Dr. B.L. Wadhera vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 611 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. As the respondent, Delhi Fire Safety Service failed in performing statutory functions, duties of protecting and safeguarding the life and property and also failed to take requisite steps to safeguard the life and property of the people residing in Delhi and particularly in the High Rise Buildings, the petitioner approached this Court for directing the respondents to take action promptly, diligently and efficiently to see that fire safety measures are provided in a building, under the Building By-laws for which, Delhi Fire Service is required to see that Fire Safety Measures are installed in a building before it is occupied or in case the buildings which were erected prior to 1983, the measures are taken so as to see that Fire Safety Measures are provided.

2. In view of the urbanization, influx of people in the cities, shortage of space, nature of expansion and required civic amenities has resulted in the need of high rise buildings. For safety of people it is not only necessary to have civil laws and building regulations in the booklet, but their strict implementation too is absolutely essential. In the past, several incidents were reported and considering the need to fight against the fire a comprehensive code known as the National Building Code, 1970 finds place in the building bye laws. Despite this legislation on the statute book, its provisions have not been implemented. It is known that at the time of incident people and others raise hue and cry, but it remains so long as the incident remains a fresh and thereafter the incident is forgotten. In the city, number of incidents of fire have been reported causing loss to human life and property. Notably among these ugly incidents are that of Gopala Tower, which took place in 1983, Sidharath Hotel and in recent past, in Upahar cinema where casualties were much more.

3. "Justice D.R. Khanna Commission of Enquiry," New Delhi in its report has pointed out at page 153 in para 13:

" It is sheer irony that DDA, which has been constituted to play a pioneer role in the development of cosmopolitan, has shown lack of perception so far as fire safety measures were concerned, in planning its own building."

The report indicates at page 154 in para 15 as under:

"The architects while submitting plans for sanction with the civic bodies, should certify that they have taken requisite fire safety measures in planning the buildings. No plan should be entertained without such certification. The building bye-laws also should clearly define what are the minimum fire safety requirements to be incorporated in different types of constructions. The officials of the civic bodies should be well acquainted and qualified to ensure their implementation. The existing architects as well as the concerned officers of the building departments of civic bodies should be given refresher courses, and for that the Institute of Architects can play a notable role so far as the professional architects are concerned. This should correspondingly apply to engineers as well."

4. The Commission was of the view that officer who allow sanction by deeming effect should be severally dealt with for their laches. Again malpractice indulged into by quite number of officers in neither sanctioning, nor rejecting the plan and instead entering into unnecessary correspondence and thus delaying the matter should be sternly curved. The architects and builders are required to certify the due compliance.

5. A Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal (as His Lordship then was) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Mahajan initially issued notice to the respondents vide order dated 28.5.1998 to show cause as to why petition be not admitted. Thus it is clear that the respondents were aware that the Court has taken cognizance of the matter and, therefore, it was their duty to see that before effective hearing takes place, in all the buildings which are required to have Fire Safety Measures, Fire Safety Measures are provided but till today that exercise is not done. There are number of buildings in Delhi where Fire Safety Measures are not provided.

6. How this matter is dealt with by the respondents would be clear from the earlier orders. Despite the earlier order referred hereinabove and time being granted as no reply was filed on 12.1.1999, the Division Bench was constrained to issue direction to file reply within a period of four weeks. Even till 12.3.1999 reply was not filed. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 5 stated that the reply will be filed on that date. Respondents No. 3 and 4 did not file the reply and hence after imposing costs on erring respondents matter was adjourned to 18.5.1999 and time was given to file reply within four weeks. Despite this order no reply was filed till 18.5.1999 and hence Court again granted one opportunity to file reply within four weeks and imposed costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Even on 21.3.2000 as reply was not filed by respondent No. 3 again an opportunity was given. The matter was adjourned to 11.4.2000.

7. Building Bye-laws, 1983 for Union Territory of Delhi are made applicable to all building activities under the jurisdiction of Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred as DDA in short) as also Municipal Corporation of Delhi ( hereinafter referred as M.C.D. and New Delhi Municipal Council (hereinafter referred as N.D.M.C.) Person erecting a building or any structure for whatever purpose and of whatever material and every part thereof whether used as human habitation or not which includes foundation, plinth, walls, roofs, chimneys, plumbing and building services, fixed platforms, verandahs, balcony, cornice or projection part of a building or anything affixed thereto or any wall enclosing or intended to enclose any land or space and signs and outdoor display structures, monuments, memorials or any contrivance of permanent nature/stability built under or over ground has to follow Building Bye Laws. It is equally the duty of the authorities to strictly enforce these building bye-laws.

FIRE SAFETY PROVISIONS

8. To make more effective provisions of Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Measures in buildings and premises, the Parliament enacted the Delhi Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Safety Act"). The Chief Fire Officer is required to be appointed under the provisions contained in this Act.

9. Section 3 of the Act, authorizes the nominated authority to inspect the said building or premises to ensure that fire safety measures are provided for the safety of life and property. Duty is cast upon the owner or the occupier to render all possible assistance. Duty is also cast upon the nominated authority to record its views on the deviations from or the contraventions of, the building bye-laws with regard to the fire prevention and fire safety measures and in the absence of any such measure, notice is to be issued to the owner or occupier to undertake such measures as may be specified in the notice.

10. Section 5 of the Safety Act empowers the nominated authority to seal buildings or premises. If an order made under sub-section (4) of Section 5 is not complied with, which is made by the Chief Fire Officer, then the Chief Fire Officer may direct any police officer having jurisdiction in the area to remove such persons from the building or premises and such police officer is required to comply with such directions and it is thereafter the Chief Fire Officer has to seal the building or the premises. The said seal cannot be removed by any person unless and until an order is made by the Chief Fire Officer in that behalf. The Chief Fire Officer has to follow the mandate of Section 7 of the Safety Act in the event of non-compliance of any notice issued under Section 4 or Section 6 of the Safety Act and it is for him to take such steps as may be necessary for the compliance of such notice. It may be noted that the expenses incurred are to be ultimately borne by owner or occupier of premises.

11. After considering building bye-laws it is clear that without prior sanction of building plans in accordance with the zonal plans, no one can erect a building including a High Rise Building. Before occupying, the owners or occupiers are duty bound to see that they enter the building only after occupancy certificate is issued by the Competent Authority. The occupancy certificate can be issued by the Competent Authority only after satisfaction being recorded by the Chief Fire Officer to the effect that the building is provided with adequate fire safety measures as per the bye-laws. Despite this stringent provisions on account of negligence, inaction on the part of Fire Safety Department or on account of illegal act on the part of the builders, owner or occupier occupying the building without providing fire safety measures is nothing but permitting illegalities with active connivance or negligence on the part of the authorities. Under the law it is the duty of a builder, a architect, a contractor, an organizer of a society etc. to see that there is strict compliance with the building bye-laws and it is the duty of the Chief Fire Officer to see that before occupancy certificate can be given he inspects the building and records his satisfaction for adequate fire safety measures and it is only thereafter under the building bye-laws occupancy certificate is to be granted. Therefore, it is clear that authorities are required to strictly enforce all building bye laws for the safety of the life of the citizens occupying the building and also the property. Any interference would amount to play mischief with the life of people occupying the building or visiting the building.

