Board and MCD. CBI has failed to collect evidence relating to
maintenance of sewer lines with regard to tender dated
21.02.2024. They have also not investigated as to whether the
fund allotted for the improvement/development of
repair/maintenance of sewer lines was done as per law or not. As
per document-77 issued by Virender Singh, Chief Fire officer
dated 05.04.2022, the building BP-11 was an educational
occupancy building but had illegally issued fire certificate. MCD
had not sanctioned the building for educational occupancy but
CBI has failed to investigate on this aspect as to how such a
building could have been used for educational purposes and
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 5 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 5 of 20 --
prayed that protest application be allowed and CBI be directed to
conduct further investigation and collect material evidences from
all aforesaid angles and file supplementary charge sheet and also
add offences under Section 7(a), 7(b) and 7A of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, Section 314, 318, 335, 336, 337, 340, 339
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and other relevant sections
of BNS.
10. Reply to the protest application has been filed admitting
that investigation of the present case was earlier being carried out
by Delhi Police and later vide order dated 02.08.2024 of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi transferred to CBI and it was directed to
investigate the incident of flooding in the coaching centre in Old
Rajender Nagar, wherein three students lost their lives and also to
probe the potential involvement of corruption or
negligence/inaction by public servants or any other persons
punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act or under other
applicable laws and offences.
11. It is stated that FIR has been registered on a PCR call dated
27.07.2024 wherein it was mentioned that basement of the Rau’s
IAS Study Circle, Old Rajinder Nagar got flooded and some
students were trapped and needed help. Police personnel were
deputed and it was found that due to water logging, the basement
was completely submerged. NDRF team went to the basement of
the building and recovered three bodies which were sent for
medical examination but were declared ‘brought dead’. As per
the postmortem reports, the cause of death of the three persons
was stated to be asphyxia due to ante mortem drowning.
Investigation revealed that the coaching institute by the name of
Rau’s IAS Study Cirle was being run on lease from the owners,
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 6 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 6 of 20 --
in a building BP-11, Bara Bazar Road, Old Rajinder Nagar, New
Delhi which has a basement, stilt/parking, ground floor, first
floor, second floor and third floor. All the floors including the
basement were being used by the said coaching institute and the
basement was being used for the purpose of Library/Exam Hall,
where students used to sit throughout the day for study as well as
for taking test conducted by coaching institute. On 27.07.2024 at
about 18:30 hrs, it was found that several students were studying
in the library located in the basement of the said coaching
institute and heavy rainfall was taking place outside. The rain
water, due to sudden fall of sliding gates of main building,
entered in the ground floor and some students were trapped. Few
students survived but three students succumbed to drowning.
12. Thereafter show cause notice dated 04.08.2023 was issued
by the Deputy Commissioner, MCD, Karol Bagh Zone to
owners/occupants of the building BP-11 under the provisions of
Section 345, 347 of DMC Act for misusing of property. After
further investigation, involvement of accused persons was found
in the offences and accordingly final charge sheet was filed under
Section 61 r/w Section 7 part (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 against accused persons. The investigation was kept open
on the aspect of criminal negligence, dereliction of duties,
corrupt practices indulged into by the public servants of MCD,
Delhi Fire Services and other concerned authorities. After further
investigation, role of officers of MCD and Delhi Fire Services in
conspiracy with the owners were also found out. Thereafter
sanction for prosecution in respect of accused public servants
was obtained and supplementary final report was filed.
13. On merits, parawise reply was submitted stating that para
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 7 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 7 of 20 --
no. 1 to 6 of the application are general submissions. It is denied
that IO had not conducted free and fair investigation. It is
mentioned that it has been carried out in accordance with law in
an unbiased and transparent manner solely based on facts and
circumstances which had emerged during the course of
investigation with the objective of bringing true facts before the
court. It is denied that proper investigation was not carried out
and it is stated that CBI had conducted the investigation
completely as per law and as per the directions of Hon’ble High
Court. The matter was examined from all angles and on the basis
of facts emerged during the investigation, charge sheet has been
filed. It is stated that the issue that building was more than 15
meters was incorrect as the same was clarified from the report of
fire expert wherein it has been mentioned that the building was
under 15 meters and also from the inspection report of CPWD.
