JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General for the State, assisted by Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner company has prayed for setting aside and quashing of notice issued by the Director, Fire and Emergency Services, Assam (respondent no. 2) under Memo No. F&ES/FPW/GH-283/876/22 dated 18.11.2022 (Annexure-XV). By the said notice, the respondent no. 2, by invoking Rule 7 of the Fire Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “1989 Rules” for brevity), directed the petitioner to remove forthwith persons in possession or occupation of its building and to vacate the premises by 25.11.2022, failing which the petitioner was informed that the said authority in exercise of power conferred under Rule 7 and 13 of the said 1989 Rules would take legal measures for removal of persons in possession/ occupation of the premises/ building by the name of M/s. Landmark Hotel.

3. As the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General had jointly urged that as the pleadings had been exchanged and the case was ready as regards service of notice, the matter be heard and disposed of at the “admission” stage. Thus, the matter has been heard at length.

Case of the petitioner and submissions by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner:

4. In brief, the case of the petitioner company is that it took on a 20 year lease, effective from 04.05.2000 to 03.05.2020, a piece and parcel of property owned by the Board of Sports, Assam (respondent no. 3). Upon making investment for development of the said property, the petitioner is currently operating a hotel under the name and style of Landmark Hotel. It is projected that the lease has a clause providing for renewal of the lease for a further term of 20 years, for which option was exercised by the petitioner, but was rejected by the respondent no. 3. The said decision was assailed by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No. 2461/2020. However, as the Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.05.2000 contained arbitration clause, the said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by directing the petitioner to approach the Arbitral Forum within 60 (sixty) days from 02.11.2021. The said order was assailed by filing intra-court appeal, which was registered as W.A. No. 341/2021. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 17.12.2021, disposed of the said appeal, by extending the period to approach the arbitral forum by another three weeks, i.e. 21 (twenty one) days, by directing the parties to do the needful within 22.01.2022.

5. The further case of the petitioner company is that consequently, the concerned parties subjected themselves to an arbitration proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of 3 (three) Hon’ble members. In connection with the said proceeding, the said learned Arbitral Tribunal, by an interim order dated 29.03.2022, directed that the respondent no. 3 shall not disturb the possession of the petitioner over the lease property, and further direction was issued to the petitioner to pay current and arrear rent and it was also provided that acceptance of rent by the respondent no. 3 would in no way prejudice its rights and contentions in the proceeding.

6. The grievance of the petitioner company, leading to filing of this writ petition is that the building was constructed as per the then prevailing National Building Code, 1983 and the petitioner had installed the requisite adequate fire fighting measures. Accordingly, the petitioner had obtained the requisite “no objection certificate” (NOC for short) from the State Fire Department, which was renewed from time to time till 31.03.2019. It is projected that although the petitioner applied for renewal of NOC for subsequent period, but the authorities neither inspected th