IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER, J.
R. Raghuram Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
Telangana State Disaster Response & Fire Services Department, Hyderabad – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 9928 of 2022
Decided On : 20-12-2022
Telangana Fire Services Act, 1999 - Sections 13 and 19 - Telangana Fire and Emergency Operations and levy of Fee Rules 2006 - Rules 15 and 17 - Criminal Petition - Quash proceedings - Issue of no objection certificate – Held, At cost of repetition, the Secunderabad Club building is more 100 years old and Telangana Fire Services Act, 1999 came into force from 01.06.1999. Admittedly, no notice was served under Section 21 of Act, as such question of violating provision under Section 19 of the Act does not arise - Section 13 of Act is not applicable for reason of its applicability when a building is proposed to be constructed - Rule 15 is for issuing No Objection Certificate in event of proposal to construct a high rise building and violation of Rule 27 would be attracted only when there is a violation of Rule 26, which is when an inspecting officer completes inspection of a building and recommends for providing such measures to prevent fire accidents and if such measures are not undertaken, it is a violation under Rule 27 of the Rules - Admittedly there was no such inspection or recommendation for providing fire safety measures as such the question of violating Rule 15 or Rule 27 does not arise - Criminal Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in S.T.C. No. 2 of 2022 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.
2. The petitioner is being prosecuted by the Assistant District Fire Officer, Hyderabad for the reason of violating the provisions of Sections 13 and 19 of Telangana Fire Services Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rules 15 and 17 of Telangana Fire and Emergency Operations and levy of Fee Rules 2006, since precautions were not taken and resulting in Bungalow No. 220 of Secunderabad Club burnt due to fire accident.
3. The petitioner is the President of Secunderabad Club and major fire accident took place on 16.01.2022 when fire was spreading in the building, fire fighting operations were undertaken. The case of the District Fire Officer is that when he visited the premises and inspected the same, it was found that the occupier of the building failed to install the required fire prevention and fire safety measures. Further, the premises was being run without taking any precautionary measures and without obtaining No Objection Certificate for occupancy from the Fire Services Department. The inspection also found that several fire prevention measures which had to be undertaken were not in place. The negligence of the building occupier amounts to violations of the provisions as stated above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the President of Secundrabad Club and according to the bye laws of the club, the Secretary would be the over all in charge of the administration of the club and the petitioner as President is only supervisor. Further, none of the violations as alleged are attracted in the present facts of the case.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that for the reason of not following the prescribed measures, fire accident occurred and the petitioner is liable for violations of the provisions as alleged.
6. For the sake of convenience, Sections 13 and 19 of the Telangana Fire Services Act are extracted hereunder:
“13. Issue of no objection certificate:
(1) Any person proposing to construct a building of more than 15 metres height for commercial/business purpose, 18 metres and above height for residential purpose, and buildings of public congregation like schools, cinema halls, function halls, religious places, which are more than 500 Sq. Meter in plot area or 6 meters and above in height shall apply to the Director General or any member of the service duly authorised by him in this behalf, before submission of such building plans to the authority or officer competent to approve the same under the relevant law, for the time being in force, for a no objection certificate along with such fee as may be prescribed.
(2) The Director General or any member of the service duly authorised by him in this behalf, shall within sixty days of receipt of such application or on inspection being satisfied about the provision of Fire Prevention and Safety measures as stipulated in the National Building Code of India, as amended from time to time, and for ensuring heights and setbacks as per the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, Telangana urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, Hyderabad 7 Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) Act, 2008, Telangana Municipal Corporations Act, 1994, Telangana Municipalities Act, 1965, Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1920 and Rules, made there under as amended from time to time shall issue a no objection certificates with such conditions as may be considered necessary and if not so satisfied, reject the same for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(3) The authority or Officer competent to approve the building plans before construction under the relevant law for the time being in force, shall not accord such approval except on production of a no objection certificate issued under sub-section (2) wherever required.
(4) Any person violating the conditions of a no obj
Compliance with fire safety requirements and addressing objections raised by the fire safety department is essential to determine the continuation of criminal proceedings.
(1) Rules applicable to High Rise Buildings cannot be applied to buildings which are not High Rise Buildings – SDMC cannot keep sanction of Revised Building Plan submitted by Appellant in abeyance in....
The Rules, 1999 are absolutely of technical nature in regard to building construction, and therefore until and otherwise it is established that any of the rule or rules has any sort of technical flaw....
Rejection of fire license application without reasons or hearing violates natural justice principles.
The judgment establishes the principle that vicarious liability of officers in charge of a company requires specific averments and proof of their responsibility for the conduct of the company's busin....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.