Therefore, the issue of valuation of norms was irrelevant. Even
otherwise, the issue of fire NOC has been investigated and height
of the building being under 15 meters is on record as per D-88.
14. In regard to the earlier complaints raised by certain
students, it is stated that this issue has been investigated and is
part of the charge sheet. It is denied that amnesty scheme was not
applicable for the building in question.
15. It is stated that amnesty scheme dated 14.09.2022 of MCD,
the same was applicable for the financial year 2019-2020 to
2022-2023 for non residential properties. It is further stated that
Deputy Commissioner of Karol Bagh as well as concerned
Engineers were examined during the course of investigation and
reports have been duly submitted along with the final report. The
issue of availability of underground water storage tank was also
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 8 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 8 of 20 --
investigated and it was found that the same was existing at the
time of inspection by the fire department. They had also
investigated about the role of the officials of DJB and relevant
document documents D-64 to D-69 have been filed on record.
16. Investigation on aspect of repair and maintenance of the
drain of the locality was also investigated and mentioned in the
supplementary charge sheet and the officials of the MCD and
fire department were investigated and based on their criminality
have been named in the charge sheet. The matter was also
investigated from the angle of nature of occupancy of the
building. It was found that building was approved for business
occupancy. There was no building plan of educational occupancy
in respect of the building in question. Fire NOC dated 29.03.2019
was initially issued to the building being under 15 meters and
statement of PW-19 was recorded in this regard which is self
explanatory. The averments that the building was more than 15
meters is incorrect as Sh. P.R. Lonkar, Fire Adviser, an
independent witness and fire expert who had conducted the study
of the scene of crime independently and his findings have been
duly submitted before the court. The issue of jali blockage was
also investigated and the details of the same have been given in
para 16.56 of the supplementary charge sheet. The soil testing
was required to be done as per UBBL 2016 for high-rise building
which was more than 15 meters and above and therefore the
averments made by the applicant was incorrect. It was also found
during the investigation that the drains in the area were less than
4 feet and for desilting work no tender was required and it was
done departmentally. The drain which are more than 4 feet deep
which is known as ‘Daryai Nalla’ had a self cleansing mechanism
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 9 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 9 of 20 --
and no desilting was required for the same. CBI has investigated
the matter from all angles and have also taken into consideration
the DM report but the report of DM is primarily concerned on
departmental lapses, wherein may not translate into criminal
misconduct on the part of the public servants, therefore the aspect
of misconduct/criminal negligence was fully investigated and
they had mentioned the facts in the charge sheet. They had also
investigated on the aspect of their partnership deed dated
02.04.2024 which was confirmed. The company namely Rau’s
IAS Academy Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 20.05.2024 just two
months prior to the incident. The matter was highlighted and
investigated and the incident was pertaining to the students
enrolled with M/s Rau’s IAS Study Circle i.e. a partnership firm
though the directors of the newly formed company and new firm
were same, but the two are distinct legal entities. The applicant
had raised an issue that the bills issued by the private party for
fire safety purposes was suspicious as it did not have a GST
number but did not give any genuine plausible ground to show
that the same might have been raised after the incident in
question. It is also stated that applicant had also not given any
record to show that Sh. V.P. Gupta was a director of Rau’s IAS
Study Circle at the time of incident in question. The
investigation had revealed that accused Abhishek Gupta was
solely running the day to day affairs of the institute as per
agreement dated 26.06.2019 and Sh. V.P. Gupta till 31.03.2024
was responsible for the financial affairs, as per the subsequent
partnership deed dated 02.04.2024. The issue of nature of
property was investigated and the witness PW-19 had clearly
detailed the legal position in the matter. It is further stated
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 10 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 10 of 20 --
that applicant had mentioned that the lease deed was not proper
as the signatures of one party was not available. The
investigation had revealed that this ground has no justification as
the accused lessee had submitted the said document to various
authorities to assert his right as lessee and the lessee had also
been paying the monthly rent of the said premises. Therefore
absence of his signatures did not make the document illegal.
Investigation had revealed that the property in question was
leased out to accused partner of M/s Rau’s IAS Study Circle for
educational purposes. Investigation also revealed that the day to
day working was only being done by accused Abhishek Gupta
and he was admittedly working for the institute and neither V.P.
