SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 359

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K. SASIDHARAN, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
B. Stalin – Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 15658 of 2015 & M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 20-02-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A. Kannan.
For the Respondents: M. Govindan, T.S. Md. Mohideen, M. Lingadurai.

Adherence to building regulations and safety protocols, proper inspection and safety audits before granting liquor licenses

Headnote:

Building Regulations - Fire Safety - Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules 1981 - [VIOLATION OF BUILDING REGULATIONS, ILLEGAL LIQUOR LICENCE] - [Development Control Regulations: 5(2) A, 5(2) B, 5(2) C, 5(2) D, 5(2) E, 5(2) F, 5(2) G, Rule 3(3) 11, Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules 1981: Section 2(xvi)] - The court discussed the violations of building regulations, including excess FSI, plot coverage, and inadequate parking space, and the illegal issuance of a liquor license to a mall that did not meet the criteria for a star hotel as per the Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules 1981. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to building regulations and safety protocols and emphasized the need for proper inspection and safety audits before granting liquor licenses.

Fact of the Case:

The court addressed the violations committed by a shopping mall in Madurai, including non-adherence to building regulations and the illegal issuance of a liquor license.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the mall had violated building regulations and did not meet the criteria for a star hotel as per the Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules 1981. The court quashed the liquor license and emphasized the need for proper inspection and safety audits before granting such licenses.

Issues: Violation of building regulations, illegal issuance of liquor license

Ratio Decidendi: Adherence to building regulations, proper inspection and safety audits before granting liquor licenses

Final Decision: The court quashed the liquor license and directed authorities to conduct a safety audit and ensure compliance with building regulations before considering a fresh application for a liquor license.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.

Introductory

1. It is said that the fire in Sri Meenakshi Temple on Friday, the 2 February 2018 was a disaster waiting to happen for a long time. The unfortunate incident at the heritage building should be taken as a wake up call for undertaking a mass drive against illegal buildings, especially the multi-storeyed buildings constructed in violation of the Building Regulations as it is a constant threat to the safety and security of the people of Madurai. In case, the Fire Officers, Local Planning Authority, District Administration, Municipal Corporation and Police are insensitive to the issue regarding mushroom growth of illegal buildings and the safety aspects and inspite of a slew of fire accidents, safety audits are not conducted regularly, there is every possibility of another Uphaar Tragedy at the Temple City of Madurai.

2. The magnitude of the violation of building regulations and non adherence to the safety protocol at Vishaal De Mal, Madurai is evident from the following inspection report submitted by the District Collector and the Local Planning Authority, Madurai on 7 August 2017, pursuant to the direction given by this Court in this writ petition challenging the liquor licence issued to the multi storeyed shopping mall, situated adjacent to a petrol outlet at Gokhale Road, which is the nerve centre of Madurai.

“As per DCR (Development Control Regulations):

The building comes under the Multi-Storied Building (MSB) - Category III.

Rule No.

Description

Required

Available

Excess/Less

Remarks

5(2) A

Minimum Plot extent

2500 Sq. M.

3608.36 Sq. M.

Excess 1108.36 Sq. M.

Satisfied

5(2) B

Minimum Plot Width/frontage

40 Meter

42.06 Meter

Excess 2.06 Meter

Satisfied

5(2) C

Minimum Road Width

18 Meter

18 Meter

 

Satisfied

5(2) D

Maximum FSI

2.25

4.28

Excess 2.03

90.22% Deviation

5(2) E

Maximum Plot coverage

Above 30%

upto 40%

76.91%

Excess 36.91%

92.28% Deviation

5(2) F

Maximum height above ground level

60 Meter

27.6 Meter

--

Satisfied

5(2) G

Minimum setback all around

 

 

 

 

North

7 Meter

1.5 Meter (excluding projection)

5.5 Meter

(-) Less

78.57% Deviation

South

7 Meter

2.2 Meter (excluding projection)

4.8 Meter

(-) Less

68.57% Deviation

East (front open)

7 Meter

5.7 Meter (excluding projection)

1.3 Meter

(-) Less

18.57% Deviation (Fire escape open steel stair case provided in front of 5.7 Meter length)

West

7 Meter

Nil

7 Meter (-)

Less

100 % Deviation

      Required Parking Details:

Shopping Centre

200 Nos.

Restaurant

31 Nos.

Theatre

67 Nos.

Rooms

2 Nos.

Total No. of required Car Parking

300 Nos.

Provided Car Parking:

Basement I

40 Nos.

Basement II

55 Nos.

Total No. of Car Parking (Provided)

95 Nos.

The Dimension of Parking slot shall be 5.0 metre x 2.5 metre with a minimum width of driveway of 3.5 metre for one way movement and 7.2 metre width for two way movement. In this building as per the DCR norms, 300 cars should be accommodated with driveway facilities in Basement Floor I & Basement Floor II. But, the space is not sufficient for parking and it violates the DCR Rule 3(3) 11.”

3. The District Collector, Madurai rejected the application for issuing licence for opening multiple theatres at the shopping mall. The mall got the licence to open five theatres on the top floor of the building and exhibit films pursuant to the direction given by this Court by agreeing with the submission of the builder that it was constructed in accordance with the planning permission given by the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, notwithstanding the legal position that the Commissioner has no authority to approve the building plan for a multi-storeyed building. The builder is now banking upon the earlier orders of the High Court to prevent






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top