Gouthami Junior College For Girls vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1320 Tel

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                 AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


     WRIT PETITION Nos.8854, 15751, 15763, 15798, 19291,
              20418, 22661, 22665 and 22700 of 2020

COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.      This order shall decide the present batch of writ petitions

filed by the Managements of several junior colleges operating in

different of parts of Telangana who are all aggrieved by the order

dated 22.02.2020, passed by the respondent No.3/Director

General, Telangana State Disaster Response and Fire Services

(for short, 'TSDRFS') of directing inclusion of buildings used

for running colleges/junior colleges within the definition of a

'school', thus making it compulsory for the petitioners to obtain

a fire 'No Objection Certificate' (for short, 'NOC') for running

their colleges and the order dated 24.03.2020, passed by the

respondent No.2/Telangana State Board of Intermediate

Education (for short, 'TSBIE) rejecting the applications of the

petitioners for affiliation and ordering closure of the intermediate

colleges being run by them with immediate effect.

2. As the reliefs prayed for in all these petitions are identical,

for ease of reference, the facts narrated in W.P.No.8854 of 2020

are being referred to hereinafter. Before adverting to the facts of

the captioned case, it is considered necessary to briefly sketch

out the background in which the petitioners have filed the present

petitions.

3. In the year 2019, one Mr. Dantham Rajesh had filed a

public interest litigation, registered as W.P. (PIL) No.88 of 2019,

in the High Court of Telangana under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking directions to the TSBIE and the

District Intermediate Education Officers of Hyderabad, Ranga

Reddy and Medchal, to conduct a detailed enquiry into the

irregularities committed by colleges being operated by the

private respondent No.9, namely Sri Chaitanya Educational

Institutions and the private respondent No.10, Narayana

Educational Institutions respectively and take consequential

action against them for failing to adhere to the prescribed norms

fixed by the Government for operating colleges. Following was

the order passed by the Division Bench on 18.12.2019, in the

captioned petition:-

"Having regard to the facts of the case, the

respondent No.5 is directed to file a report with regard to the number of Colleges, which have been given permission to run the Intermediate Course, sanctioned strength, addresses where they have been given permission to run, and the actual place where they are running the colleges; the relevant norms and regulations governing the sanction of the

Colleges and whether the respondents Nos.9 and 10

- colleges are in compliance of the same, within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.

List this case on 24-01-2020."

4. The above order was followed by the order dated

17.02.2020, which reads as under:-

"The present Writ Petition (PIL) has been filed inter alia on the ground that the respondent No. 9, Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions, and the respondent No. 10, Narayana Educational Institutions, are running large number of intermediate colleges, i.e., forty-five and forty-six intermediate colleges respectively, without satisfying the conditions of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987 (for short 'the Rules').

Mr. A. Jagan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the said Rules prescribed an elaborate procedure for grant of permission. Permissions can be granted only after the requirement of the Rules are satisfied by the junior colleges. However, despite the fact that the junior colleges do not satisfy the requirement of the Rules, they are being permitted to function in this State. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for the relief that the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education, the respondent No. 5, should be directed

to hold a detailed enquiry into the irregularities committed by the colleges being run by the respondent Nos. 9 and 10, and to take the necessary action under the law.

By order dated 18-12-2019, this Court had directed the respondent No. 5 to file a report with regard to the number of colleges, which have been given permission to run the intermediate course, the sanctioned strength, the addresses where they have been given permission to run, and the actual place where they are running the colleges, and whether the norms and regulations governing the sanction of the colleges have being complied with by respondent Nos. 9 and 10 or not ? Consequently, today, Mr. Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar, the learned counsel for the State, has filed a report submitted by the Secretary, Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education. The same shall be taken on record.

A bare perusal of the report clearly reveals that according to respondent No. 5, there are fifteen intermediate colleges run by respondent No. 9, which have not been given any affiliation for the academic year 2019-2020. There are twenty-eight colleges being run by respondent No. 10, which have not been given any affiliation by respondent No. 5 for the academic year 2019-2020.

Furthermore, there are four colleges being run by respondent No. 9, which have been shifted from the location where they were running earlier without any permission to shift the same. Similarly, there

are three colleges being run by respondent No. 10, which have shifted without any permission to shift the same.

A bare perusal of the report further reveals that in the fifteen non-affiliated colleges being run by respondent No. 9, approximately ten-thousand students are studying. Similarly, in the non- affiliated colleges being run by respondent No. 10, a similar number of students are studying. Considering the fact that about twenty-thousand students are studying in the non-affiliated colleges, this Court has asked a pointed query to the learned counsel for the State with regard to the steps taken by the State for safeguarding the interests of these students, and with regard to the steps they have taken against the respondent Nos. 9 and 10. The learned counsel for the State submits that since the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 have assured the Government that they would take the necessary steps for complying with the Rules, so far, no steps have been taken to close down these colleges. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, since the examinations in the said non-affiliated colleges are around the corner, any action being taken by the State would jeopardize the lives of the students as they are prevented from taking the examinations. The stand being taken by the learned counsel for the State is rather unusual. For, it is the foremost duty of the State to ensure that the colleges being run in the State are, indeed, run strictly in accordance with the Rules. Moreover, if non-affiliated colleges are

permitted to run, obviously, they would jeopardize the academic and non-academic life of the students. The State cannot be blind to the fate of the lives of the young students studying in these non-affiliated colleges.