12. Even the buildings which were erected prior to 6th day of June, 1983, the duty is cast upon the Chief Fire Officer to inspect such buildings or premises and has to issue show cause notice to the owners or occupiers of such buildings or premises if as per rules adequate fire safety measures are not provided. He must call upon the owner or the occupier to undertake measures for rectifying the inadequacy, if any, within such period as he may consider just and reasonable. It may be noted that the Legislature while enacting the Safety Act considered the safety of the life of the citizens and carved out a special procedure under the Act itself with regard to fire safety measures and orders made by the Chief Fire Officer is made appealable under the Act itself, and, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of Section 9. Section 10 provides penal provisions. The offence is made punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees or with both. If the offence is continuing one then further stringent penalties are provided. Under the safety Act, the authorities are empowered to make rules in this behalf and accordingly, Delhi Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Rules, 1987 have been framed (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). Rule 5 provides Minimum Standards, which reads:-

"The minimum standards for fire prevention and fire safety measures specified for building or premises shall be as are provided in building bye-laws in 1983 or as may be amended from time to time thereafter, relating to the following matters:-

(1) Means and access

(2) Underground/overhead water static tanks.

(3) Automatic sprinklers system.

(4) First aid Hose Reels

(5) Fire extinguishers of ISI certification mark.

(6) Compartmentation

(7) Automatic fire detection and alarm system/ Manually operate electrical fire alarm system.

(8) Public address system.

(9) Illuminated exit way marking signs.

(10) Alternate source of electric supply.

(11) Fire lift with fireman switch

(12) Wet riser Down Comer System.

13. This provision would be made applicable to the buildings which were erected prior to 1983. However, after 6th day of June, 1983 the stringent rules are made applicable. For the buildings erected after the aforesaid date as per building Bye-law No. 17.2 additional fire protection requirements for buildings having 15 meters height or more, ( high rise or multistoried buildings ) and buildings which are covered by Bye-law No. 6.2.4.1 are required to comply with the provisions as applicable. That indicates that these provisions are made in addition to the provisions of Part IV of National Building Code of India. Duty is cast upon the Chief Fire Officer to insist on adequate fire safety measures in the buildings for safety depending upon the occupancy and height of a building. Type of stair case or its enclosure, lift enclosures, basements, service ducts, refuse chutes and refuse chambers, lifts and fire lifts, building services which includes electrical services, stair case and corridor lighting, alternate source of electric supply, transformers, air conditioning, boiler room, provision of first aid fire fighting appliances and fixed fire fighting installations. It refers to riser, hydrants, static tanks and its capacity according to the height of the building, static water storage tank, prevention of stagnation of water in the static water storage tank, automatic sprinklers, Carbon Di Oxide Fire Extinguishing System, fire alarm system etc. It refers to control room, house keeping and fire drills and fire orders.

14. There is a specific provision in building bye-laws with regard to automatic alarm system or design to operate automatically upon fire and to discharge water upon that fire and which may also simultaneously give automatic audible alarm. It also specifically refers to stair case in Bye-law No. 2.24 and it states that a stair case separated by fire resistant walls from the rest of the building. Bye-law No. 2.28 refers to fire alarm system which reads as under :-

"An arrangement to call joints or detectors, sounders and other equipments for the transmission and indication of alarm signals for testing of circuits and whenever required for the operation of auxiliary services. This device may be workable automatically or manually to alert the occupants in the event of fire."

15. Bye-laws further refer to fire lift, fire proof door, fire resisting material, fire resistance, fire separation, fire service inlets and fire tower.

16. Bye-law No. 6.2.4 refers to building plan. There is specific reference to building plans for multistoried/special buildings in Bye-law No. 6.2.4. If one refers to said bye-law it becomes very clear that any building plan which is placed for approval of the authorities, additional information is required to be furnished to the authorities in case the building which has height of 15 mtrs or more. Thus even at the stage of submitting plan for approval the Architect/ builder/ contractor/ organizer, as the case may be, has to see that the authority is made aware about the manner in which provisions with regard to fire safety are to be complied with. We are not referring to clauses (a) to (q). But suffice it to say that the details are required to be indicated so as to see that the authorities examining the building plan are satisfied that adequate provision is made for fire safety measures in a building so that in case of fire in a building people can get immediate assistance/protection.

17. Our attention was drawn to Bye-law No. 6.7.1. It reads:-

"The Authority may either sanction or refuse the plans and specifications or may sanction them with such modifications or directions as it may deem necessary and thereupon shall communicate its decision to the person giving the notice in the prescribed form given Appendix 'E'"

18. It is interesting to note that the building plans for building identified by bye-law No. 6.2.3 is subject to the scrutiny of the Chief Fire Officer, Delhi Fire Service and building permission can be given by the authority only after the clearance from the Chief Fire Officer. Thus before erecting a building it is brought to the notice of the Chief Fire Officer that a building is to be erected and by that he is made aware as to where the building is to be erected and what type of facilities are to be provided.

19. It is the duty of the Fire Officer to inspect the buildings and to certify that in a building fire safety measures, as required under the law, are provided and it is only after his satisfaction to that effect, occupancy certificate is to be granted. Once the fire safety measures are provided, one has to see whether the same is operative or not. It is the duty of the Fire Officer to check periodically and certify that the system is operating as prescribed. In the register maintained by him, he must make entries and must call upon the occupiers to provide safety measures which are lacking and, if not provided, he must proceed in accordance with law for the safety of the people.

It is required to be noted that such high rise buildings are required to be erected according to the building bye laws which include providing fire safety measures. It is for the approving authority to see that if construction is not as per plans approved to take immediate action including non-grant of occupancy certificate. How the buildings are permitted to be occupied without adequate fire safety measures, is the question. It could be done only with the blessings of the authorities. Why the authorities issue occupancy certificate or why they allow the people to occupy the building without fire safety measures when it is erected in contravention of the bye laws. How, they have permitted the facilities of essential services such as water and drainage. It is for these authorities to call upon the authorities supplying electricity not to supply electricity till the occupancy certificate is issued in accordance with law. If the buildings were erected contrary to regulations and were not provided with essential service the builders/ developers/ organizer could not have handed over possession of the building to the allottees. When a building is occupied, which is erected in contravention of the bye laws and where the authorities have provided essential services, it indicates that it is not a case of negligence, rather of connivance and collusion to play fraud with the system.

