JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. 1. This case presents issues that require great circumspection since it calls into attention the singular importance of interior stairs in high rise buildings especially in the event of evacuation in a fire incident. The operational significance of an interior staircase during fire fighting operations transcends mere code compliance and even their design. When fire erupts in a high rise building, the interior stairs become the primary means of egress of occupants and fire fighters alike. 2. Experience has shown that fire always takes the path of least resistance when spreading to uninvolved areas of the building and the internal stairs also sometimes become its unwitting travel partner. The prescriptions, therefore, relating to the staircases are vital and deserve full compliance. 3. In terms of fire safety, the exits on an escape route is considered as fire exits. These exits should, wherever practicable, be in the direction of escape, i.e., outwards to a place of safety outside the building. The time that it takes for the occupant population to reach safety when descending a stair during building evacuation is of climacteric importance and all prescriptive codes and regulations relating to fire safety treat these considerations to be the most portentous. 4. In these cases, I am called upon to consider the contentions relating to the specifications of the interior stairs and I am fully cognizant that any dilution in such specifications can be perilous from the angle of fire safety requirements. As I will presently state, my endeavour in this judgment is only to reconcile the various requirements, as are prescribed by the various provisions in the applicable Building Rules, and not to cause enervation in its terms in any manner. 5. I have heard Sri Babu S. Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. Since these Writ Petitions being dealt substantially with the same issues, I dispose of them jointly in this judgment. 6. The petitioners in these cases have constructed high rise buildings and are facing proceedings from the Fire and Rescue Department, as per which they have been refused approval for such construction from the angle of fire safety, under the various provisions of the applicable Statutes. 7. The relevant provisions, as are applicable, are all in the realm and domain of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 ('the Rules' for brevity). 7. The relevant provisions, as are applicable, are all in the realm and domain of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 ('the Rules' for brevity). Under Chapter XVII of the said Rules, a high rise building is defined as one having height of sixteen metres and above. It is admitted that all the buildings involved in these cases are high rise. 8. Under the provisions of R.111 of the Rules, every high rise building shall have two staircases as also a fire escape stairway. The provisions of the fire escape stairway is contained in R.114 of the Rules. The components of a building, including staircases are described and defined in Chapter VI of the Rules, whereof R.39 relates specifically to staircases. 9. Since I see that the entire controversy in these cases are hyptostised on the provisions relating to staircases, I think R.39 would require a full reading and I, therefore, extract it as under: "Staircases. - (1) Any building having more than four floors including basement or sunken floors, shall have at least two staircases, one of which may be an external stairway: Provided that when the second staircase provided as external stairway conforms to the provisions of fire escape staircase, a separate fire escape stair need not be provided. Note:- An external stair is one which is connected to public areas and/or common areas on all floors and leads directly to ground, has at least two sides abutting external wall, these two sides being provided as open or with break open glass and has landing areas accessible from the external side or an external stair which is wholly open and removed from the main building, [such an external stair shall be removed] and away from the main stairway. (2) The minimum width of stair shall be not less than 1.20 metres. (3) The minimum width of tread shall be 30 cms. (4) The height of riser shall not exceed 15 cms. (5) The height of handrail shall be not less than 90 cms. (6) The width of passages giving access to the staircase in any building shall not at any point, be less than the width of the stair." 10. As is pellucid from above provision, it is mandated that every building having more than four floors, including basement or sunken floor, shall have at least two staircases. (6) The width of passages giving access to the staircase in any building shall not at any point, be less than the width of the stair." 10. As is pellucid from above provision, it is mandated that every building having more than four floors, including basement or sunken floor, shall have at least two staircases. However, if one of the staircases is an external stairway, then that external stairway can double up as the fire escape stairway, as is required under R.114 of the Rules. The note to R.39 provides that an external stair will have to be abutting an external wall on two sides and confined by a breakable open glass partition or be left open so as to be accessible from the external side. All these provisions are obviously intended to provide for safe evacuation in the event of a fire incident. 11. In the case at hand, it is admitted on all sides that all the constructions in question have two staircases, one of which is an external staircase abutting the external wall at least on one side. There are two objections raised in all these cases by the Fire and Rescue Department. The first is that the external staircase does not. have a width of 1.2 metres as is warranted under R.39(2) of the Rules. The second objection raised is that the external staircase does not abut the external wall on two sides. 12. It is conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the external staircase in the building concerned are only abutting on one side to the external wall and that it is covered by an open glass partition. He says that the width of the stair in all these cases is 1.2 metres but there is a hand rail provided therein which consumes a little bit of space, thereby reducing the internal width of the staircase, after providing for the hand rail, to slightly less than 1.2 metres. The competent authorities of the Fire and Rescue Department have, however, objected to this marginal reduction in width of the staircase maintaining that the minimum width of the stair under R.39(2) will have to be 120 cms within the area confined between the hand rail and the wall. The competent authorities of the Fire and Rescue Department have, however, objected to this marginal reduction in width of the staircase maintaining that the minimum width of the stair under R.39(2) will have to be 120 cms within the area confined between the hand rail and the wall. They have, as recorded above, raised a further objection that a staircase which is not abutting an external wall on two sides cannot be treated as an external stairway. 