Therefore, this Court directs the respondent No. 5 to take concrete steps against the non- affiliated colleges mentioned hereinabove, as well as against those colleges, which have shifted their location without seeking prior permission of the respondent No. 5. The steps shall be taken by the respondent No. 5 on or before 25-02-2020. Respondent No. 5 is directed to submit a complete report with concrete evidence with regard to the steps taken by them in compliance of the present order.

List this case on 27-02-2020".

5. Pursuant to the directions issued above, a Report was filed

by the State of Telangana wherein the court was informed that an

Inter Department Meeting was convened by the Special Chief

Secretary to Government, Education Department on 20.02.2020

which was attended by the Principal Secretary, Home

Department, Director General, Fire Services, Commissioner,

Collegiate Education, Commissioner and Secretary, TSBIE,

Director, EV & DM, GHMC and other officers of the Higher

Education Department. Subsequently, notices were issued to

eighteen (18) colleges being operated by the private respondent

No.9 and twenty six (26) colleges being operated by the private

respondent No.10, besides other colleges calling upon them to

explain as to why their affiliations should not be cancelled. The

Court was also informed that the respondent No.9 had already

furnished an undertaking that they would not apply for seeking

affiliation of these colleges for the next academic year and that

the said colleges would stop functioning from the buildings

where no Fire NOC had been granted. Noting the submissions

made by the Special Government Pleader, TSIBE impleaded as

respondent No.5 in the PIL was directed to submit a Report

furnishing information as to the number of colleges that had been

closed by it for having failed to fulfil the requirements of

affiliation, the number of colleges that had been inspected by the

Fire Department and the status of the said colleges.

6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent

No.3/TSDRFS and the respondent No.2/TSBIE, the

Managements of the very same colleges have approached this

Court by filing the present petitions questioning the decision

taken by the authorities of making it compulsory for them to

obtain fire NOCs for running the junior colleges and on failing to

produce the Fire NOC, directing their closure.

7. On 25.02.2021, when the present petitions were listed

along with W.P. (PIL) No.88 of 2019, learned Special

Government Pleader had informed this Court that out of eighteen

colleges being run by the private respondent No.9 (petitioners in

W.P.Nos.15751, 15763, 15798, 22661, 22665 and 22700 of

2020), eight colleges had been issued NOC and ten colleges had

been shut down and out of twenty six colleges being operated by

the private respondent No.10 (petitioners in W.P.No.20418 of

2020), six colleges had been issued NOC and twenty colleges

had been shut down. On the said date, after arguments were

addressed by learned counsel for the parties in the present

petitions, assailing the action of the TSBIE and TSDRFS,

judgment was reserved.

8. Following are the averments made by the petitioners in

W.P.No.8854 of 2020:-

(a) That the junior college was established at the premises

in question situated in District Nalgonda, in the academic year

1992-93. In the year 2004, the petitioner society took on lease a

building comprising of ground plus four floors constructed on a

plot measuring 750 square yards, flanked by roads on two sides,

i.e., the front and the back (front road being 50 feet wide and the

back road being 20 feet wide). Though the building leased by the

petitioner society comprises of five floors, 50% of the space on

the fifth floor has been left open while the remaining 50% is built

up and is under use.

(b) That the building is well maintained, in a hygienic

condition and the affiliation granted to the petitioner society for

running a junior college, has been renewed from time to time.

When the college was shifted to the aforesaid premises, the

National Building Code of India was not in existence.

(c) That Section 13(1) of the Telangana Fire Service Act,

1999 (for short, Fire Service Act') requires that a NOC be

obtained from the Director General, TSDRFC in respect of any

building which falls within the specifications provided therein.

That respondent No.3 had issued a Circular dated 03.06.2017

notifying such of the buildings that require a NOC under Section

13 of the Fires Service Act and those that do not require any such

NOC. The said Circular did not require the petitioners to obtain

any Fire NOC.

(d) That in view of the directions issued by the High Court

in W.P. (PIL) No.88 of 2019, the respondent No.3/TSDRFS has

issued a Memo dated 22.02.2020, modifying the previously

issued Circular dated 03.06.2017 and covering colleges, training

institutions, coaching centres besides schools. The said Circular

contains a table indicating the nature of buildings that require a

Fire NOC depending on the nature of occupancy. The first table

states at Sl.No.1 as under:-

 1 Schools/Colleges/Training                   Educational B-1
   Institutions/Coaching Centres        more




      than 500 Sq.Mtrs in plot area or 06
     Mtrs and above in height.

(e) On 22.02.2020, the respondent No.2/TSBIE issued a

show cause to the petitioner society informing it that it had

applied for extension of provisional affiliation of the junior

college by submitting a Registered Lease Deed for a ground plus

five floors building during Academic years 2017-18, 2018-19

and 2019-20 by submitting Undertakings to the Board that the

management will shift the junior college to some other building,

supported with fire NOC. Observing that the petitioner society

had failed to produce a NOC from the Fire Department and had

failed to shift to a fire NOC compliant building thereby putting

the lives of thousands of students at risk, the petitioner society

was called upon to state as to why its application for affiliation

should not be rejected and why the junior college should not be

ordered to be closed with immediate effect.

