The central legal point established in the judgment is the paramount importance of safety, fire safety, and public safety in the context of discretionary powers exercised by the Municipal Commissioner under DCPR 2034 Regulation 6.

JUDGMENT :

GS Patel, J.

1. Rule. Returnable forthwith.

2. The service report is on file. The Affidavit of Service shows service by hand delivery to the Chairman of the 6th Respondent Society. The name of the 6th Respondent is called out. None appears. Our order of 12th January 2024 was precisely to give the Society an opportunity to appear. We said in that order that if despite notice and especially notice through Court, the Society chose to stay away, it would not be heard to complain at a later stage. The Society has been served more than once. It must now accept the consequences for its non-appearance. We will proceed on the footing that its failure to appear means that the Society is not opposing the relief sought by the individual Petitioner.

3. Our order of 12th January 2024 summarised the issues involved. This relates to stack parking in the premises of the Society. This stack parking was a later addition. It was required because the developer submitted amended plans to put up two additional floors. Normal building regulations required that these two floors be provided parking. There was not enough physical space in the Society premises to provision additional parking for these two floors, and therefore came this proposal for stack parking. Our previous order notes some of this. It says:

1. The Petition is by an individual. He is a medical practitioner. His specific complaint is that there is now a provision for what is called cantilevered stack parking that is not only dangerous but almost completely blocks access to his premises. ...

2. But the Society has never appeared before us. For some reason that we cannot understand, this Petition has been vigorously opposed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”). We will have quite a lot to say about the Affidavits filed by the MCGM and by the Deputy Chief Fire Officer. This is because, from the material that is now available, including photographs annexed to the MCGM’s own Affidavit, it is abundantly clear that stack parking as provided completely obstructs the entrance driveway of the Society building and obstructs significantly even foot access to the Petitioner’s premises. It is pointless to get into a dispute about whether an “ambulance” can enter this and pass under the cantilever. The controversy is needless because in answer the MCGM annexes photographs that prima facie purport to show an undersized ambulance. It is common ground, however, and the Chief Fire Safety Officer is present in Court, that no fire tender can possibly enter this driveway. We reject out of hand here and now the argument that access by fire engines is unnecessary because the building is less than 13 floors. We know of no principle in law by which the fire safety of those living in buildings of less than 13 floors can be said to be less important than those living in highrises. Such a submission, if made, would be thoroughly irresponsible in a city like Mumbai. We are also rejecting the argument that merely because the MCGM has collected a premium therefore all norms of safety, public safety, fire safety and health etc can be abandoned. The suggestion that every violation, transgression or deviation from well established safety norms can be condoned in exercise of discretionary powers simply by taking money is so utterly reprehensible that we dare say that no Court would ever countenance it. Yet we find it on Affidavit.

3. The removal of the cantilevered parking will affect the Society. We propose to give it one more opportunity to remain present. There is before us no doubt that the Petitioner purchased his premises in 2019. There was an amended plan submitted by the developer in 2021. This involved the construction of two additional floors. That meant providing additional parking. Hence, the provision in this manner for stack parking. The Petition points that this cantilevered stack parking is a danger even to residents, older people and children of the Society itself. But we would nee