Gupta nor Ms. Vrinda Gupta was looking into the day to day
affairs of the institute, hence the ground taken by the appilcant is
not legal. It is denied that the investigation was not carried out in
a proper, fair and legal manner. It is stated that they have ensured
the investigation to be fair, transparent and legal and in
compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble High court.
17. The applicant has mainly raised five issues namely:
(I) The sanction plan for the building BP-11 was issued by
the MCD officials without following the due process of
law or in a manner which completely suggested that
they had issued the certificate without inspection or by
ignoring the mandatory compliance to be carried out by
the owners/administrator of the said building.
(II) The building in question was admitted to be more than
15 meters in height and therefore there were many
compliance which were needed to be carried out i.e.
fire NOC, etc. and without the same no completion
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 11 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 11 of 20 --
certificate could have been issued. It is claimed that
CBI had deliberately tried to show that the building
was less than 15 meters.
(III) The MCD had issued the completion certificate
without proper inspection of the building and without
making sure that the mandatory compliance have been
carried out and therefore there was clear cut malafide
and criminal intention of the officials of the MCD
including the Commissioner as well as the Executive
Engineer in this regard.
(IV) There was requirement of an underground water tank
which was initially not found by the fire officials but
later in July mentioned that the tank was existing
construction of such a large tank without demolishing
of the building is not possible. The same was clearly
showing that the facts were being manipulated but CBI
had ignored any investigation in this regard.
(V) Lastly, the CBI had failed to investigate the negligence
or dereliction of the duties as well as illegal, malafide
practices of MCD officials, fire officials and Delhi Jal
Board officials, who did not properly inspect the
building, did not insist on compliance of mandatory
permissions of MCD Act and Fire Safety Act and did
not look after the clearance of the sewer lines & proper
utilization of the funds allotted to them.
18. In respect of the fact that owners have admitted that the
building is more than 15 meters at the time of applying sanction
plan online and is also mentioned by the BSES in their bill but
CBI in their charge sheet have mentioned that the building was
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 12 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 12 of 20 --
less than 15 meters. This is a factual aspect and I.O. has clearly
mentioned that he had got the said building measured as per by-
laws and statement of witnesses have been examined. CBI has
referred to witnesses relating to the fire services who had
mentioned that the building is as per norms and also placed on
record the CPWD report wherein the height of the building has
been mentioned. In this regard, it is important to note that height
of the building can vary based on the reference point of
measurement. As per the master plan144.16, the height of the
building has to be measured from the ground level to the top slab.
As per CPWD report the height of building as per by-laws was
found to be 14.83 meters (less than 15 meters).
19. In regard to the other point that as per the building by-laws
there was a requirement of an underground tank for a capacity of
about 1.5 lakh liters, the earlier report of fire department
mentions that it was not found but later as per the report of July,
it was mentioned that the said tank was available. The applicant’s
case is that such a huge tank having a capacity of 1.5 lakh liters is
impossible to construct underground when the building has
already been completed. On behalf of the accused persons, it is
stated that the tank was not required to be constructed beneath
the surface but was required to be made at the underground level
and in the present case since there was basement existing, the
tank was constructed on the setback and if the height, length and
breadth of the tank was seen, it is not impossible to construct
such a tank. It is infact stated that water tank was already existing
but not operational and therefore it was mentioned as not
provided in the first report. Later on being operational, it was
mentioned as present. CBI has also furnished explanation on this
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 13 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 13 of 20 --
aspect. The question is not whether it was existing at the time of
first inspection or not, the question is whether in July when fire
department had issued the NOC, the tank was existing and
operational or not. In this regard, at this stage there is nothing on
record to suggest any contrary view to the CBI submission.
20. The other issues raised are relating to illegal sanction and
completion certificate of the building issued by MCD.