(f) That vide letter dated 25.02.2020, the petitioner society

had submitted a reply to the show cause notice stating inter alia

that it had applied to the respondent No.3/TSDRFS for issuance

of a fire NOC on 23.12.2015 and the Multi Storeyed Building

(MSB) Inspection Committee was deputed to conduct an

inspection of the building. Vide letter dated 11.03.2016, the

MSB Inspection Committee had advised some rectifications in

the building. After rectifying the deficiencies, the petitioner had

applied to the office of the third respondent for a fire NOC on

30.05.2016. In the meantime, the High Court issued stay orders

in respect of G.O.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015 due to which, the

respondent No.3 could not issue a fire NOC. The petitioner

society concluded by requesting that the affiliation of the junior

college for the Academic year 2020-21 be renewed and added

that if the said request was being declined, then a period of six

months be provided to shift the college to some other building

with suitable facilities.

(g) By the impugned order dated 24.03.2020, the

respondent No.2/TSBIE rejected the petitioner's application for

permission to continue running the junior college from the

premises taken by it on lease and directed its closure with

immediate effect. Further, it was directed that the students

studying in the first year Intermediate be shifted to another

suitable building or college for the forthcoming academic year.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petition came to be

filed in June, 2020.

9. Appearing for the petitioner society, Mr. C.V.Mohan

Reddy, learned Senior Advocate has assailed the impugned order

dated 24.03.2020, issued by the respondent No.2/TSBIE stating

that the petitioner society had taken all necessary steps as

required by applying for issuance of a fire NOC to the

respondent No.3/TSDRFS on 23.12.2015 itself and had rectified

the deficiencies pointed out by the MSB Inspection Committee

and it was the third respondent that did not take further action to

process the petitioner's application in the view of the stay orders

passed by the High Court in respect of G.O.Ms.No.152, dated

02.11.2015, which fact was brought to the notice of the second

respondent; that after the Supreme Court had pronounced the

judgment in Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India, reported as

(2009) 6 SCC 398, and upon examining the Fire Service Act and

the National Building Code of India, 2016 (for short, 'NBC'), the

respondent No.1/State had issued G.O.Ms.No.56 dated

26.07.2019 which requires all schools existing prior to the

Supreme Court ruling dated 13.04.2009, to follow the fire safety

norms as recommended by the Expert Committee, detailed in

Annexure-I appended to the said order for purposes of obtaining

affiliation/recognition. However, all the schools constructed post

the judgment were directed to follow the safety norms of the

NBC, 2016 and the respondent No.3 was directed to issue a fire

NOC for schools that fall within the purview of Section 13(1) of

the Fire Services Act, i.e., schools operating from buildings

situated in plots measuring 500 square meters in area or building

measuring 6 metres and above in height on following the norms

of the NBC, 2016.

10. Asserting that in the first instance, the intermediate college

being run by the petitioner society cannot be treated as a "school

building" as contemplated under Section 13(1) of the Fire

Service Act and assuming without admitting it can be a school,

there is no requirement of obtaining a fire NOC from the

respondent No.3/TSDRFS as the building in question was in

existence prior to the date of pronouncement of the judgment by

the Supreme Court. Without prejudice to the above, it was

further submitted that the petitioner society had made efforts to

secure another building that would comply with the norms of the

Fire Service Act, but due to the prevailing condition of the

Covid-19 infection, it would take another academic year to shift

to the said premises, which aspect had been completely

overlooked by the respondent No.2/TSBIE while passing the

impugned order.

11. Much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the

petitioner on Section 13(1) of the Fire Service Act and it was

canvassed that the statute requires only such buildings which are

used for public congregation like schools, cinema halls, function

halls, religious places, situated in more than 500 square meters in

plot area or 6 metres and above in height to obtain a fire NOC

and though the words "school", "colleges" and "junior college"

are not defined under the Act, "college/junior college" cannot be

equated to a "school". Therefore, it was impermissible to expand

the language used in the statute to bring "college/junior college"

within the meaning of "school", thereby making it obligatory for

them to obtain a fire NOC by fulfilling the requirements

stipulated for a building having a plot area measuring 500 sq.

metres or a height of 6 metres or above. The order dated

24.03.2020 issued by the respondent No.3/TSDRFS whereby

buildings used for running colleges/junior colleges have been

brought within the definition of "school", has also been

challenged on the plea that no such discretion is vested in the

said respondent to change the classification of the buildings as

prescribed by the Legislature and arbitrarily extend it to

buildings meant to be put to a different use, under the

classification of schools, thereby making it obligatory for them to

obtain a fire NOC.

12. Urging that the respondent No.2/TSBIE has failed to

consider the explanation offered by the petitioner society in the

correct perspective and has got carried away by the pendency of

W.P. (PIL) No.88 of 2019 before the High Court, learned Senior

Advocate canvassed that the said respondent is bound to

reconsider the petitioner's application keeping in view the

provisions of Section 13(1) of the Fire Service Act, without any

reference to the Circular dated 22.02.2020, issued by the

respondent No.3/TSDRFS.

13. The aforesaid pleas taken on behalf of the petitioner

society have been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel

for the respondents No.1 and 2 and the respondent No.3. It has

been stated by Mr. A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special

Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents

No.1 and 2 that the show cause notice dated 22.02.2020 has been

issued by the respondent No.2/TSBIE stating inter alia that the

Management of the petitioner society had repeatedly reneged

from the undertakings given by them for shifting the junior

college to another building supported by a fire NOC. The only

explanation offered by the petitioner in its reply was that they

had applied for a fire NOC and the Fire Department had not

issued the same since the building was covered under Building

Regularisation Scheme (BRS) and they were in search of a

convenient building to shift the college w.e.f. the Academic year

2020-21. It was stated that the petitioner society had submitted

an affidavit that it would remit the fee of the students who were

to appear for the examinations and mindful of the fact that the

academic career of the students could be jeopardised, the

respondent No.2/TSBIE had provided some leeway but since the

petitioner society did not produce the NOC from the Fire

Department, the impugned order was passed rejecting the request

for affiliation and directing closure of the junior college with

immediate effect.