13. I see that one of these issues have already been considered by this Court in the judgment of another Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 25722/2016. In the said judgment, the question considered was whether an external stairway will have to abut external walls on two sides. As regards this issue, the learned Single Judge found that such a requirement is contrary to the National Building Code and therefore, effectively superfluous. The pertinent opinion of the learned Single Judge in the said judgment is as under: "Besides, in National Building Code, it is stipulated that every building shall have minimum two staircases and out of these two staircases, only one staircase need to have its one side abutting with external wall, and it is to be noted that no mention regarding opening is made as such." Since the National Building Code only provide the external stairway to abut an external wall only on one side, the learned Single Judge concluded that it was unnecessary to treat the note to R.39(1) as an inflexible rule and that if in all other respects the stairway confirms to the norms in the said Rule, the same can be accepted as a proper external staircase in lieu of a fire escape stairway. I am in respectful confirmation and approval of the observations and holding of the learned Single Judge in the said case and I see no reason to deviate therefrom. I am, therefore, of the view that as far as the objections raised by the Fire and Rescue Department regarding the external staircase of the petitioners' buildings are concerned, the same have already been answered in the said judgment and that, therefore, such objection cannot be now tenable or sustainable. 14. I am, therefore, of the view that as far as the objections raised by the Fire and Rescue Department regarding the external staircase of the petitioners' buildings are concerned, the same have already been answered in the said judgment and that, therefore, such objection cannot be now tenable or sustainable. 14. As regards the question as to the width of the staircase is concerned, the authorities allege that even though the width of the stair provided by the petitioners is 120 cms, after installation of an handrail, the effective internal space of the stair would stand reduced by a few centimetres. This is an extremely pedantic and formalists way of looking at the provisions because they do not provide that the stair should have a handrail of a particular configuration. It only prescribes that the minimum width of the stair shall not be less that 1.2 metres. It is only from the angle of safety that handrails or banisters are provided and if the width of the staircase is reduced peripherally on account of such security measures, it cannot be said that the stair would then cease to be an external stairway for the purpose of R.39(1) of the Rules. I say this more in the context of the proviso to R.39(1) which says that when the second staircase, provided as an external stairway, conform to the provisions of the fire escape stairway, a separate fire escape route need not be provided. The provisions relating to fire escape stairway is obtained in R.542 of the Rules which mandates that the width of a fire escape shall not be less than 75 cms, in addition to various other specifications. In such view of the matter, if the external staircase available in the petitioners' buildings confirms otherwise to the provisions of the fire escape staircase, I do not think that the rigor of R.114 of the Rules, which requires a separate fire escape, will apply. Since it is virtually admitted that the width of the stair is 120 cms and that the reduction in its internal space is only on account of the provision of a handrail or a banister, I do not think that would be sufficient reason enough for the Fire Rescue authorities to now deny approval to the petitioners' buildings. 15. Since it is virtually admitted that the width of the stair is 120 cms and that the reduction in its internal space is only on account of the provision of a handrail or a banister, I do not think that would be sufficient reason enough for the Fire Rescue authorities to now deny approval to the petitioners' buildings. 15. I affirm the above also from the angle of the consideration that the petitioners' buildings were given a preliminary NOC by the Fire and Rescue Department after verifying the site plans, the building and structural plans as well as section drawings which would have clearly indicated that the buildings had only two staircases with the width of stair being shown as 120 cms. There is no allegation against the petitioners that they have violated the building rules or that they have constructed the buildings in violation of the approved plans. The only structural allegation now impelled by the Department is that the external stair way does not abut an external wall on two sides. This was available to their information even at the time when the plans were submitted to them for a preliminary NOC and therefore, to now say that the second staircase cannot be treated as an external stairway merely because it does not abut the external wall on two sides is taking it too far. I cannot countenance that argument and therefore, I find that the objection raised against the petitioners on that account to be completely untenable and unsustainable. Quad hoc the question of minimum width of the stair, I have already indicated above that the width of the stair admittedly is about 120 cms. in all cases. The reduction is only on account of a handrail which cannot be, therefore, be used as a reason to deny approval to the buildings especially after the entire construction is completed. In such view of the matter and in a summation of all that I have said above, I order these Writ Petitions directing the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioners for issuance of a final NOC to their buildings constructed in their respective properties and issue such certificate de hors the objections raised relating to the width of the staircase and the external stairway not abutting external walls on two sides. I make it clear that, notwithstanding anything I have said herein, the respondents would be at liberty to cause every necessary fire audit, if they are so desirous, with respect to the buildings in question and see that the buildings are otherwise safe from the angle of fire fighting measures and other fire safety operations. They would be free to take these considerations also into account while issuing the final NOC.