Eventually, Velayudhan Nair was posted as the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chathanur.
They said that sanction had been obtained from the Additional District Magistrate and somebody would be bringing it to the spot.
In response to the averments and allegations made by Senkumar, a reply affidavit was filed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Kerala, General Administration Special AC Department on or about 24th June, 2016.
On 3rd May, 2016 the appellant sent a companymunication to the Additional Chief Secretary N C giving the details of the crime and the initial investigation.
The Note records that the Temple Administration Committee sought permission for a display of fireworks but this was declined by an order dated 8th April, 2016 by the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam.
In the night of 09.04.2016 thousands of people gathered at the temple to watch the fire works display.
Instead, the temple authorities violating the law, defying the lawful direction of the authorities started to ignite the fire works abruptly.
Suo motu proceedings in the High Court In the meanwhile, soon after the Puttingal Temple tragedy, the Kerala High Court took numberice of the tragedy and registered a suo motu writ petition being W.P. C No.14978 of 2016.
There is also a reference to a letter dated 10th May, 2016 sent by the Home Secretary to the Director General, Election Commission of India wherein it is mentioned that the Government was number aware of the proposal for the transfer of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chathanur until it received the companymunication dated 4th May, 2016.
The officer declined to grant any permission either for display of fireworks or companypetitive fireworks.
Within a short time, District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural also reached the spot and the entire team started investigation.
All officials including the Circle Inspector of Police immediately went to the ground for managing the crowd, since there was surge of people.
909/16 u s 449, 302 IPC of Kuruppumpady Police Station was registered at 9.30 p.m. on 28.04.2016 on the basis of the statement given by one Anas, Panchayat Member there.
Consequently, the present government with a different Chief Minister assumed office on 25th May, 2016.
The facts leading up to the tragedy are summarized in a Note dated 13th April, 2016 by the Additional Chief Secretary Home with regard to what is number known as the Puttingal Temple tragedy.
As a replacement, the appellant suggested Gopakumaran Nair and Radhakrishnan, but the Additional Director General of Police Crimes investigating the Puttingal Temple tragedy wrote to the appellant with a companyy of the letter to the Home Secretary requesting that Gopakumaran Nair should number be transferred since he was part of the team investigating into the tragedy.
When the fire works Vedikkettu started huge crowd rushed forward to view it.
Late into the night early morning of 10th April an extremely unfortunate tragedy occurred resulting in the stock of fireworks catching a spark.
The affidavit gives the sequence of events which is more or less the same as in the Note dated 13th April, 2016.
We were told that the investigation was transferred to the CB CID on 11th April, 2016.
The deceased was staying with her mother Smt.
In the meanwhile it was announced through the public address system that the companymittee had permission to companyduct display of fire works Vedikkettu from the Additional District Magistrate and there would be a display of fire words.
The police officials as well as the Tahsildar, Kollam were present at the temple premises.
This resulted in an explosion and the death of more than 100 persons and injuries to more than 400 persons.
It is submitted that around 03.00 a.m. on 10.04.2016 some spark from the fire works fell inside the fire works shed Kambappura and resulting in explosion causing heavy casualties.
With regard to the role of the police, he stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit as follows Subsequently on 09.04.2016, the police made all bandobust arrangements for the companyduct of the festival and there was a scheme prepared by the police for crowd management as well to prevent companymission of offences.
The Circle Inspector of Police, Paravoor who was on duty in the temple companypound, numbericing the preparation made by the organizers for the fire works display after the lowering of the festival flag from the flag mast at 9.30 p.m. asked the office bearers of the Temple Committee to show the order granting permission of the same.
This was related to the murder of Jisha, aged 30/2016 years who was found murdered in her house on the bank of a canal.
The Circle Inspector of Police asked to wait until the permit was actually shown to him.
Similarly and for the same reason, the Additional Director General of Police Crimes objected to Radhakrishnan being appointed as the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chathanur.
Proceedings in the Central Administrative Tribunal Feeling aggrieved by his transfer and companysequent removal as the State Police Chief, the appellant challenged the order dated 1st June, 2016 in the Central Administrative Tribunal through O.A. No.
Significantly, even the Chief Secretary did number make any adverse companyment against the appellant.
In this writ petition, an affidavit was filed by the Chief Secretary of the State on 13th April, 2016.
The companyclusion drawn by the Home Secretary was that placing Gopakumaran Nair or Radhakrishnan as the Additional Commissioner of Police, Chathanur would put him under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Police, Kollam City, whose role was under investigation and therefore these circumstances were reasonable enough for presuming an undesirable motive of the appellant.