14. It was further contended that the petitioner is well aware

of the orders passed in W.P. (PIL) No.88 of 2019 and the show

cause notice issued to it was also a part of the exercise

undertaken by the respondent No.2/TSBIE in compliance with

the orders passed by the High Court. Referring to the Circular

dated 22.02.2020 issued by the respondent No.3/TSDRFS,

modifying the earlier Circular dated 03.06.2017 and bringing

colleges in its ambit, besides schools and mandating that a fire

NOC is required for schools/colleges/ training

institutions/coaching centres in plots measuring 500 square

metres or 6 metres and above in height, learned counsel for the

respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner society is

running a junior college from the building in question leased by

it without obtaining any fire clearance and it was for the said

reason that extension of affiliation was rejected and a direction

issued for closure of the college, which decision cannot be

faulted.

15. As for the respondent No.3/TSDRFS, in addition to

whatever has been stated by the respondents No.1 and 2 above, it

has been averred in the counter affidavit that the Circulars in

question have been issued in exercise of the powers conferred

under Section 13(1) of the Fire Service Act; that vide the

impugned Circular dated 22.02.2020, buildings not requiring a

fire NOC have been deleted and colleges and other institutions

have been included in the category of buildings which require a

fire NOC. The impugned order requires all

schools/colleges/training institutions/coaching centres situated in

plot areas measuring more than 500 square metres and 6 metres

and above in height to obtain a fire NOC. Referring to the

provisions of Section 13 of the Act, it has been urged on behalf

of the respondent No.3 that the expression "building of public

congregation like schools, cinema halls, function halls, religious

places" is not an exact expression, but a broad indication as to

the nature of the building where public is likely to congregate.

What is required to be seen is not the nomenclature of the

institution, but whether such an institution can be treated as a

place of public gathering. It was argued that in the instant case, it

cannot be denied that an intermediate college is a place where

students congregate to study in large numbers and therefore, it

has been treated as a place of public gathering, requiring a fire

NOC.

16. It was thus contended that a fire NOC is compulsory for

running a junior college even if it is situated in a building

measuring over 500 square metres plot area or 6 metres and

above in height. Stating that in the instant case, the petitioner

society is running a college in a building situated on a plot area

measuring 530 square metres with a built up area of 492.18

metres, upto the fourth floor and a fifth floor comprising of

227.02 metres built up area, totalling to 2687.92 metres and the

correct height of the said building is 19.77 metres and not 16.6

metres as alleged by the petitioner, a fire NOC is strictly required

for running an intermediate college from the building in

question. The respondent No.3/TSDRFS asserted that it is fully

justified in issuing the impugned order intimating that the

petitioner society that it is running a college in a building which

is unsafe and that it cannot be permitted to put the life of the

students studying in the said college at risk by continuing to

operate therefrom.

17. We have carefully perused the records, the relevant

provisions of the law and given our thoughtful consideration to

the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

18. As noticed above, the petitioners have rushed to this court

on orders being passed in the public interest litigation registered

as W.P. (PIL) No.88 of 2019, which has highlighted the manner

in which the private respondents No.9 and 10 are running a large

number of intermediate colleges within the State, i.e., 45 and 46

respectively, in complete disregard to the rules and regulations

relating to fire safety norms required to be adhered to by them.

Incidentally, these are the very same respondents who have filed

the present petitions being aggrieved by the orders passed by the

court calling upon the official respondents to take concrete steps

against those intermediate colleges that are found to be violating

the norms and regulations governing sanction of such colleges,

right under their nose. Propelled by the orders passed in the

captioned petition, respondents No.2 and 3 got activated.

19. Respondent No.3/TSDRFS issued the Circular dated

22.02.2020, modifying its previous Circular dated 03.06.2017

and covered colleges/training institutions/coaching centres under

the category of 'Educational B-1' alongside schools, thereby

making a fire NOC compulsory for them. Since the aforesaid

Circular has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred

under Section 13(1) of the Fire Service Act, 1999, we may

reproduce the said provision hereinbelow:-

"13. Issue of no objection certificate:- (1) Any person proposing to construct a building of more than 15 meters height for commercial/business purpose, 18 meters and above height for residential purpose, and buildings of public congregation like schools, cinema halls, function halls, religious places, which are more than 500 Sq. Meter in plot area or 6 meters and above in height shall apply to

the Director General or any member of the service duly authorised by him in this behalf, before submission of such building plans to the authority or officer competent to approve the same under the relevant law, for the time being in force, for a no objection certificate along with such fee as may be prescribed.

(2) The Director General or any member of the service duly authorised by him in this behalf, shall within sixty days of receipt of such application, on being satisfied about the provision of fire prevention and safety measures as stipulated in the National Building Code of India, as amended from time to time or any other law for the time being in force regulating such purpose or activity, shall issue a no objection certificate with such conditions as may be considered necessary and if not so satisfied, reject the same for reasons to be recorded in writing."

