Back
Quashes Vacate Order Citing Lack of
The has set aside a fire services that directed the () to vacate its sixth and seventh floor offices on Camac Street in Kolkata, ruling that the authority passed the order without considering the party’s detailed reply and without carrying out a after the alleged fire safety deficiencies were said to have been remedied.
Justice Krishna Rao, hearing a filed by , held that the order of , 2026, issued by the Director-in-Charge of the , was and could not be sustained.
A Swift Under Fire
The fire authority had issued a on , alleging multiple violations: an expired fire safety certificate, a mild steel structure encroaching the driveway, LPG cylinders stored in a seventh-floor cafeteria, an inadequate and non-functional fire alarm system, and only one exit from the office to the internal corridor.
submitted a detailed reply on , stating that the encroaching structure had been removed, the LPG cylinders had been taken away, the riser system was operational (the butterfly valve had merely been kept non-operational during maintenance), and that there were in fact two exits. The party also listed the number of fire sprinklers and smoke detectors already installed and expressed full willingness to cooperate and install all required equipment.
Despite this, the very next day——the Director-in-Charge passed the impugned . The order was not even served on , but only on the building owner.
The State’s Challenge
The Advocate General for West Bengal, , argued that the was not maintainable because an appeal was available under , and .
Justice Rao examined the statutory scheme and rejected the objection. He noted that the notice of hearing was issued under , which falls under Chapter VI (Miscellaneous). Section 11-I provides an appeal only against orders passed under , while provides appeals against orders under —not Section 37A.
“Considering the above, this Court finds that neither Section 11-I nor is applicable to the petitioner for preferring an appeal against the ,” the court held, making the maintainable.
The Crucial Flaw: Reply Ignored, Inspection Skipped
On the merits, the court found a clear failure of . had submitted its reply on , but the passed the next day did not deal with any of the points raised.
“In the , the respondent no. 4 has not dealt with the reply submitted by the petitioner to the hearing notice dated 1st September, 2026,” the court observed.
Further, no inspection was conducted after the reply to verify whether the alleged defects had actually been cured. The court stated:
“This Court finds that the respondent no. 4 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and without carrying out any inspection after the reply submitted by the petitioner, has passed the .”
The court also noted that the order was not served on , whose rights were directly affected. The building owner’s reply, submitted on at 16:32 hours, was filed only after the order had already been passed.
A Second Chance for Compliance
Emphasizing that had expressed readiness to comply with all fire safety requirements, the court held that the authority ought to have granted time for compliance rather than rushing an evacuation.
The court set aside and quashed the , 2026 order. It directed the Director-in-Charge to reconsider ’s reply, conduct a after issuing notice to the party, and if any further shortcomings are found, inform to complete them. The court clarified that if fails to comply even after such notice, the authority will be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
The ruling is a straightforward application of : a hearing must be real, not a formality. The judgment does not hold that the premises are fire-safe—it only holds that the was passed in a manner that violated the . The authority retains full power to act if defects persist after a proper re-inspection.
