A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata expressed disapproval of the fire department’s argument that the 13-storeyed Reserve Bank of India Employees’ Ashish Cooperative Housing Society Ltd had adequate access for fire tenders from the main road
The Bombay High Court has strongly reprimanded the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the fire department for their casual approach towards fire safety concerns. The criticism came in response to the permission granted to a housing society in Borivali West to install a cantilever or stack parking system that obstructed crucial access to the building.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata expressed disapproval of the fire department’s argument that the 13-storeyed Reserve Bank of India Employees’ Ashish Cooperative Housing Society Ltd had adequate access for fire tenders from the main road. The court asserted that the safety of residents in buildings with fewer than 13 floors should be treated with the same importance as those in high-rises.
The judges raised concerns about the fire department’s stance that accepting a fire safety premium justified overlooking safety norms. They stated, “The suggestion that every violation can be condoned by taking money is utterly reprehensible.”
The case stemmed from a petition by Dr. Rahul Jain, an ophthalmologist operating an eye hospital on the ground floor of the building. He contested BMC and fire department approvals for seven mechanised cantilever car parkings, alleging a violation of fire safety and building regulations.
Dr. Jain’s counsel, Abhinav Chandrachud and advocate Mhatre, presented photographs indicating that the approved parking obstructed access. They highlighted that permissions were granted after the developer paid a premium. The BMC argued that concessions were in compliance with the Development Control Plan 2034.
The court scrutinised the affidavits filed by the BMC and Deputy Chief Fire Officer, pointing out that the provided stack parking obstructed the entrance driveway and foot access significantly. Despite notices served in December, the housing society failed to be represented in court.
The High Court, while maintaining the matter for a hearing on January 18, emphasised that the society would be given another opportunity to present its case. The judges underscored the impact of removing the cantilevered parking on the society.
This development reflects a growing concern about prioritising safety over financial considerations in construction approvals and highlights the need for strict adherence to safety norms in urban development projects.