No statutory appeal for Fire NOC rejection; approach District Fire Officer per practice.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner claims to be the Director of a Company, and is managing a Bar hotel. The application for renewal of Fire NOC for the hotel building was initially rejected by an order dated 16.12.2025, which was set aside by this Court on 05.01.2026 in WP(C) No.48389 of 2025 and directed reconsideration. The application was again rejected, pointing out certain deficiencies. Petitioner approached this Court in WP(C) No. 7192 of 2026, and by judgment dated 16.03.2026, 2^nd respondent herein was directed to reconsider petitioner's application for renewal of Fire NOC in a time-bound manner. Yet again, the petitioner's application for renewal of Fire NOC was rejected as per Ext.P9. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner has preferred an application before the 1st respondent seeking an immediate intervention.

2. The limited prayer now sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to consider Ext.P10, which is stated to be a statutory appeal.

3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions submitted that there is no provision for an appeal as per the Standing Orders which govern the application for Fire NOC. It was also submitted that, as per the practice, the representation is to be submitted to the next higher authority, ie, the District Fire Officer and no such application has been filed by the petitioner and hence, the relief sought for in this writ petition ought not be granted.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

5. It is conceded that there is no statutory provision to grant Fire NOC other than a Standing Order. Once, an application for Fire NOC or its renewal is rejected, an aggrieved person has no appellate remedy. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the practice resorted to is to approach the next higher officer, which is the District Fire Officer. Petitioner has, instead of approaching the District Fire Officer, filed a representation before the 1^st respondent who is the superior officer to the District Fire Officer. Though the counsel for the petitioner pointed out that all the aforementioned authorities have been approached by the petitioner, there are no materials to indicate that. In such circumstances, I am of the view that taking note of the entire factual situation as revealed from the pleadings, the petitioner can be given the liberty to approach the District Fire Officer with a representation and if any such representation is filed, the said officer can be directed to dispose of the same, in a time bound manner.

Accordingly, if the petitioner files an application questioning the correctness of Ext.P9 order before the District Fire Officer, within seven days from the date of receipt of this judgment, the said Officer shall consider the application within an outer period of three weeks from the date of its receipt and pass orders thereon. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition, along with a copy of the judgment, for due compliance. Till a decision is taken as directed above, the coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 against the establishment of the petitioner will be kept in abeyance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.