20. After the plans are sanctioned, one has to give a notice for commencement of work as provided in Bye-law No. 7.2.1. Bye-law No. 7.3.2 mandates that the person to whom a permit is issued shall during the construction keep: (a) pasted in a conspicuous place on the property in respect of which the permit was issued, a copy of the building permit; and (b) a copy of the approved drawings and specifications referred to in Bye-law 6 on the property in respect of which the permit was issued. Bye-law No. 7.5.1 refers to occupation of building. According to the said bye-law no person shall occupy or allow any other person to occupy any building or part of a building for any purpose until such building or part has been granted the occupancy certificate. It is required to be noted that before the occupancy certificate is issued on receipt of the notice of completion of a building or a premises the authority has to inspect the building and in case of a building which is covered by Bye-law No. 6.2.4. (multistoried buildings having 15 mtrs. height or more or a special building such as building for assembly, institutional, industrial, storage and hazardous occupancies) the working shall be subject to inspection of Chief Fire Officer and only after clearance from the Chief Fire Officer regarding completion of work from the fire protection point of view, the occupancy certificate is required to be issued. If there is non-compliance of the building bye-laws then it is for the authority not to issue such certificate. In Bye-law No. 7.6 it is observed that if nothing is communicated within this period, it shall be deemed to have been approved by the Authority for occupation.

21. Section 346 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 refers to completion certificate. Every person who employs a licensed architect or engineer or a person approved by the Commissioner to design or erect a building or execute any work shall, within one month after the completion of the erection of the building or execution of the work, deliver or send or cause to be delivered or sent to the Commissioner a notice in writing of such completion accompanied by a certificate in the form prescribed by bye laws made in this behalf and shall give to the Commissioner all necessary facilities for the inspection of such building or work. Section 346(2) contemplates occupancy certificate. No person shall occupy or permit to be occupied any such building or use or permit to be used any building or a part thereof effected by any such work until permission has been granted by the Commissioner in this behalf in accordance with bye laws made under this Act. However, proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 346 refers to deeming clause indicating that if the Commissioner fails within a period of thirty days after the receipt of the notice of completion to communicate his refusal to grant such permission, such permission shall be deemed to have been granted.

22. Section 251 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 is a similarly worded provision. New Delhi Municipal Council refers to Chairperson, while the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act refers to the Commissioner.

23. As per bye laws 7.5.2, notice of completion is required to be given stating that the erection of a building is completed in pursuance of the sanction granted by the authority. Details are required to be given as indicated in Appendix-F. Along with this licensed architect/ engineer/supervisor/group have to certify that erection of a particular building has been completed under the supervision on a particular date as per the plan sanctioned giving details of communication, number and date. The said person has to specifically state that the work has been completed to his best satisfaction and material has been strictly used in accordance with the specification. He has to specifically state that no provision of building bye-laws has been transgressed during the work and the building is fit for use for which it has been erected. Thus, responsible person has to sign such a certificate and it is only thereafter the occupancy certificate is to be issued. A person has to inspect the building keeping in mind the bye-laws from the view point of structural safety, fire safety, hygienic and sanitary conditions inside and in the surrounding and has also to certify that the building is fit for occupation. Thus, when responsible officer makes an application, authority has to consider the same. It may be noted that for erection or re-erection of a building notice is to be given to the Commissioner. Thus, alteration or addition cannot be made without following proper procedure. The legislature has empowered the Commissioner to inspect at any time a building during its erection or execution of work. If contrary to the sanction, work has commenced the same must be stopped. It is clear that no person can occupy or permit any one to occupy any building or use or permit to be used a building or part thereof to any one until occupancy certificate has been issued. A duty is cast on the Commissioner to issue such certificate if the construction is as per the approved plan and building bye laws. The Commissioner has to consider the application only after the fire safety measures are installed and certificate by Chief Fire Officer is issued. However, on account of negligence or connivance on the part of the officer of the Corporation in performing his duty, if the occupancy certificate is not issued or if the application is not rejected within the stipulated period, and the application is kept pending, the wrong doer cannot get advantage of his own wrong by stating that in view of the deeming fiction occupancy certificate is granted. It may be noted that if the construction is as per the plan approved and the officer of the Corporation was informed in writing, as per bye laws and the officer of the Corporation visited the site and found everything as per the plan and no intimation is given for approval or rejection, in such a case, if the building is erected as per the plan, one can say that the certificate is deemed to have been granted but not otherwise. The builder/architect/ engineer, etc. is aware whether the building is erected as per plan approved and as per bye laws. In case such high rise building is erected in contravention of the plan approved and is contrary to building regulations, then he is a wrong doer and if the certificate is not granted because of connivance or negligence of the officer, protection of deemed provision cannot be sought by a wrong doer.

24. What is required to be noted is that if the building is erected contrary to the sanction plan and/or contrary to the building bye-laws, is the Commissioner competent to issue occupancy certificate? A person erecting a building in view of the provisions indicated could not have executed the work so as to contravene any of the provisions of the bye laws, safety rules and the NDMC or DMC Act. In the case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation vs. Anil Rattan Banerjee, , the Apex Court considered the submissions. In that case the High Court observed : " That apart, construction has actually taken place on the basis of a plan that could have been sanctioned as the law prevailing at that time, in that event nothing could be done." The Apex Court pointed out that Section 319 of Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 expressly states that even in a case of deemed permission, the applicant cannot execute the work "so as to contravene any of the provisions of this Act or of Schedule VI or any rule or bye- law applying thereto." In the opinion of this Court, considering the provisions of the local Acts, namely, New Delhi Municipal Council Act and Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, Safety Act, Safety Rules and the Building Bye Laws no one can execute the work so as to contravene the provisions contained in the local Acts or building bye-law and therefore it cannot be said that in view of the deeming fiction permission was granted to occupy the building. It is in this view of the situation, this Court is of the opinion that if the building is erected in accordance with the bye laws and the Act, as applicable, only then it can be said that deeming clause will be made applicable and not otherwise.

25. Bye-law No. 8 mandates Authority to carry out inspection of work from the receipt of notice of commencement to completion certificate at various stages so as to ascertain whether the work is proceeding as per the provisions of Bye-laws and sanctioned plan. Thus after the building plans are sanctioned the Authority has to inspect the building and only after satisfying certificate is to be granted for occupancy. Despite this stringent provision the Court is surprised when the Court is informed that there are several buildings in Delhi without fire safety measures or are lacking in fire safety measures. Some buildings have no fire safety measures; some buildings have provided in part and such facilities which are not complete according to the bye-law cannot be said to have provided adequate fire safety system in accordance with Building Bye-laws and under the Safety Act.