20. It is noteworthy that to adopt and modify the Andhra

Pradesh Fire Service Act, 1999 to the State of Telangana by

virtue of Section 101 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act,

2014, the Andhra Pradesh Fire Service Act, 1999 (Telangana

Adaptation Order) 2015 came to be notified vide G.O.Ms.No.75,

dated 17.11.2015 thereby extending to the entire State of

Telangana. One of the provisions that was substituted was

Section 13(2), as extracted above.

21. It is apparent from a reading of the amended Section 13 of

the Act, that the respondent No.3/TSDRFS is authorised to issue

a NOC with such conditions as may be considered necessary.

Upon inspection of a building and on being satisfied that the

provisions of fire prevention and safety measures stipulated in

the NBC, 2016 as amended from time to time, are being

followed and upon adherence to the set backs as stipulated by the

civic authorities, a fire NOC is required to be issued. But if

dissatisfied, the Competent authority is empowered to reject such

an application, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

22. Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Fire Service Act can

be compartmentalised into three parts. The first part refers to a

building over 15 meters in height, meant for commercial/

business purposes. The second part deals with buildings having a

height of 18 meters and above meant for residential purposes.

The third part deals with buildings meant for public gathering

like schools, cinema halls, function halls, religious places that are

more than 500 square meters in plot area or 6 meters and above

in height. A person proposing to construct a building in all the

above sub-categories is required to apply to the Director General

or an Officer delegated by him for obtaining a NOC before

submitting a building application for approval to the authorities

under the relevant law.

23. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Fire Service Act

prescribes that on the Director General or his delegated authority

receiving an application for obtaining a fire NOC and on being

satisfied that the provisions of fire prevention and safety

measures stipulated in the NBC or any other law in force are

being adhered to, a NOC shall be issued within sixty days with

such conditions as may be considered necessary. If not satisfied

with the application, the same can be rejected with reasons.

24. The NBC was promulgated by the Indian Bureau of

Standards and first published in the year 1970 with the object of

unifying the building regulations across the country for use by

government departments, municipal bodies and other

construction agencies. The Code lays down a set of minimum

provisions designed to protect the safety of the public with

regard to structural sufficiency, fire hazards and health aspects of

buildings; administrative provisions, development control rules

and general building requirements; fire safety requirements,

stipulation regarding materials and structural design; rules for

design of electrical installations, acoustics and plumbing

services, provisions of ventilation etc. The NBC has been

amended from time to time, the latest amendment being of the

year 2016.

25. Part IV of the NBC specifically deals with 'Fire and

Life Safety'. The underlying intent of this Part, as gleaned from

the Foreword is to specify measures that would provide a fair

degree of safety from fire and for fire protection of buildings

which can be reasonably achieved. It insists upon compliance

with minimum standards of fire safety in public interest. It

specifies the demarcation of fire zones, restrictions on

construction of buildings in each fire zone, classification of

buildings based on occupancy, types of building construction

according to fire resistance of the structural and non-structural

components and other restrictions and requirements necessary to

minimise danger to life and property from fire, smoke, fumes or

panic before the buildings can be evacuated in case of an

emergency. In short, Part IV of the NBC recognizes that safety

of life is more than a matter of means of exits and deals with

several aspects that are considered imperative to safeguard life

and minimise fatality.

26. Clause 3 of Part IV entitled "Fire Prevention" lays down

the 'Classification of Building Based on Occupancy'. Clause

3.1.1 stipulates the 'General Classification' as below:-

"All buildings, whether existing or hereafter erected shall be classified according to the use or the character of occupancy in one of the following groups:

            Group A      Residential





                  Group B      Educational
                 Group C      Institutional
                 Group D      Assembly
                 Group E      Business
                 Group F      Mercantile
                 Group G      Industrial
                 Group H      Storage
                 Group J      Hazardous"

27. Clause 3.1.3 covers Group B - Educational Buildings and

states as follows:-

"3.1.3 Group B Educational Buildings

These shall include any building used for school, college, other training institutions for day- care purposes involving assembly for instruction, education or recreation for not less than 20 students.

Buildings and structures under Group B shall be further sub-divided as follows:

Sub-division B - 1 Schools up to senior secondary level Sub-division B - 2 All others/training institutions

a) Sub-division B-1 Schools up to senior secondary level - This sub-division shall include any building or a group of buildings under single management which is used for students not less than 20 in number.

b) Sub-division B-2 All others/training institutions

- This sub-division shall include any building or a group of buildings under single management which is used for students not less than 100 in number."

(emphasis added)

28. 'Fire Zones' have been classified under Clause 3.2 of Part

IV. The said clause clarifies how a city can be demarcated into

distinct zones, based on fire hazard inherent in the buildings and

structures in terms of the occupancy. Clause 3.2.2.2 classifies the

following three fire zones:-

"a) Fire Zone No.1 - This shall comprise areas having residential (Group A), educational (Group B), institutional (Group C) and assembly (Group D), small business (Sub-divisions E-1) and retail mercantile (Group F) buildings, or areas which are under development for such occupancies.

       b)     Fire Zone No.2 - This shall comprise
      business (Sub-        divisions   E-2   to     E-5)     and
      industrial buildings (Sub-division      G-1     andG-2),
      except high hazard industrial      buildings          (Sub-

division G-3) or areas which are under development for such occupancies.

       c)     Fire zone No.3 - This shall comprise areas
      having          high hazard industrial buildings (Sub-

division G- 3), storage buildings (Group H) and buildings for hazardous used (Group J) or areas which are under development for such occupancies."

