2022:BHC-GOA:1846-DB Vinita IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.

WRIT PETITION NO. 304 OF 2004.

Gurudas G. Pai, 4/F, Kamat Estate, Tonca Caranzalem, Goa 403 002 ...Petitioner Versus

1 The State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Panaji.

2 The Member Secretary, Planning &

Development Authority, Panaji Goa.

3 The Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Panaji Goa.

4 Shri Inacio Fernandes, C/o Menino Regency Hotel, Panaji. …Respondents Ms. Neha Shirodkar, Amicus Curiae.

Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate General with Ms. M. Correia, Addl. Govt.

Advocate for the State.

Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Korgaonkar and Mr. B. Fernandes, Advocates for the respondent no. 4.

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.

Reserved on : 8 December 2022 Pronounced on : 15 December 2022 JUDGMENT : (PER G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

1.

This Writ Petition was filed in public interest raising seminal issues in regard to the Fire Safety measures to be complied by the high rise buildings, in the city of Panaji, and the concern regarding the existing and the new buildings complying with the fire safety norms so as to obviate danger to human life and property.

2.

The cause as raised by the petitioner relates to the year 2004, which is alive even today in the year 2022. The background facts can be noted. The petitioner by his letter dated 7 July 2004 addressed to the Registry of this Court made a complaint of gross violation of law in regard to fire safety measures, by a hotel building of respondent no. 3. He complained that respondent no.3's building had not complied with the fire safety Rules and on such count questioned the illegal approval for occupancy granted to this building by the statutory authorities. He contended that any illegality in this regard was a very contagious phenomena and if such illegalities are not investigated and/or were permitted, a situation would arise that all high rise buildings coming up in Goa would become vulnerable to such hazards.

He emphasized the need for strict adherence to fire protection regulations, while planning, approving and/or constructing high rise buildings. Illustratively he referred to the ghastly fire tragedy at Upahar Cinema theatre in New Delhi.

3.

Perusal of the record would show that from time to time orders were passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court, whereby the Commissioner, Corporation of City of Panaji, was directed to ensure compliance of all the fire safety requirements by respondent no.3. In pursuance to the orders passed on this petition, respondent no. 3 took steps to comply with all the measures qua the complained building. Be that as it may, by virtue of further orders passed on this Writ Petition the scope of this petition was expanded. This Court by its order dated 30 January 2006 issued directions to the Corporation of City of Panaji as well as other authorities to inspect all the high rise buildings in Panaji, which had come up from the year 2000 and submit a report to the Registry of this Court.

4.

Thus the concern of the Court in the present proceedings is in regard to the compliance of the fire safety norms by the different category of buildings, considering the rapid growth of the cities and the surge in high rise constructions coming up in the State of Goa, and more particularly in regard to the buildings which have substantial human occupation and/or public gathering etc.

5.

On the backdrop of the earlier orders we have heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition certainly raises vital issues on the the importance of fire safety and the compliance of the fire safety norms, not only by the high rise buildings but other category of building like hospitals, office buildings, theatres, auditoriums, schools and colleges and other similar buildings.

6.

Ms. N. Shirodkar, learned Amicus Curiae has brought to our notice the statutory ambit,relevant to the issues in hand, which we discuss hereunder.

7.

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and (2) of section 4