26. It is interesting to note that Delhi is a city having an area of 1483 sq. kilometers (urban and rural). When petition was filed there were 34 fire stations. As pointed out by Mr. Khanna, learned Advocate appearing as amices Curiae, that Delhi Fire Service attended 13685 calls during the year 2001 and 2002. Figures with regard to loss of property are alarming. During the year 2001-02, the loss of property is estimated at Rs. 3430/- lakhs. So far as human lives are concerned 261 persons met with unfortunate death on account of fire and 1197 persons sustained injuries. Mr. Khanna, learned advocate, has placed on record occupancy wise break up, division wise percentage of calls in Delhi and causes of fire. All these figures are placed on record by him from the website of the Corporation. During the five years (1995-96 to 1999-2000) approximately 75,000 fire incidents resulting in more than 1,825 deaths and injuries to more than 7,600 persons and loss of property valued in the vicinity of Rs. 176/- corers came to be reported. 70% of the fire incidents are estimated to have arisen from electrical causes. From the website (GISdevelopment.net) Mr. Khanna, learned Advocate, submitted that the fire can be attributed on account of short circuiting, illegal and/or loose connections, sub-standard wiring, overloading of the system. 17% of fire can be attributed due to the carelessness. These figures are eye opener and Government has to check about the electrical installations also and must insist that in every building electrical installation is by a certified electrician under supervision of Electrical Engineer.

STATIC WATER TANKS

27. On 25.10.2002 it was also pointed out by Mr. Shali, learned Advocate for the PWD that there are 214 static water tanks within the jurisdiction. Some are not operative. Earlier these tanks were maintained by M.C.D. and subsequently were required to be maintained by Public Works Department ( hereinafter referred as PWD). The Court also noted that P.W.D. has no infrastructure to maintain the static water tanks and a suggestion was made that it should be maintained by Delhi Jal Board (hereinafter referred to as "D.J.B."). Keeping this aspect in mind, the Court directed that these 214 static water tanks shall be maintained by D.J.B. and the cost of maintenance shall be borne by P.W.D. It was also stated by the Court that in case more tanks are required, then they shall be maintained by D.J.B. Chief Fire Officer was directed to give list of static water tanks to P.W.D. as well as to D.J.B. for taking appropriate action.

28. There are 97 static water tanks which are useless as per report of Comptroller and Auditor General (hereinafter referred as CAG). So far as NDMC is concerned, 50% static water tanks are in working condition and 50% are not in working condition. There is no reason as to why direction should not be given to put all these static water tanks in working conditions.

29. About maintenance of static water tanks on 18.12.2000 direction was given to D.J.B. to maintain the same falling within the jurisdiction of M.C.D. N.D.M.C. Cantonment Board was also directed to maintain the static water tanks, which were within its jurisdiction.

30. So far as static water tanks are concerned, we have heard the submissions of Mr. Khanna, amices Curiae, Mr. Shali and counsel for D.J.B. We are surprised to know that on inspection static water tanks were not found at some places and it is reported that some of the water tanks are not functional. It is for N.D.M.C, Cantonment Board, D.J.B. to see that all water tanks are made functional and they shall file a report to this Court within a period of three months about the action taken in this behalf. It is the duty of N.D.M.C., D.J.B. and the fire department to carry out the work and make all tanks functional. Request was made to give 2/3 months time. We grant the time as prayed for.

FIRE HYDRANTS

31. These authorities were also called upon to maintain fire hydrants in their respective jurisdiction.

32. Mr. Khanna learned counsel appearing as amices curiae submitted that there should be 7645 hydrants. It is pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that 1735 hydrants are located. Thus there is hazy picture about the fire hydrants.

FIRE FIGHTERS

33. On 17.7.2000 it was noticed by the Court that most of the vehicles owned by Delhi Fire Safety Service were out of order. Respondents did not deny this. However, they came out with the plea of financial stringency. Therefore, the Division Bench directed to file detailed affidavit and observed that financial constraints cannot be an excuse and that too for maintenance of vehicles needed to fight fire. Despite direction to file an affidavit within two weeks, no affidavit was filed. It appears that the Delhi Jal Board and Delhi Development Authority were added as parties in the months of October and December, 2000 respectively. It transpires from the order dated 10.9.2001, that the possession of land allotted in favor of Delhi Fire Service was not taken, therefore, direction in this behalf was also given on 16.8.2001. It transpires that 10 sites were to be handed over by D.D.A. to Delhi Fire Service for Fire Stations. It was further stated that at Jasola, Sarita Vihar, Dallu Pura and Jawala Heri possession of sites is already handed over and at six sites possession was not handed over and D.D.A. was asked to deliver possession so that appropriate action can be taken for erection of Fire Stations. On 4.3.2003 the Court observed that some of the sites as per report of D.D.A. were not ready for being delivered to the Delhi Fire Service. As there was no fruitful result, the Division Bench on 4.3.2003 after hearing learned counsel for the parties expressed its hopes that exercise will be completed at the earliest by convening the meeting by the Principal Secretary (Home) to be attended by the Chief Fire Officer, D.D.A., Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Public Works Department, New Delhi Municipal Council and Delhi Vidyut Board

34. It may be noted that the Court observed on 9.10.2002 that as stated by the D.D.A. all the sites for setting up of Fire Stations have been handed over to the Chief Fire Officer. With regard to certain sites assurance was given that difficulties will be sorted out in near future. Chief Fire Officer was also called upon to point out the deficiencies and short comings in terms of man power and equipment in respect of fire fighting services.

35. On 25.10.2002 the Chief Fire Officer made a statement before the Court that there are no deficiencies and short comings in terms of man power and equipment in respect of Delhi Fire Fighting Services. (This is important as till this date the Chief Fire Officer is not in a position to take action against the buildings which are even today not equipped with Fire Safety Measures in accordance with law.) Of course, he clearly stated that statement is made keeping in view the existing number of fire stations.

36. It was also pointed out on 18.12.2000 that D.D.A. allotted large plot of land at Geeta Colony for a fire station. It was pointed out that looking to the size of the plot it can be used for the purpose of fire station as well as for workshop for maintenance of the equipments of Delhi Fire Station. However, land use was dependent upon the D.D.A. Therefore, the Court directed to take necessary steps in this behalf.

37. Mr. Shali, learned Advocate appearing for Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi submitted that the figures are based on report of the C.A.G. for the years 1997-98. He submitted that the Chief Fire Officer has filed affidavits showing the preparedness on the part of the Delhi Fire Service in meeting any eventuality of fire. He fairly submitted that the buildings which were in existence prior to 1983 and even erected after 1983 are required to install the fire safety measures, as indicated in the Safety Act, Safety Rules and Building Bye-laws. When we put the question as to whether the Government buildings have fire safety system or not, he fairly stated that there are 11 such buildings which have not provided fire safety measures in accordance with law. He submitted that there are 36 fire stations operating in Delhi. Over and above, there are 4 or 5 temporary fire stations operating during harvesting/summer season at pre-determined places depending upon the past record of fire incidents. He further submitted that D.D.A. has handed over 22 sites for the purpose of construction of new fire stations at different locations and setting up of fire stations at these sites and drew our attention to the affidavits filed by Chief Fire Officer on various dates to invite our attention to a report filed from time to time indicating the progress and the work monitered by the Committee headed by Principal Secretary (Home).

