- (1.) Each of these appeals is against a common judgement and order made by Mr. Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya on 5th September, 2013 in three writ applications, WP No. 781 of 2012, WP No. 842 of 2012, Tapan Bhattacharya & Ors. versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. and WP No. 865 of 2012, Carmel Jyoti Nilaya Versus State of West Bengal and Ors. It was held by the Court that the first two writ applications had become infructuous by subsequent events. They were disposed of accordingly. The detailed judgment applied to the third writ only, WP No. 865 of 2012, in the matter of Tapan Bhattacharya & Ors. Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
(2.) We reproduce the material part of the findings of the Hon'ble First Court. They are as follows: "It is however an admitted fact that neither any revised plan has been submitted by the School Authority nor such revised plan has been approved by the Municipal authority nor the structural stability of the emergency passage which was created by the School Authority by demolishing a part of the existing construction at the Ground Floor level has been certified as stable and safe by any qualified empanelled structural engineer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation till date. As such this Court has no hesitation to hold that the existing building cannot be allowed to be used by the School Authority for any purpose until the observations made by the Director General (Building) in its concluding part of his order dated 4th May, 2011 are strictly complied with. This conclusion is arrived at by this Court as all throughout the Fire Service Authority was very much candid in enforcing its recommendations for ensuring safety and security of the inmates of the upcoming new building. When the Fire Service Authority, after holding an inspection at the building site, issued stop work notice, it ought not be have recorded its satisfaction about the sufficiency of the safety measures taken therein with reference to unrevised building sanctioned plan nor it should have withdrawn the said stop work order by its impugned notice, without holding a further inspection at the building site. Similarly, this Court holds that the Municipal Authority ought not to have withdrawn the stop work order by its impugned notice mechanically, without holding any spot inspection upon notice to the parties. Be that as it may, now the construction is almost complete. The school authority claims that an emergency exit has already been created by demolishing a part of the existing construction at the Ground Floor level in the light of the observation made by the Director General (Building). The School Authority also claims that it has already taken all precautionary measures as per the recommendation of the Fire Service Authority for ensuring safety and security of the inmates of the upcoming building. Neither the Municipal Authority nor the Fire Service Authority has yet certified that the emergency exit passage which is so created in the said premises, is safe and sufficient to tackle the emergent situation or not. This Court, thus feels that the upcoming building cannot be allowed to be used until those authorities concerned, give green signal for its use. Thus this court directs the School Authority to submit a revised plan before the Municipal Authority in the light of the observation made by the Director General (Building) in his aforesaid order with this rider that the new construction of the school building will be allowed to be used only if the Municipal Authority as well as the Fire Service authority, after holding a joint inspection at the Building site certify that the emergency exit passage created by the school authority is safe and sufficient for fighting fire and/or for evacuating the inmates from the new construction through the said passage, in case any emergency arises due to fire or otherwise. It is thus, clarified that in case it is held that the emergency exit passage which is so created in the said premises is not safe and/or insufficient to meet the emergent situation and/or the School Authority is unable to create such a passage, to the satisfaction of those authorities, then the Municipal authority will not permit the said construction to be used for any purpose whatsoever and in such circumstances, the demolition of the new construction is inevitable."
(3.) Thus, the school authority was asked to submit a revised plan to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation according to the observations of the Director General (Building). The new construction would be allowed to be used only if the corporation and the fire services authority certified upon inspection that the emergency exit passage created by the school was safe and sufficient for fighting fire and in evicting the inmates from the premises in case of an emergency.;