21. The main point for consideration in the present case arises
from the fact that the occupiers of the building no. BP-11 in
question known as Rau’s IAS study circle (hereinafter referred as
aforesaid building) were operating a coaching centre from the
building which was comprised of basement, stilt, ground floor
plus three floors. The same was sanctioned for residential
purposes but later converted for use as business purposes and the
basement was to be used for storage/parking only. The occupants
without any compliance of rules or notice to the concerned
authorities started using the same for coaching purposes. The
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Sanjay Singhal Vs. State, Govt.
of NCT of Delhi & Ors. W.P. (C) 12182/2016 vide order dated
25.07.2023 had passed the following directions for coaching
centres in Delhi:
“8. In the considered opinion of this court, if a
coaching centre is not conforming to the norms
as per the MPD, 2021, it has to be shut down and
there is no other alternative resultantly, the
Respondents are directed to close down all the
coaching centres which are running in
contravention of the MPD, 2021. The MCD will
take appropriate action within 60 days and shall
also be free to cancel their registration as done
under Clause 15.9 of the MPD, 2021 in case they
are not fulfilling the requisite conditions provided
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 14 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 14 of 20 --
under the MPD, 2021.
9. The MCD as well as the other Respondents
are directed to ensure compliance of the aforesaid
order positively within 60 days. The Police
Department, the Fire Department as well as the
Electricity Department shall provide all logistical
support to the MCD for complying with the order
passed.
10. It is needless to mention that in respect of the
other commercial activities also which are
presently going on in Mukherjee Nagar where
registration has been granted by the MCD
keeping in view the mixed use premises under
Clause 15.9 of the MPD, 2021, the MCD shall
scrutinize all such registrations and shall also
ensure compliance of the provisions as contained
under the MPD, 2021. In case other commercial
activities are going on in the premises and not
having a fire NOC as required under the law and
are not conforming to the norms as per the MPD,
2021, the MCD shall take appropriate action in
accordance with law in respect of such other
commercial activities also within a period of 60
days from today.”
22. In compliance of the same, MCD conducted alleged
inspection of the aforesaid building and a note dated 04.08.2023
was put up by the concerned JE through his superiors and was
finally taken up by DC, MCD Karol Bagh Zone. A show cause
notice was issued to the occupants of the aforesaid building and
they filed reply and sought personal hearing which was allowed.
Occupants were asked to obtain fire NOC and after obtaining the
same, no further proceedings were carried out by the MCD.
Thereafter a online complaint by one Mr. Kushwaha dated
26.06.2024 was received by the concerned department wherein
he had mentioned that the basement of the aforesaid building was
being used for the purpose of coaching and was prone to water
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 15 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 15 of 20 --
logging thereby causing serious threat to life of the students and
had requested that action be taken. No action was taken and the
said Mr. Kushwaha sent a reminder dated 15.07.2024 requesting
for early action as life of students were involved. However, even
after that no action was taken till the date of incident i.e.
27.07.2024. On this date, due to rains, water entered into the
basement of the aforesaid building causing drowning and death
of three students. It was revealed that the occupants of the said
building had been using the basement in contravention to the
rules and were not permitted to use it in any other manner except
for storage/parking. Their conduct of using the basement as part
of coaching center was alleged to be the cause of drowning of
three students on the said date.
23. FIR was registered and investigation was carried out but
thereafter a Writ Petition was filed in the Hon’ble High Court
whereby vide order dated 02.08.2024, the investigation of the
case was handed over to the CBI and CBI was directed to carry
out full fledged investigation regarding the incident, including
but not limited to the criminal negligence, dereliction of duties,
corrupt practices indulged in by any person including the
officials of the local authority. All authorities were expected to
cooperate in the investigation as three young lives were snuffed
out apparently due to greed and/or negligence and/or failure to
discharge duty.
24. Prosecution has filed chargesheet and supplementary
chargesheet naming JE of the Karol Bagh Zone as accused along
with other persons. However, IO did not find any dereliction of
duty/corrupt practice on part of any other superior official. Given
the background of the case where a huge structure consisting of
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 16 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 16 of 20 --
more than 6 floors catering to hundreds of students was
operational for numbers of years, could not have gone unnoticed
by the civic authorities who have a duty to report any non-
compliance or violation of laws on day to day basis. It is thus
very difficult to believe that none of the supervisory officers of
the said JE could have been aware of the illegal and unauthorised
use of basement or even of the proceedings and inspections being
carried out by their junior in compliance of directions of the
Hon’ble High Court. There could possibly be a conscious effort
to ignore or permit the illegal use of the basement of the said
coaching institute. There seems to be no investigation on this
aspect of the dereliction of duties in respect of the concerned
officials of the civic authorities which allowed the occupiers of
the building BP No. 11 (Rau’s IAS Study Circle) to continue their
illegal and unauthorised activities in the basement leading to
death of three innocent students.
