IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of clinical establishments to comply with fire safety norms and obtain Fire Safety Certificates as required by the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. Respondent no. 5, one Sass Med Private Limited, runs a clinical establishment at Premise No. 195/1, Park Street, P.S. – Beniapukur, Kol – 700 017. The said respondent is a lessee under the petitioners since 2021. The petitioners alleged that respondent no. 5 has violated all fire safety norms and has suffered a Notice under Section 5 of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950 (for short, “the 1950 Act”).

2. It is argued that such violation of norms jeopardizes the interests of the petitioners/owners, who also apprehend liability and legal action in that regard from the respondent-Authorities.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on a Notification dated September 4, 2012 annexed at page 81 of the writ petition, issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Health and Family Welfare Department, by which all clinical establishments were directed to submit either of the documents specified therein, one of which was No Objection Certificate/clearance certificate issued by the Fire and Emergency Services Department of the Government of West Bengal.

4. Learned counsel also relies on the Notice under Section 35 of the 1950 Act dated September 8, 2023 issued by the Divisional Fire Officer, South Kolkata Division, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services, to respondent no. 5 in support of his submissions.

5. Due to such non-compliance, it is argued that respondent no. 5 should be restrained immediately from running its clinical establishment illegally in the leased premises.

6. Learned counsel cites Ahmedabad Medical Association Through Vice President Maulik Sureshchandra Shah v. State of Gujarat, reported at 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 904 where it was held that continued infringement of law encourages lawlessness and submits that Fire Safety Standards and Guidelines ought not to be relaxed.

7. Learned counsel next relies on Bhaskar Ghosh v. State of W.B. and others, reported at2020 SCC OnLine Cal 156 where under similar circumstances, non-compliance of Fire Safety Conditions by a clinical establishment was held to be a patent violation of law and the said establishment was asked to stop functioning.

8. Learned counsel for the State argues that respondent no. 5 applied four times for Fire Safety Certificate. The first application submitted on November 24, 2021 was rejected due to non-submission of hardcopies of plan drawings by respondent no. 5, which is apparent from pages 26 and 40 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the said respondent.

9. The State submits that the second application submitted on February 7, 2022 was auto-rejected on April 18, 2022 for the same reason. The third application dated September 12, 2023 was also auto-rejected on October 5, 2023 due to delayed response from respondent no. 5.

10. The fourth application was filed on January 6, 2024, pursuant to an order dated January 4, 2024 passed by this Court in the present writ petition. Pursuant to the same, an inspection was conducted on January 16, 2024 and the matter was referred to the Technical Expert Committee on February 2, 2024 who apparently rejected the request of respondent no. 5 on the ground of inadequate side open space, inadequate width and number of staircases and insufficient width of corridor.

11. In reply, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 argues that Section 11C of the 1950 Act contemplates “high-risk” buildings, which have been defined in Section 2(hb) of the Act, to require Fire Safety Certificates. Clinical establishments do not fall within the purview of the same. “Institutional buildings” as contemplated under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules do not come within the purview of high-risk buildings as envisaged in the 1950 Act. Although clinical establishments come under the domain of institutional buildings, Section 11C of the 1950 Act does not apply to such buildings. Hence, the very source of authority of the respondents to initiate action against respondent n