Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Pinnacle Residency Apartments Owners Association – Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate Dehradun – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3631 of 2023 (MS)
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Appellate Review
Act Referred
Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973: S.7-B(4)
Headnote
(B) Appeals - Remand - Necessity of objective satisfaction - Appellate authorities must base findings on site inspections or expert reports rather than relying upon earlier conditional NOCs issued at the planning stage for projects that subsequently deviated from approved building plans. (Paras 11, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an apartment owners' association, challenged an order passed by the District Magistrate allowing the builder’s appeal against a local fire safety notice. The notice had flagged significant deficiencies, including structures that obstructed fire tenders and violated approved building plans. The District Magistrate had ignored these expert reports, relying instead on a video submitted by the builder and previous project-stage approvals.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the District Magistrate’s order was procedurally deficient and lacked objective reasoning. The reliance on a non-expert video to counter fire department findings was impermissible, and the authority failed to ensure that safety standards under the relevant codes were met.
Issues: Whether the appellate authority correctly exercised its jurisdiction in allowing the builder's appeal by ignoring the expert fire safety report regarding unauthorized structures.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority (District Magistrate) cannot grant relief in fire safety matters merely on the basis of a builder's private video evidence without verifying deficiencies flagged by statutory experts or conducting onsite verification to ensure adherence to safety protocols and the original building plan.
Result: The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the District Magistrate for a fresh decision.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abhijay Negi, Sarang Godbole, Priyansh Mittal
For the Respondents: V.D. Bisen, Brij Mohan, Rahul Consul, Arvind Vashisth, T.S. Bindra, Siddhant Tiwari
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and procedural history of the fire safety dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. specific fire safety deficiencies and the inadequate basis of the appellate order. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. appellate duty to verify safety claims with expert evidence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. setting aside the order and remanding the matter. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is filed by association of residents of a Group Housing Complex known as Pinnacle Residency, situate at Jakhen, Dehradun. According to petitioner, there are 86 residential apartments in the aforesaid group housing complex in the format of 3BHK, 4BHK, 3BHK-PH, 4BHK-PH and Studio apartments which were built by Dehradun based builder, namely, M/s Disha Hospitality Pvt. Limited (respondent No. 5). According to petitioner, the group housing complex consists of high rise buildings with height of about 30 meters.
2. Petitioners have challenged the order passed by District Magistrate, Dehradun on 18.01.2023, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 against a notice, issued by Chief Fire Officer, was allowed and the Chief Fire Officer was directed to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) to respondent No. 5. In the notice appealed against, Chief Fire Officer had pointed out certain defects/deficiencies in the group housing complex from fire safety perspective.
3. It transpires that residents of Pinnacle Residency, earlier filed Writ Petition No. 1632 of 2021 (MS) with the contention that some structures were raised by the builder (respondent No. 5 herein) in violation of building plan sanctioned by Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (in short, “MDDA”) and further that the norms for fire safety laid down under Uttarakhand Fire & Emergency Service, Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2016 (In short, “Fire Safety Act”) are not satisfied. The said writ petition was disposed of by co-ordinate bench with direction to authorities of MDDA to act upon the recommendation made by Chief Fire Officer vide letter dated 19.06.2021 and to take appropriate action by issuing necessary direction to the Builder for installing the requisite fire fighting facilities, as per provisions of Fire safety Act. The relevant extract of said order is reproduced below:
“The petitioner submits that the respondent No.4, has already referred the matter for an appropriate decision, an action on 19.06.2021, in order to ensure to provide the fire fighting facilities, to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not taken any action on the recommendation, which has been made by respondent No.4 on 19th June, 2021.
In that eventuality, looking to the wider interest of the residents of the colony, who have been allotted with their respective flates, and studio apartments, this Writ Petition would stand disposed of directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to forthwith act upon the recommendation made by respondent No.4 on 19th June, 2021 and take all and an appropriate action and measures within a period of eight weeks by issuing necessary directions to the respondent No. 5, for installing the requisite fire fighting facilities, which is mandated under the Act of 2016.
The decision would be taken in that regard within a period of two months from today.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.”
4. The aforesaid order was challenged by the builder, (respondent No. 5 in this writ petition), in Special Appeal No. 439 of 2021, and Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Appeal vide order dated 28.12.2021 by providing that appellant shall be given reasonable opportunity of hearing by Vice Chairman/Secretary, MDDA before taking any decision on the recommendations made by Chief Fire Officer and Department of Fire and Emergency Services and it was further provided that representation made by the appellant shall be considered and disposed of by the Vice Chairman/Secretary, MDDA by passi