25. In this regard, it is important to note that the Hon’ble High
Court vide order dated 25.07.2023 in Sanjay Singhal’s case
(supra) had directed the MCD to find out if any coaching centre
was not confirming to the norms as per MPD 2021 and to close
down all such coaching centers and take appropriate action
within 60 days and also to cancel their registrations in case they
were not fulfilling the requisite conditions provided under MPD
2021. The investigation in the case has revealed that the
concerned JE of the zone had merely put up a photograph dated
03.08.2024 alongwith a note that the institute was not complying
with the provisions of MPD 2021. The said note was taken up by
respective officers in the hierarchy and finally a show cause
notice was issued to the occupants. But there were no details of
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 17 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 17 of 20 --
inspection or violation found at site mentioned either in the
aforesaid note or the show cause notice.
26. Thus, it appears that either no inspection was carried out
or details of violations were specifically omitted and only a
general view to circumvent or show a sham compliance of
directions of orders of Hon’ble High Court was carried out. The
simple note without any details clearly show that none of the
higher officials as supervisory or responsible officers had even
bothered to find out if there was any violation or not and also did
not even ask their subordinate officers as to why they had not
specified the short comings which were found by them at the site.
This was important as it has been shown that the aforesaid
institute was using the basement of the building unauthorisdely
as a coaching institute and the students were using it as a library
and for exams.
27. It has also come on record that the area in question was a
low lying area prone to water logging and flooding and there had
been several incidents of flooding in the basement prior to the
incident in question. It is thus difficult to believe that the entire
hierarchy of the officials of the MCD would have no knowledge
of the same or otherwise would have atleast pointed out the
lapses on the part of the officials for not mentioning the specific
non-confirming norms as per MPD 2021 in their note or show
cause notice. The process followed by the officials after the
issuance of show cause notice also points out to the fact that they
had only asked for producing fire NOC and no further
compliance was either noted or asked. Thereafter, even after they
had received a complaint specifically pointing out that the
coaching center was being illegally run in the basement and the
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 18 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 18 of 20 --
area was prone to water logging thereby causing serious danger
of life to students but even then no action was initiated or
contemplated by the concerned officials.
28. The IO had pointed out that due to some technical failure,
the complaint was received in the concerned zone very late.
However, the record perused in this regard shows that the
complaint dated 26.06.2024 and reminder was received in the
office of DC, MCD on 18.07.2024 but even then no action was
taken till 27.07.2024 when the incident had happened.
29. In this regard, the Hon’ble High Court in terms of order
dated 02.08.2024, in the present case, has specifically directed
the CBI to carry out full fledged investigation regarding the
incident including but not limited to the criminal negligence,
dereliction of duties, corrupt practices indulged by any person
including the officials of the local authority. It has also been
observed that three young lives were snuffed off apparently due
to greed and/or negligence and/or failure to discharge duty.
30. In terms of the aforesaid directions, the IO was duty bound
to investigate on the issue of criminal negligence as well as
dereliction of duties/corrupt practices. But as detailed above, the
IO has not investigated from the prospective of dereliction of
duties by the concerned officials in regard to the usage of the said
building as coaching center in the basement. Merely to say that
the lowest official in the hierarchy did not perform his duty will
not suffice in the matter as it was the duty of the supervising
officers to see that the necessary compliance were being carried
out on the ground and also their subordinates were putting up
proper and complete reports after actual inspections.
31. IO is therefore directed to carry out further investigation in
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 19 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 19 of 20 --
the matter regarding the issue of probable dereliction of
duties/corrupt practices by the officials of the MCD which have
led to the institute having continued in its illegal use of the
basement, thereby being instrumental in loss of lives of innocent
citizens and to file report as per law.
32. Accordingly, the present protest application is disposed off.
33. Be tagged with the main file.
34. Copy of this order be given to CBI for necessary
compliance.
Announced in the open court
on 12.03.2026
(Dinesh Bhatt)
Principal District & Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI),
Rouse Avenue District Court
12.03.2026
CBI vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors. Page 20 of 20
CBI No. 36/2025
-- 20 of 20 --