29. What emerges from a cojoint reading of the above Clauses

is that buildings that are put to use for educational purposes have

been classified under Group-B. Group -B Educational Buildings

referred to in Clause 3.1.3 include "any building used for school,

college, other training institutions for day-care purposes

involving assembly for instruction, education or recreation for

not less than 20 students". Further, buildings and structures that

are covered under Group-B have been sub-divided into B-1,

namely schools with classes upto XII and B-2 which covers all

others/training institutions. While designating fire zones in large

cities, educational institutions that fall under Group-B, have been

grouped under Fire Zone No.1 alongside buildings falling under

Group-A (Residential), Group-C (Institutional) and Group-D

(Assembly). Clause 3.2.6.1 falling under Part IV stipulates that

buildings erected in Fire Zone No.1 must conform to

construction of Type 1, 2, 3 or 4. The types of construction have

been further elaborated in Clause 3.3, with several tables framed

in that regard, laying down fire resistance ratings for various

types of constructions to make a building resistant to a complete

burn-out and to prevent rapid spread of fire, smoke or fumes, that

may contribute to the loss of lives and property.

30. Clause 4 goes on to specify the manner in which a

building is required to be constructed/equipped to avoid undue

danger to life and safety of its occupants from fire etc., during

the period necessary for escape. Clause 5 deals with issues

relating to the nature of equipment required for fire protection

including fire extinguishers, wet risers, automatic sprinkler

installations etc. Clause 6.2 refers to "Requirements of

Educational Buildings (Group B)", lays down additional

requirements for buildings intended for educational occupancy as

a safeguard for the students, which includes setting up of fire

detection/extinguishing system, exit facilities, additional

precautions, exceptions and deviations.

31. The underlying and continuous thread that weaves through

the above provisions falling under Part IV of the NBC, 2016 is to

categorize fire safety aspects distinctly into fire prevention, life

safety and fire protection by giving detailed treatment to each

aspect. Part IV of the NBC makes it abundantly clear that

educational buildings classified under Group B include "schools

upto senior secondary level" that fall under Sub-division B-1

and "all others/training institutions" that fall under Sub-division

B-2.

32. One does not need to go far to understand and appreciate

the object behind the strict enforcement of the NBC. The

standard of fire safety measures required for buildings used for

educational purposes, have to be more stringent not just to avoid

any fire hazard, but to ensure safe egress of students from the

buildings, in the event of a fire or smoke, or such like emergent

situations.

33. While sub-section (1) of Section 13 categories buildings,

depending on the character of their occupancy, sub-section (2) of

Section 13 specifically refers to the NBC which must be taken

into consideration for issuing a NOC with regard to the

provisions of fire prevention and safety measures. When it is

clear that Clause 3.1.3 of the NBC extends to "any building used

for school, college, other training institutions for day care

purposes involving assembly for instruction, education or

recreation for not less than 20 students", there can be no manner

of doubt that intermediate junior colleges being run by the

petitioners for imparting education to students studying in classes

XI and XII, commonly known as Senior Secondary classes in

several States in India, would require clearance under Section 13,

as they squarely fall under Group-B educational buildings and as

a sequitur, make it obligatory for the Managements to strictly

adhere to the provisions of fire prevention and safety measures

stipulated in Part IV of the NBC. In the light of the aforesaid

statutory provisions, the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that intermediate colleges cannot be treated as a

"school building" under Section 13 of the Fire Service Act is

untenable and turned down as devoid of merits.

34. For the very same reason, it cannot be urged by the

petitioners that the impugned Circular dated 22.02.2020 issued

by the respondent No.3/TSDRFS is arbitrary on the ground that

it has changed the classification of the buildings prescribed by

the Statute. On the contrary, the said Circular is premised on the

criteria laid down by the NBC that requires strict adherence in

terms of Section 13(2) of the Fire Service Act and makes it

obligatory for the petitioners to obtain a fire NOC before putting

a building falling under Group-B, to educational use. It is equally

impermissible for the petitioners to assert that a "college/junior

college" cannot be equated to a "school". The equation drawn

between the two in the present context, is not in relation to the

standard of the education that is expected to be imparted. It is

predicated on the level of the safety features required to be

incorporated in respect of buildings that are occupied by

educational institutions. The rigours imposed on the

Management that runs intermediate colleges/junior colleges must

be more stringent keeping in mind the fact that at any point of

time, a large number of students are expected to gather to study

in classes. Keeping them safe from the jeopardy of a fire hazard

is therefore of utmost importance.

