Judgment:
THE COURT: As directed by this Court inspection report has been filed by the Director General, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services and so also by the Director General, Building (II) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in respect of the subject premises.
In the inspection report filed on behalf of the Director General, Building (II) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation it has been specifically 2stated that the concerned Executive Engineer has been directed to initiate proceedings under section 400(I) read with Section 416 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and action in the matter is in process in accordance with law.
We are quite sure that the authorities will do the needful and will not compound any unauthorized construction, that is, by way of addition or alterations or erection of a structure which is not permissible under the Act and Building rules and regulations as the matter is subjudice. In so far as the inspection report submitted by the Director General, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services is concerned, we find that though certain major deficiencies have been noticed and the recommendations made by the authorities have not been complied with, still no action is initiated against the occupiers/persons responsible for compliance.
Our attention has been drawn to section 38C of the West Bengal Fire Services Act which clearly provides for filing a complaint by the authority against the persons who do not comply with the requirements of law in so far as it relates to prevention of fire is concerned. We therefore, direct the Director General, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services to take appropriate action against the persons who are found having committed breach of the provisions of the Act and for non-compliance of fire safety measures which are recommended by its office earlier and which have not been implemented as yet for securing the building from fire and life safety point of view.
We expect that the respondents particularly the Director General, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services to file his compliance report on or before the next date of hearing. Let the matter appear before this Court on 12th November, 2010. Let copies of the reports be circulated amongst the learned counsel for the parties. Parties may file exception to the reports on or before the next date of hearing. It has been brought to our notice by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.9 & 10 that in the order dated 27th August, 2010 it has been wrongly recorded that the Affidavit-in-opposition which was filed by the respondent nos.9 and 10 has been mentioned as by the respondent no.4 and the same may be corrected.
Therefore, let the order dated 27th August, 2010 be corrected and read accordingly. All parties concerned are to act on a Photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.