38. He submitted that there should be about 70 fire stations for which only 22 sites have been cleared by D.D.A. For 4 sites D.D.A. is requested to consider the same and yet 10 more sites are required to be identified. It is reported that at Rohini, Vasant Kunj, Badli sites are handed over. Therefore, time bound programme must be there to see that the fire stations are in existence.

39. It was also submitted that on account of congested areas it becomes difficult for fire engines to reach in time and even impossible at certain places.. It may be noted that these very authorities are responsible for allowing encroachments on the foot path or allowing encroachers to carry out construction unauthorisedly or not taking action against such unauthorised construction. It is the responsibility of these authorities to see that there is no encroachment on pavements and roads are kept clear for easy traffic and easy movement of Fire Engines, Ambulance Van in case of need. For this purpose Commissioner of Police is directed to issue necessary instructions and to take strict action against the police personnel if they are not vigilant in discharging their duties. The pavement dwellers and shop keepers are using pavements and other public properties for an unauthorized purpose. Footpaths, pavements or public roads are intended to serve the convenience of the general public. They are not laid for private use and indeed their private use frustrates the very object for which they were carved out. Public streets, roads and footpath or pavements are meant for all citizens. The public at large have a right of passage or access. Such public streets roads, pavements maintained at public exchequer's cost must be used for the purpose for which they are laid. In case of fire, fighter cannot pass easily, or cannot pass at all, that would make the task difficult. One cannot say that merely because there was no fire incident since long at a particular place, and therefore, wider road is not required. In the case of People Union for Civil Liberties vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2001 (1) Gujarat Law Reports 547, learned Chief Justice Mr. D.M. Dharmadhikari ( as his Lordship then was ) , after considering the decision reported in Olga Talis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1986 SC 180 and Ahemdabad Municipal Corporation v Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, , and Almitra H Patel vs. UOI , pointed out that no one has the right to make use of public property for a private purpose without the requisite authorization and one who encroaches upon the public property undoubtedly obstructs and upsets planned development , ecology and sanitation. Public property needs to be preserved and protected. It is but the duty of the State and local bodies to ensure the same. Division Bench in that case directed the respondents municipalities to put officer in charge of vacant plot, pavements and other open sites so that they can be held responsible for not protecting the public property and the negligent officers can be dealt with strictly. It is in view of this, it is necessary to consider the importance of safety of the citizen apart from environment/sanitation to give directions to the authorities.

40. Mr. Khanna, learned advocate, submitted that the petition was filed in the year 1998 pointing out deficiencies, inefficiencies and inadequacies of arrangements and systems relating to fire, fire safety, tackling of fire and lack of infrastructure. He submitted that report of Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ending 31.3.1997 is required to be considered. As indicated earlier, in high rise buildings there is failure to comply with the provisions relating to fire safety measures and lack of enforcement of provisions of Safety Act and the Safety Rules as also the Building Bye-laws.

41. Inadequate infrastructure for fire fighting , setting of requisite number of fire stations and delay in implementation of the recommendations made in January, 1976 to set up 63 fire stations, 214 static water tanks must be dealt with strictly. He submitted that 45% of the water tanks are found defective and non-operational in March, 1997.

WORKSHOPS

42. It was also pointed out to the Court by Mr. Shali, learned Advocate, that there is only one workshop for maintaining the equipment of the Delhi fire Fighting Services and he pointed out that more workshops are needed and land owning agency should be directed to allot the land to the Delhi Fire Fighting Services. It is in view of this D.D.A. was called upon to point out the feasibility of allotment of land to Delhi Fire Fighting Services. It was directed that within the period of three months exercise shall be completed in this behalf.

43. It was also pointed out that basements of high rise buildings are mostly being used for office purposes. It was pointed out by the Chief Fire Officer that this is a great hazard and he further submitted that the basements should not be allowed to be used as offices. It is in view of this that on 25.10.2002 the Division Bench directed to have an inspection by a team comprising representatives of Delhi Fire Fighting Services, M.C.D., D.D.A., N.D.M.C. and Delhi Cantonment Board (hereinafter referred to as "D.C.B."). The Committee was called upon to inspect 1200 high rise buildings to ensure that these buildings have necessary permissions and have complied with the requirements of law in the buildings. The Committee was called upon to start functioning within a period of four weeks. In the first instance the Committee was called upon to complete the exercise in 5 areas, namely, Rajendra Place, Nehru Place, Janak Puri Preet Vihar and Connaught Place. On account of festival, a request was made to keep the roads free from encroachments and obstructions. The Court directed the M.C.D., N.D.M.C. and the traffic police as also the local police to ensure that there are no encroachments and obstructions on the roads and footpaths.

44. Mr. Shali, learned Advocate submitted that so far as site for workshop is concerned, at Moti Nagar it has been cleared. However, sites for south west or North has not yet identified. It is in view of this it is required to be directed that the work of fire stations at Rohini, Vasant Kunj, Badli should be completed at the earliest. So far as 22 sites are concerned, D.D.A. as well as Chief Fire Officer should see that immediate actions are taken and work commenced at the earliest. The report shall be filed by D.D.A. as well as Chief Fire Officer in this behalf within a period of three months.

45. On 18.12.2000 the Chief Fire Officer stated that there are 1200 High Rise Buildings out of which 59 have been inspected and remaining will be inspected by 31.3.2003. It is in view of this statement, the Committee was allowed to complete the inspection of the High Rise Buildings by 31.3.2003. The Court also directed that in case of any high rise building or part thereof is found to have been raised in violation of the building bye-laws, action shall be taken by the Competent Authority against the owners, users, lessees and Lessers in accordance with law.

46. Only 220 high rise buildings were constructed prior to June, 1983. Mr. Khanna, learned Advocate submitted that it is difficult to understand that how buildings constructed thereafter are occupied without occupancy certificate. The buildings which constitute fire hazard are unsafe buildings as per Bye-law No. 2.8. According to the submission made by Mr. Khanna that such buildings can be demolished under Bye-law No. 9. Mr. Khanna, learned Advocate, further submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Safety Act and Safety Rules and the Building Bye-laws, it is the bounden duty of Nominated Authority, Chief Fire Officer and the authorities granting occupancy certificate to take adequate care and to call upon the occupiers of high rise buildings to rectify/to provide requisite fire safety measures and on failure to seal the building under Safety Act or to take adequate steps under Section 7 of the Safety Act. With regard to buildings erected prior to 6.6.1983 at least minimum 12 standards as indicated in Section 6 of the Act must be complied with.