35. The legislative intent behind enacting the Fire Service Act

is to safeguard human lives, ensure fire prevention and enforce

fire safety measures to prevent any loss of life or property on

account of fire. Keeping in mind the aforesaid statutory object,

the petitioners cannot be heard to state that Section 13 would

extend to buildings used for housing schools where education is

imparted to students studying upto Class X, but those students

who are studying in Classes XI and XII in intermediate

colleges/junior colleges would stand excluded from the ambit of

said provision. The said enactment would be reduced to a

mockery if we were to accept the argument advanced on behalf

of the petitioners that simply because sub-section (1) of Section

13 does not specifically refer to a college/junior college in the

third sub classification of "buildings of public congregation like

schools, cinema halls, function halls, religious places, with

specific plot area and height", the respondents No.2 and 3

cannot make it obligatory for them to obtain a fire NOC for a

building from where an intermediate college/junior college is

being run. The expression "buildings of public congregation like

schools, cinema halls, function halls, religious places" are broad

examples of the character of occupancy of a building that would

require obtaining of a fire NOC. No doubt, the word "school"

has not been defined in the Fire Service Act, but the very fact

that the standards of safety set down in the NBC have been

incorporated in sub-section (2) of Section 13 and the said

provisions enjoins an applicant to satisfy the provisions of fire

prevention and safety measures stipulated therein, besides other

laws that may be in force, it must be held that the word "school"

employed in sub-section (1) of Section 13 takes in its fold Senior

Secondary Schools, i.e., intermediate colleges in terms of the

definition provided in Sub-division B-1 of Clause 3.1.3 of the

NBC.

36. Even if we were to ignore the categorizations mentioned in

the NBC, sub-section (1) of Section 13 in as much as it sub-

divides buildings into three categories and "buildings of the

public congregation" find mention in the third category with a

further illustration of "schools, cinema halls, function halls,

religious places", itself makes it abundantly clear that

intermediate colleges/junior colleges that house students

studying in Classes XI and XII, i.e., Senior Secondary classes

would also be automatically covered under the said provision.

For the said reason, the phrase "buildings of public

congregation" used in the above provision gains significance and

must be interpreted expansively to achieve the beneficial object

of the Statute and comply with the rigours imposed therein. The

provision extends to all buildings meant to be put to use for

educational purposes which will without exception take in its

ambit, buildings where a large number of students are expected

to assemble for teaching purposes/recreational purposes, be it

upto Class X or upto the Senior Secondary level, or for that

matter, upto even college level, as long as they fall under Group-

B educational buildings, classified in Clause 3.1 of the NBC,

2016.

37. Therefore, word "school" when used in the context of the

preceding phrase, "buildings of public congregation" in Section

13(1) of the Fire Service Act, would have to be understood and

applied on a much broader footing and encompass all buildings,

where education is imparted to students, irrespective of whether

they are studying in schools, colleges, other training institutions

or coaching centres. In our opinion, the expression "buildings of

public congregation" is more of a conceptual creation which

would embrace several types of buildings that attract a large

footfall. Simply because sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Fire

Service Act gives an illustration of such like buildings by

referring to schools, cinema halls, function halls and religious

places does not mean that the list is exhaustive nor can that be a

ground to narrow down the definition of "buildings of public

congregation" and exclude those buildings that are occupied by

intermediate colleges/junior colleges, other training institutions

and coaching centres, which are also spaces where students

assemble for being imparted education. For the said reason, the

expression, "building of public congregation" cannot be given a

restrictive meaning, as sought to be urged by the petitioners.

38. We do not find any incompatibility in the aforesaid

provision for this Court for accepting the arguments advanced by

learned counsel for the petitioners that colleges/junior colleges

ought to be excluded from the purview of the word "school"

used in Section 13 of the Fire Service Act when the phrase

"buildings of public congregation" precedes the specific

illustrations given in the third sub-category carved out in sub-

section (1) namely "schools, cinema halls, function halls,

religious places". Neither a constricted, nor a truncated

interpretation can be given to the expression "buildings of public

congregation" under Section 13(1) of the Fire Service Act to

exclude "college/junior college" from the said definition.

39. Even otherwise, the NBC, referred to in sub section (2) of

Section 13 lays down the norms for fire prevention and safety

standards in respect of different classes of buildings, depending

on the nature of their occupancy. Great pains have been taken in

the Code to lay down an elaborate network of buildings put to

different uses. For tables and drawings for setting the standards

of safety for educational buildings, the requirements under

Clause 6.2 are more rigorous and includes providing fire

detention/extinguishing systems, exit facilities, precautions

relating to storage of volatile flammable liquids, provision for

shut-off gas valves, quantify of water necessary for fire

suppression system etc.

40. It may be emphasised that there cannot be any

compromise with the safety and well being of school/college

going students or the standards of safety of the buildings where

they assemble to study. The security and safety of students

across all institutions, be they schools, intermediate

colleges/junior colleges, training institutions etc., is non-

negotiable. What can be more precious than the life of a student

who leaves the safe heaven of his/her home, to step out in search

of quality education? An onerous duty is cast on the institutions

where the students assemble for receiving instructions and they

are expected to act in a fiduciary capacity for so long as the

students remain within their precincts. Parents repose immense

trust and confidence in them and expect that their wards shall

remain safe within the confines of the institution. The State is

equally responsible to regulate such institutions and ensure that

they maintain high safety standards. It is therefore impermissible

for the petitioners to urge that a different and higher yardstick

may apply when it comes to safety standards imposed for schools

vis-à-vis the standards imposed for intermediate colleges/junior

colleges. Lives of young students studying in intermediate/junior

colleges are as precious as those of children studying in schools.

Just as access to education is a well recognized fundamental

right, access to a safe environment for receiving education is an

equally important facet of the very same fundamental right and

cannot be under estimated on belittled.

