Back
2001 Supreme(Guj) 410
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :B.C.PATEL, D.A.MEHTA
LOK ADHIKAR SANGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 4578 of 1997
Decided On : 07/02/2001
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 -Arts. 14, 21 and 226 -Public Interest Litigation -Installation of Fire Safety System in high rise buildings -Direction sought for Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority -Despite three times interim directions, Commissioner AMC and Chairman AUDA did not take necessary action for compliance of the Courts directions -Held, (i) Commissioner AMC and Chairman AUDA failed to comply with the directions of Court -Registry directed to issue notice for Contempt of Court under Art. 215 of Constitution and under Contempt of Courts Act -(ii) Notice as to why Chairman AUDA should not be held liable for amount required for installing fire safety system in high rise buildings -(iii) Notice to Commissioner AMC as to why he should not be held liable for the loss suffered by the Corporation caused by permitting connection to municipal drainage without payment.
Once having been joined as party to the proceedings, it is the duty of a public body to inquire as to what are the previous orders passed in the matter. Further more, there is a distinction between an individual and a public body; the later is a creature of statute and is expected to function in accordance with law and cannot plead ignorance of law.
[Para 42]
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.
[Para 60]
In proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, it is the duty of the Court under the public law to penalise the wrong doers and to fix the liability for the public wrong on the State/Corporation which has failed to discharge public duty and to protect the citizens.
[Para 61]
Power to regulate the erection of building activities goes with the obligations and duties. Grant of permission takes within its sweep, in appropriate cases, to revoke or cancel permission as incidental or supplemental power to grant. Otherwise, power to regulate would be whittled down or even frustrated and with such wide powers given, if officers of the Corporation or AUDA are acting arbitrarily, they must be held liable.
[Para 64]
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.
[Para 68]
( 1 ) THIS petition was filed as a Public Interest litigation as fire safety system was not provided to prevent accidents in cinema halls, factories and high rise buildings. The petitioner sought for several directions including to take action against erring officers, who are responsible for gross violation of rules and regulations and to direct the respondents to create an independent machinery as also for mandatory agency representing various sections of the people to monitor working of the fire safety measures. Initially the Division bench (Coram: R. A. Mehta, Actg. C. J. and N. N. Mathur, J.) issued notice on 1. 7. 1997, returnable on 21. 7. 1997. Thereafter, on 4. 9. 1997, the Court (Coram: R. A. Mehta, Actg. C. J. and N. N. Mathur, J.) considered the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent admitting the fact that there are large number of high-rise buildings within the municipal limits, which are said to be without the required fire safety and fire prevention equipments. This being contrary to the law, prejudicial to the safety of the public at large and considering the fact that violation was on a large scale, the Court passed an order, further pointing out that because the buildings are built and put up by big builders and occupied by well-to-do influential people, actions are not taken or a show is made that actions are taken. The Court, in the aforesaid order dated 4. 9. 1997, gave an opportunity to the authorities to "disprove that the allegation of the petitioners that they (i. e. the authorities) are in collusion with the builders and occupiers of such buildings", and the matter was adjourned to 22. 9. 1997. Thereafter, it was brought to the notice of the Court that under the guise of a resolution No. 28. 4. 1994 for providing water and drainage facilities to hutments, chawls, societies, row houses and other buildings constructed without permission or illegally between 1. 5. 1976 and 31. 3. 1994, AMC was granting drainage and water connection to high rise buildings without fire safety measures. The Court (Coram: R. A. Mehta, Actg. C. J. and S. D. Pandit, J.) therefore granted permission on 16. 10. 1997 to amend the petition, and the petition is accordingly amended (pages No. 31 to 34 ). It was contended in the draft amendment that the said resolution cannot be used to condone the gross violations by the builders/ occupiers of buildings rules and regulations and of fire safety measures.
( 2 ) THEREAFTER, the Court (Coram: K. Sreedharan, C. J. and M. S. Shah, J) in an order dated 24. 12. 1997 pointedly referred to the order dated 4. 9. 1997 and we do not repeat the same. The Court also pointed out that it is improper to apply the aforesaid resolution to high rise buildings. The Court directed to take appropriate steps to get fire safety and fire prevention measures, including installation of such equipments in the high rise buildings in accordance with law. Despite the fact that the order is dated 24. 12. 1997, no action has been taken so as to satisfy the Court that Municipal Commissioner has taken action against the wrong doers who have committed breaches of various provisions. He has not taken action despite the fact that on 18. 2. 1999, the State Government has forwarded circulars to all Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Chairmen of various Urban Development Authorities in this behalf. (Copy of the said resolution is produced by Dr. Manjula Subramaniam, Principal Secretary with her affidavit-in-reply ). Even thereafter, the State Government issued letter to the Municipal Commissioner as well as Urban Development Authorities to take action against the officers who have acted illegally.
( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the matter was placed before the Division Bench (Coram: K. Sreedharan, C. J. and A. R. Dave, J) on 12. 2. 1998. Reading the order it is clear that the Municipal Corporation issued Public Notice requiring high rise buildings situated within Municipal Corporation limits to have fire safety