47. With regard to high rise buildings Mr. Shali learned Advocate submitted that as indicated in the bye-laws the buildings are required to provide fire safety measures. He fairly stated that 220 buildings were in existence prior to 1983. Our attention was drawn to the various provisions contained in the building Bye-laws, which have already been referred earlier, as well as Safety Act and Safety Rules. He submitted that all buildings ought to have been inspected. However, only 500 buildings could be inspected and work was to be completed by the end of May, 2003. He submitted that the Delhi Fire Service is taking action by issuing show cause notice as well as notice of sealing in case where fire safety measures are not provided. He submitted that vide order dated 27.2.2003 the Court had directed that Chief Fire Officer would give 45 days time to such of the owners/occupiers and they should file undertaking in this behalf. He submitted that prior to this notice was given in Press to comply with fire safety requirements. He submitted that response of owners/occupiers/associations of the building is very poor. He further submitted that awareness about the absolute necessity of the fire safety measures is required to be generated. Learned counsel submitted that the department has to carry out the directions that may be given and the department carried out the directions which were given earlier.

48. Before Gujarat High Court, in exactly similar situation in the case of Lok Adhikar Sangh v. State of Gujarat, in Spl Civil Appeal No. 4578/97 on 25.7.2000, directions were given. The said order was carried in appeal before the Apex Court and the Apex Court ( Coram. Mr. B.N. Kirpal as his Lordship then was and Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ) has dismissed the appeal on 16.2.2001 and has upheld the decision delivered by the Gujarat High Court by passing the following order :

"Permission is granted to file the SLPs.    Delay condoned.
 

We find no infirmity in the judgments of the High Court.  The special leave petitions are dismissed. However, if the petitioner wants any clarification, it is open to the petitioner to approach the High Court."
 

Therefore, there is no reason as to why similar directions should not be given in  the instant case.
 

49. The Apex Court in V.M. Kurian v. State of Kerala and others , deprecated the dispensation of requirement for protection from fire hazards as minimum width of stair case was dispensed with. The government in that case by granting exemption enabled the party to construct the building in violation of certain rules. The State government permitted construction of high rise buildings by relaxing certain conditions by exemption from operation of certain Rules. (1) minimum open spaces required to be kept in the front, rear and sides, (2) front, rear and side yards, (3) projections into and constructions on open spaces (4) floor area ratio, (5) maximum prescribed height, (6) aerodrome vicinity height restrictions, (7) parking spaces, (9) minimum width of stair cases, and (9) fire protection were the essential requirements to be complied with the Rules. The court pointed out that the Rules which are mandatory in nature and are required to be complied cannot be dispensed with. Observance and compliance with the Rules is for public safety and convenience. There cannot be relaxation of the Rules which are mandatory in nature and cannot be dispensed with especially in the case of a high rise building. Apex Court pointed out that in case of one or two storied building where there are minor deviations from the Rules, which do not affect the public safety and convenience would be different thing. But as the Court found that the deviations were of high magnitude and contrary to public safety and convenience and therefore held that construction of eight storied building was contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Rules and not sustainable in law. In the instant case by an Act of Parliament, Safety Act came to be enacted as also Safety Rules under the said Act and the non-compliance of these provisions as also the building bye-laws which are mandatory in nature, any deviation there from should be dealt with strictly by the authorities.

50. Was it not known to these authorities that these high rise buildings are erected when these authorities have provided such buildings the facilities of drainage, water and electricity ? Unless and until the building bye-laws and fire safety norms are strictly followed there was no question of granting occupancy certificate. It was the bounden duty of these respondents and the Chief Fire Officer to take proper action including that of sealing of the premises in accordance with law.

51. It is directed that while providing drainage and water connection to high rise building, i.e. before issuing form-C and D of the building bye laws, the authorities shall satisfy themselves about requirement of bye law 7.2.2 and 7.2.3, which, inter alias, provide that the authorities shall satisfy that the building is constructed as per the building bye laws/sanction plan and further drainage/sanitary work is also executed as per building bye laws.

52. In N.D.M.C. v. Statesman Ltd., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 547, the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the fire safety standards to be provided in the buildings. In that case bye-law No. 16.4.8.1, which was borrowed from Part-IV dealing with "Fire Precautions" in the National Building Code of India, 1983 came to be examined by the Court. The Court pointed out that the National Building Code of India, 1983, from which the substance of the bye laws are drawn, indicates that certain broad minimal assurances for fire safety and the better and more reliable measures ought not to be excluded.

53. In the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs. K.Gupta, , the Apex Court dealt with the State's liability in para 18 as under :

"' The theoretical concept that King  can  do  no wrong  has  been  abandoned in England itself and State is now held responsible for tortuous act of  its servants.    The   First   Law   Commission  constituted   after  coming into  force  of  the Constitution on liability of the State  in  tort, observed   that   the   old  distinction  between               sovereign and non-sovereign functions  should  no               longer  be  invoked to determine liability of the   State.  Friedmann observed:
  

"It  is  now  increasingly  necessary  to  abandon   the   lingering  fiction  of  a  legally  indivisible  State,  and  of   a  feudal  conception  of  the Crown, and to substitute for it the principle of  legal liability   where   the   State,   either directly or through  incorporated  public authorities,  engages  in activities of a commercial,  industrial   or   managerial character.   The  proper  test s not an impracticable distinction between governmental and nongovernmental function but  the  nature  and  form  of                   activity in question.
      xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxxx
 

In  any  case  the law has always maintained that the public authorities  who  are  entrusted  with  statutory function  cannot  act  negligently.  As far back as 1878 the law was succinctly explained in Geddis v.  Proprietors of Bann Reservoir thus:
 "I take it, without citing cases, that it now thoroughly well established  that  no  action  will lie for doing  that which the  Legislature has authorised, if it be done without  negligence,  although  it   does occasion  damage to anyone; but an action does lie for doing what  the  Legislature has    authorised,    if   it   be   done negligently."
 

Under our Constitution sovereignty vests  in  the people.    Every   limb   of  the  constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. No        functionary  in  exercise  of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by the statute itself.  Public authorities acting in               violation of constitutional   or    statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their  behavior  before  authorities  created under the    statute  like  the  commission  or   the   courts entrusted  with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law.  ..  "'
 

In  paragraph  10  (at  page 262) the Apex Court observed thus:
      
 "The jurisdiction and  power  of  the  courts  to indemnify  a  citizen  for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities  is  founded   as  observed  by  Lord  Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd v.  Broome on the principle that 'an award of               exemplary damages can serve a useful  purpose  in vindicating the  strength  of  law'.  An ordinary citizen or a common man  is  hardly  equipped  to               match   the   might   of   the   State   or   its instrumentalities.  That is provided by the  rule of law.   It  acts  as  a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of  power.    In  Rookes  vs.                Baranard  it  was  observed  by  Lord Devlin 'the servants of the government are also the  servants of  the  people  and  the use of their power must              always be subordinate to their duty of  service'. A  public  functionary  if he acts maliciously or               oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not  an  exercise of power   but   its  abuse. No law provides               protection against it.  He who is responsible for it must suffer it."
 

