New Delhi, March 9 (Agencies): Real estate baron Gopal Ansal will have serve the remaining period of the one-year sentence in the 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy case, with the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissing his plea for parity with his elder brother Sushil Ansal, who was let off on grounds of age-related health issues.

“The appeal filed by Gopal Ansal is dismissed,” a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel said.

The two brothers were among 12 convicted in 2007 for the deaths of 59 people in a fire at the Ansals’ Uphaar Grand Cinema in Delhi on June 13, 1997.

Justice Gogoi, in a 2:1 majority verdict on February 9, had granted relief to Sushil Ansal, 76, considering age-related complications by awarding him jail term already undergone, and had asked Gopal to surrender in four weeks to serve the remaining jail term.

Gopal, 69, had then filed a plea in the apex court seeking modification of its order on the grounds of parity, citing his age, and claiming he would suffer irreparable damage to his health if sent to prison.

Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, representing Gopal Ansal, sought more time for client to surrender. Gopal was to have surrendered today, going by the February 9 order.

“Gopal Ansal will surrender to serve the rest of the sentence as imposed on him on March 20,” the bench said.

The Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) had petitioned the Supreme Court to modify the order sentencing Sushil to the period already undergone by him in jail in the case.

The AVUT, led by Neelam Krishnamoorthy, had said that both Sushil and Gopal Ansal are healthy and should be sent to jail to serve the remaining sentence in the case.

”No evidence or material was ever placed on record, either in the course of the appeals or the review petitions, by Sushil Ansal that suggests that he is having any medical complication(s),” the association had said in its application.

The AVUT has also opposed Gopal Ansal's plea, saying the review pleas of the Central Bureau of Investigation and AVUT have already been decided and ”there cannot be a review of the review judgement”.