41. In the above context, we may profitably advert to the view

expressed by the Supreme Court in Avinash Mehrotra v. Union

of India reported as (2009) 6 SCC 398, where it has been

observed in clear terms that "the right to education is more than

a human or fundamental right. It is a reciprocal agreement

between the State and the family, and it places an affirmative

burden on all participants in our civil society". Speaking for the

Bench, Justice Dalveer Bhandari has eloquently expounded on

"what goes to educating a child" in the following words:-

"34. This Court has routinely held that another fundamental right to life encompasses more than a breath and a heartbeat. In reflecting on the meaning of "personal liberty" in Articles 19 and 21, we have held that

"that 'personal liberty' is used in the article as a compendious term to include within itself all the varieties of rights which go to make up the 'personal liberties' of man...." (Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1963 SC 1295] , AIR p. 1302, para 17.)

Similarly, we must hold that educating a child requires more than a teacher and a blackboard, or a classroom and a book. The right to education requires that a child study in a quality school, and a quality school certainly should pose no threat to a child's safety. We reached a similar conclusion, on the comprehensive guarantees implicit in the right to education, only recently in our opinion in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India [(2008) 6 SCC 1]

35. The Constitution likewise provides meaning to the word "education" beyond its dictionary meaning. Parents should not be compelled to send their children to dangerous schools, nor should children suffer compulsory education in unsound buildings.

36. Likewise, the State's reciprocal duty to parents begins with the provision of a free education, and it extends to the State's regulatory power. No matter where a family seeks to educate its children, the State must ensure that children suffer no harm in exercising their fundamental right and civic duty. States thus bear the additional burden of regulation, ensuring that schools provide safe facilities as part of a compulsory education.

37. In the instant case, we have no need to sketch all the contours of the Constitution's guarantees, so we do not. We merely hold that the right to education incorporates the provision of safe schools.

38. This Court in Ashoka Kumar Thakur case6 observed as under: (SCC p. 660, para 482) "482. It has become necessary that the Government set a realistic target within which it must fully implement Article 21-A regarding free and compulsory education for the entire country. The Government should suitably revise budget allocations for education. The priorities have to be set correctly. The most important fundamental right may be Article 21-A, which, in the larger interest of the nation, must be fully implemented. Without Article 21-A, the other fundamental rights are effectively rendered meaningless. Education stands above other rights, as one's ability to enforce one's fundamental rights flows from one's education. This is ultimately why the judiciary must oversee the Government spending on free and compulsory education."

39. In view of the importance of Article 21-A, it is imperative that the education which is provided to children in the primary schools should be in the environment of safety."

(emphasis added)

42. In the light of the aforesaid decision, that has highlighted

the role of the State for fulfilling the constitutional mandate of

imparting education to one and all, by treating it as another facet

of the fundamental right of every child to receive education, free

from the fear of injury, danger or loss, we can only state that the

respondents herein have had to be shaken out of their stupor on a

public interest litigation being filed in the court highlighting how

students studying in intermediate colleges/junior colleges are

being exposed to the danger of assembling in unsafe and

unsound buildings that could in the eventuality of a fire, turn into

virtual tinderboxes trapping the occupants and making safe exit

an impossibility.

43. Forced to act on the orders of the Court, the official

respondents have woken up to discharge the duty cast upon them

under the Statute, by exercising their regulatory powers.

Respondent No.3/TSDRFS has issued the impugned Circular

dated 22.02.2020, that makes it obligatory for schools, colleges,

training institutions and coaching centres housed in

buildings/premises having more than 500 square metres in plot

area and are 6 metres and above in height, to obtain a fire NOC.

We do not see any reason to come to the aid of the petitioners

and waive off the aforesaid condition for operating intermediate

colleges/junior colleges from buildings that fall under the

aforesaid category. The respondent No.2/TSBIE is equally

competent to issue the impugned order dated 24.03.2020 refusing

affiliation in the absence of a fire NOC, as it is premised on the

compliances contemplated under Section 13 of the Fire Service

Act. Respondent No.2/TSBIE is in fact under a statutory

obligation to reject any application for affiliation of a junior

college if the building in which the said college is housed, does

not possess a fire NOC issued by the Fire Department.

44. We also do not find any merit in the plea taken by the

petitioners that the safety norms engrafted in the NBC, 2016

would not be applicable to schools that were in existence prior to

the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Mehrotra

(supra). The petitioners were all along aware of the mandatory

requirement of obtaining a fire NOC and had on their own given

an undertaking to furnish one to the authorities. When the

petitioners had voluntarily given an undertaking to the

respondent No.2/TSBIE that if they do not obtain a fire NOC in

respect of the building from where the junior college was

operating, they would shift the students to a fire compliant

building, they must be firmly held to the said undertaking. They

cannot be permitted to renege by offering frivolous excuses to

wriggle out of the stipulations of law. In any event, the

petitioners were duly accommodated by the respondent

No.2/TSBIE. While rejecting their application for affiliation and

ordering closure of the colleges, respondent No.2/TSBIE had

directed the petitioners to shift the students to another suitable

building for the next academic year so as not to jeopardise the

career of the students studying in the said colleges.

45. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned

Circular dated 22.02.2020 issued by the respondent

No.3/TSDRFS and the impugned order dated 24.03.2020 passed

by the respondent No.2/TSBIE do not warrant any interference.

Both are upheld as legal and valid and the present petitions are

dismissed as meritless along with the miscellaneous applications,

if any, with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five

thousand only) in each case, to be deposited with the Telangana

High Court Legal Services Authority, within four weeks from

today. Proof of deposit shall be placed on record.

____________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 23.04.2021 Pln

Note : LR copy be marked.

(By order) pln