 54. In the said judgment, the Apex Court examined the question  that  today the issue thus is not only of award of compensation but who should bear the burnt?  The Court pointed out  that  when  the  Court  directs  payment  of damages  or  compensation  against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man.  It is  the  taxpayers  money which  is  paid  for  inaction of those who are entrusted  under the Act to discharge  their  duties  in  accordance  with law.    The Apex Court also pointed out that in case amount is directed to pay from the public fund, the  same  should  be recovered from those who are found responsible for  such   unpardonable   behavior   by   dividing   it proportionately   where   there   are   more   than   one functionary.
 

55. It is clear that large number of occupiers are in possession of the shops, residence or offices and they are occupying such high rise buildings without fire safety measures. It may be that the builder or the developer or the organizer was required to provide fire safety measures but he has not provided. It is for the authorities concerned to see that if such measures are not provided then no occupancy certificate is granted and action can be taken for disconnection of essential services supplied. If persons are put in possession of a building without occupancy certificate being granted or without fire safety measures being provided and if injuries are caused to persons or property, in the opinion of the Court, that would attract the provisions of public law. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case pointed out as under :-

"Public law field, since its emergence, is ever expanding in operational dimension. Its expanse covers even contractual matters. Public law remedies have also been extended by the Supreme Court in realm of tort. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution , this Court has awarded compensation to the petitioners who suffered personal injuries at the hands of the officers of the Government and the causing of injuries which amounted to tortuous act was compensated by the Court."

56. One has to consider the impact of constitutional provisions. Fundamental Rights are is placed beyond the reach of ordinary legislation inspired by motives. The rights are enforceable against the State. The Apex Court in the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India pointed out the precautionary principle. With a view to protect the life of citizens, provisions of fire safety measures have been made compulsory and without the provisions no one can occupy the building where such safety is required to be provided. In the instant case it appears that despite the provisions made, the authorities have allowed the builders/developers/ organizers to permit the building to be occupied with essential services which ordinarily could not have been provided without occupancy certificate.

57. In the case of Delhi Development Authority V. Skipper Construction Co (P) Ltd and Anr. the Apex Court has observed in para 37 as under.

"37. Before parting with this case, we feel impelled to make a few observations. What happened in this case is illustrative of what is happening in our country on a fairly wide scale in diverse forms. Some Persons in the upper strata [which means the rich and the influential class of the society] have made the 'property career' the sole aim of their life. The means have become irrelevant - in a land where its greatest son born in this century said "means are more important than the ends". A sense of bravado prevails; everything can be managed; every authority and every institution can be managed. All it takes is to "tackle" or "manage" it in an appropriate manner. They have developed an utter disregard for law nay, a contempt for it; the feeling that law is meant for lesser mortals and not for them. The courts in the country have been trying to combat this trend, with some success as the recent events show. But how many matters can we handle. How many more of such matters are still there? The real question is how to swing the polity into action, a polity which has become indolent and soft in its vitals? Can the courts alone do it? Even so, to what extent, in the prevailing state of affairs? Not that we wish to launch upon a diatribe against anyone in particular but Judges of this Court are also permitted, we presume, to ask in anguish, "what have we made of our country in less than fifty years"? Where has the respect and regard for law gone? And who is responsible for it?"

58. In this matter, question of public accountability is involved.    The  Apex  Court  in  the  case of Mahesh Chandra vs.  Regional  Manager, UPFC.   and  in  the  case  of  Lucknow  Development Authority  has pointed out this aspect.
 

59. The Apex Court has  pointed  out  in  Dr.    G.N. Khajuria and Ors vs. Delhi Development  Authority and Ors  as under :-
 "10. Before parting, we have an observation  to  make. The same is that a feeling is gathering ground that where unauthorised constructions are demolished on the force of the order of the courts, the illegality is not taken care of  fully  inasmuch as the officers of the statutory body        who had allowed the unauthorised construction to be  made or make  illegal  allotments  go  scot free.  This should not, however, have happened for two reasons.   First,  it is  the illegal action/order of the officer which lies at  the root of the unlawful act of  the  citizen  concerned,      because  of  which  the officer is more to be blamed than the recipient  of  the  illegal  benefit.    It  is  thus imperative,  according  to  us,  that  while  undoing the mischief  which  would  require  the  demolition  of  the unauthorised  construction,  the  delinquent  officer has     also to  be  punished  in  accordance  with  law.    This      however, seldom  happens.   Secondly, to take care of the injustice completely, the officer  who  had  misused  his   power has  also to be properly punished.  Otherwise, what  happens is that the officer, who made the  hay  when  the   sun  shined,  retains  the hay, which tempts others to do the same.  This really gives fillip to the commission  of  tainted  acts,  whereas  the  aim  should  be  opposite."
 

60. The Court has pointed out on several occasions that there should be accountability and liability of public servants in administrative matters, and there should be transparency in all what they do. The Apex Court in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India has pointed out (see Head Note "O") that Executive or administrative actions of State or its instrumentalities or statutory or public bodies which are in violation of fundamental rights or which are arbitrary or oppressive in violation of Art. 14 or any statute are open to judicial review.

61. The matter has been pending since 1998. All the respondents including the authorities required to implement the building bye laws are aware about the fire safety measures not provided in various buildings. No effective steps are taken despite the provision. It is difficult to understand as to why these authorities have not acted in accordance with law. Shortage of staff is no ground when a question of safety of citizens is involved. Corporation collects huge amount of property tax and therefore it is no answer to say that there is shortage of staff/funds.

62. Whatever observed earlier, reveals that there is a failure on the part of the Administrative machinery. There is absence of regulatory method. We find that inefficiency and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned which has led various buildings violating the town planning legislation. The local authorities and the Government by raising their hands have indicated their helplessness. This mess is the creation of the inefficiency, callousness and failure of the statutory functionaries to perform their obligation under various provisions. The Act and the Rules though clearly lay down about the procedure of construction and regulating the same, but, on account of consequences of illegal construction, mess is created. Why people should suffer? For the welfare of the people laws are made to cater to the public convenience, safety, health etc. However, inaction on the part of agency implementing the laws makes the provisions made by the legislature futile by inaction and, therefore, administration is liable to be toned up. The persons who are entrusted to implement the scheme of the Act must be made answerable to the laches on their failure to perform their statutory obligation, otherwise it would continue to result with wrongful gains to the violators of the law at the cost of the public. Instead of development it has brought the hazards of pollution, disorderly traffic, security risk etc. Beautiful plans made by the authorities have been made ugly by these officers. It is in this view of such a situation and considering the public accountability, the Government and the local authorities are called upon to take action against the officers who have not bothered to implement the law and have put the people in difficulty. On account of inaction on the part of the public authorities citizens are required to approach the Court.

