MUMBAI: Upbraiding the city’s civic administration for its vigorous opposition to a petition by a doctor who challenged a cantilevered stack parking for cars in a suburban society building for constricting the path for fire engine entry, Bombay high court on Friday said, “We know of no principle in law by which the fire safety of those living in buildings of less than 13 floors can be said to be less important than those living in highrises.’’
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata saying, “ Such a submission, if made, would be thoroughly irresponsible in a city like Mumbai.’’
Dr Rahul Jain, an ophthalmologist, who runs a clinic in a Borivli building said the seven stack-car parking was “not only dangerous but blocked his entrance” and left no mandatory space for fire engines.
The HC was flummoxed with the stand taken by the BrihanMumbai Municipal corporation (BMC) to the petition filed last year. “This is because,’’ it said, from photographs annexed to the BMC’s own Affidavit, “it is abundantly clear that stack parking as provided completely obstructs the entrance driveway of the Society building and obstructs significantly even foot access to the Petitioner’s premises.’’
The Chief Fire Safety officer was present in court. The HC noted that it was common ground that “no fire tender can possibly enter this driveway.’’
The fire department’s affidavit however said since the building height was less than 132 metres it could be accessed from the main road.
The HC after hearing Abhinav Chandrachud for the doctor and Racheta Dhura for BMC said, “We are also rejecting the argument that merely because the (BMC) has collected a premium therefore all norms of safety, public safety, fire safety and health etc can be abandoned. The suggestion that every violation, transgression or deviation from well established safety norms can be condoned in exercise of discretionary powers simply by taking money is so utterly reprehensible that we dare say that no Court would ever countenance it. Yet we find it on Affidavit.’’
The civic authorities said a small ambulance could fit below the cantilever.
The controversy over an ambulance is needless because the BMC “annexes photographs that prima facie purport to show an undersized ambulance,’’ said the HC.
“The removal of the cantilevered parking will affect the Society. We propose to give it one more opportunity to remain present,’’ said the bench since the society never appeared before the court as yet.
The HC thus gave the society–Reserve Bank India Employees’ Ashish Cooperative Housing Society Ltd—a last chance to accept notice of the petition saying there is “no question of Society refusing to accept service of the notice that comes from the Court’’ . The HC posted the matter to January 18 and put the society to notice that it would not adjourn the matter on that date and pass orders ex-parte—without hearing it.
“Deputy Chief Fire Officer who has made the Affidavit’’ as well as the civic official who filed the BMC affidavit have to remain present personally on the next date,” said the HC.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata saying, “ Such a submission, if made, would be thoroughly irresponsible in a city like Mumbai.’’
Dr Rahul Jain, an ophthalmologist, who runs a clinic in a Borivli building said the seven stack-car parking was “not only dangerous but blocked his entrance” and left no mandatory space for fire engines.
The HC was flummoxed with the stand taken by the BrihanMumbai Municipal corporation (BMC) to the petition filed last year. “This is because,’’ it said, from photographs annexed to the BMC’s own Affidavit, “it is abundantly clear that stack parking as provided completely obstructs the entrance driveway of the Society building and obstructs significantly even foot access to the Petitioner’s premises.’’
The Chief Fire Safety officer was present in court. The HC noted that it was common ground that “no fire tender can possibly enter this driveway.’’
The fire department’s affidavit however said since the building height was less than 132 metres it could be accessed from the main road.
The HC after hearing Abhinav Chandrachud for the doctor and Racheta Dhura for BMC said, “We are also rejecting the argument that merely because the (BMC) has collected a premium therefore all norms of safety, public safety, fire safety and health etc can be abandoned. The suggestion that every violation, transgression or deviation from well established safety norms can be condoned in exercise of discretionary powers simply by taking money is so utterly reprehensible that we dare say that no Court would ever countenance it. Yet we find it on Affidavit.’’
The civic authorities said a small ambulance could fit below the cantilever.
The controversy over an ambulance is needless because the BMC “annexes photographs that prima facie purport to show an undersized ambulance,’’ said the HC.
“The removal of the cantilevered parking will affect the Society. We propose to give it one more opportunity to remain present,’’ said the bench since the society never appeared before the court as yet.
The HC thus gave the society–Reserve Bank India Employees’ Ashish Cooperative Housing Society Ltd—a last chance to accept notice of the petition saying there is “no question of Society refusing to accept service of the notice that comes from the Court’’ . The HC posted the matter to January 18 and put the society to notice that it would not adjourn the matter on that date and pass orders ex-parte—without hearing it.
“Deputy Chief Fire Officer who has made the Affidavit’’ as well as the civic official who filed the BMC affidavit have to remain present personally on the next date,” said the HC.