63. In the result after having considered all the pros and cons of this matter and having heard the learned advocates in detail on various occasions, we intend to dispose of this petition by making the following directions.

1. In all high rise buildings in Delhi and New Delhi, fire safety measures are to be provided keeping in mind provisions made in the bye laws and specific provision for fire protection in the bye laws. And as per these requirements, there must be fire safety measures in such high rise buildings, as contemplated in the bye laws and National Building Code of India, 1970.

2. In high rise buildings wherein fire safety measures are required to be provided under the bye laws, National Building Code as well as any other provision which are applicable, the builders, developers, organizers, contractors, architects and engineers, society, Association of persons etc erecting buildings shall provide fire safety measure as per bye laws and without such measures, the respondent authorities shall not grant occupancy certificate.

3. So far as the existing but unoccupied buildings and buildings under construction are concerned, the respondent authorities acting under bye laws are directed not to grant occupancy certificate unless and until sufficient fire protection system is installed, is made operational and is certified by the Fire Officer concerned to the effect that as per by laws and as per his satisfaction fire safety measures are provided.

4. When adequate and sufficient fire safety measures are provided and made operational, authorities granting permission under building bye laws shall strictly enforce, the provisions relating to fire safety system while granting occupation certificate.

5. It is further directed that henceforth the respondent authorities shall not supply essential services to any new high rise building unless and until the building is erected in accordance with law and bye laws. All electricity supply companies ( BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd, BSES Yamuna power Ltd, Delhi Power Co Ltd and North Delhi Power Ltd. ) are directed in this behalf. If the builder/developer/organizer, etc, is found indulging in malpractice in giving power connection meant for construction purpose and thereby permits illegal occupation such connection shall be disconnected forthwith and immediate action shall be taken against such builder/developer/organizer etc.

6. That the Fire Officer shall carry out periodical as well as surprise checking to satisfy himself that the fire safety measure provided in the high rise buildings are provided or not. If the same are provided, such visits shall be made to find out whether the same are in working/operational condition or if the builders/developers/ owners/occupiers have made a show of providing fire safety measure, then it will be the duty of the Fire officer to call upon such occupier/developer/ owner/builder to set right the system and on failure to do so within a reasonable time, the Fire Officer shall take steps to get the essential supplies to such building , such as water, and electricity, etc. disconnected and seal the building as provided in Safety Act.

7. By a public notice, Municipal Commissioner/ Chairman NDMC shall inform the public at large who are occupying high rise buildings to provide fire safety measures within a period of four weeks from the date of publication. According to us, though four weeks time is long, we are giving four weeks time to all the occupiers to see that the occupancy will be allowed and permitted only if fire safety measures are provided in the buildings. If the fire safety measures are not provided within a period of four weeks as stated above, then the respondent authorities shall disconnect essential supplies such as water and drainage and seal the building. One must bear in mind that public notice was given earlier.

8. It is further directed that the Commissioner/ Chairman of MCD/NDMC shall write to electricity supply companies in this behalf and electricity supply company shall also disconnect electric supply if within the said period fire safety measures are not provided. It will be for electric supply companies to remain in touch with the commissioner /Chairman and vice versa.

9. It is further directed that henceforth the respondents shall provide essential services only after recording satisfaction that the erection of building is strictly in accordance with the plan. Electricity companies are also directed not to supply electricity unless Forms C and D duly signed by the competent authority are obtained and produced before the Electricity companies.

10. The Government is directed to install fire safety measures in all Government high rise buildings within four weeks from today. The respondents shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against its employees, servants, officers as some of the buildings are occupied despite the fact that fire safety measure are not provided in accordance with the provisions in this regard.

11. The respondents shall place before the Court material indicating as to how many high rise buildings are erected after approval of the plans by the competent authority and how many buildings were provided with fire safety measures as required under the bye laws before the occupancy and what action is taken against occupiers in connection with the buildings, which are erected contrary to any bye- laws or are occupied without fire safety measures. Such report be filed within three months from today. The respondents shall initiate action against erring officers and shall submit report within a period of three months.

12. Despite this order, if any building is connected with essential supplies the Commissioner MCD /Chairman NDMC, as the case may be, himself shall be held responsible and will be answerable to the court.

13. At present we are dealing with the fire safety measures in high rise buildings. We are not endorsing the view that the erection of a building is in accordance with the bye-laws. Only with a view to see that since large number of people are occupying buildings erected by a builder/ contractor/ owner/association of persons/ societies/architect/ engineer, etc. we are passing this order for the safety of the occupiers of the building. It should not, therefore be understood that merely because the fire safety measures are provided the erection of building is in accordance with the bye-laws. That aspect of the matter is not dealt at all.

14. It is directed that NDMC/DJB/PWD shall put all the static water tanks in working conditions within a period of three months and shall file a report about the action taken in this behalf.

15. The DDA considering the importance of fire safety shall take decision within four months for allotment of plots for fire stations. Chief Fire officer as well as local authorities, namely, DMC/NDMC shall point out the appropriate sites within a period of one month to the DDA.

16. Respondents and the Commissioner of Police are directed to clear encroachments on pavements, on roads and public streets within a period of four months for easy movements of fire engines and ambulance vans.

17. It is further directed that MCD/NDMC/ Traffic Police as also the Police Dep't shall not allow any encroachment on roads, public streets and footpath/pavements and for that purpose NDMC and MCD as well as the Commissioner of Police shall demarcate the area of jurisdiction of a particular officer and it will be the responsibility of that particular officer to see that there is no encroachment on pavement, public street and on roads. NDMC/MCD/ Commissioner of Police shall complete this exercise and shall place before the Court report indicating the names/ designations of the officers who are to be in charge of respective areas. It will be the responsibility of these officers, in case it is found that there is encroachment on public roads or pavements.

64. Considering the overall situation, it would be just and proper to direct each respondent to pay Rs. one lakh by way of cost. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid within four weeks to Mr. Sanjeev Khanna learned, advocate, who has rendered services as amices curiae. The remaining amount to be deposited with the Delhi Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks.

65. We appreciate the services rendered by Mr. Sanjeev Khanna in assisting the Court. We also appreciate the services rendered by Mr. V.K. Shali learned counsel for NCT and Ms Gita Mittal learned counsel for DDA to the Court.