JUDGMENT : K.K. SASIDHARAN, J. Introductory 1. It is said that the fire in Sri Meenakshi Temple on Friday, the 2 February 2018 was a disaster waiting to happen for a long time. The unfortunate incident at the heritage building should be taken as a wake up call for undertaking a mass drive against illegal buildings, especially the multi-storeyed buildings constructed in violation of the Building Regulations as it is a constant threat to the safety and security of the people of Madurai. In case, the Fire Officers, Local Planning Authority, District Administration, Municipal Corporation and Police are insensitive to the issue regarding mushroom growth of illegal buildings and the safety aspects and inspite of a slew of fire accidents, safety audits are not conducted regularly, there is every possibility of another Uphaar Tragedy at the Temple City of Madurai. 2. The magnitude of the violation of building regulations and non adherence to the safety protocol at Vishaal De Mal, Madurai is evident from the following inspection report submitted by the District Collector and the Local Planning Authority, Madurai on 7 August 2017, pursuant to the direction given by this Court in this writ petition challenging the liquor licence issued to the multi storeyed shopping mall, situated adjacent to a petrol outlet at Gokhale Road, which is the nerve centre of Madurai. “As per DCR (Development Control Regulations): The building comes under the Multi-Storied Building (MSB) - Category III. Rule No. Description Required Available Excess/Less Remarks 5(2) A Minimum Plot extent 2500 Sq. M. 3608.36 Sq. M. Excess 1108.36 Sq. M. Satisfied 5(2) B Minimum Plot Width/frontage 40 Meter 42.06 Meter Excess 2.06 Meter Satisfied 5(2) C Minimum Road Width 18 Meter 18 Meter Satisfied 5(2) D Maximum FSI 2.25 4.28 Excess 2.03 90.22% Deviation 5(2) E Maximum Plot coverage Above 30% upto 40% 76.91% Excess 36.91% 92.28% Deviation 5(2) F Maximum height above ground level 60 Meter 27.6 Meter -- Satisfied 5(2) G Minimum setback all around North 7 Meter 1.5 Meter (excluding projection) 5.5 Meter (-) Less 78.57% Deviation South 7 Meter 2.2 Meter (excluding projection) 4.8 Meter (-) Less 68.57% Deviation East (front open) 7 Meter 5.7 Meter (excluding projection) 1.3 Meter (-) Less 18.57% Deviation (Fire escape open steel stair case provided in front of 5.7 Meter length) West 7 Meter Nil 7 Meter (-) Less 100 % Deviation Required Parking Details: Shopping Centre 200 Nos. Restaurant 31 Nos. Theatre 67 Nos. Rooms 2 Nos. Total No. of required Car Parking 300 Nos. Provided Car Parking: Basement I 40 Nos. Basement II 55 Nos. Total No. of Car Parking (Provided) 95 Nos. The Dimension of Parking slot shall be 5.0 metre x 2.5 metre with a minimum width of driveway of 3.5 metre for one way movement and 7.2 metre width for two way movement. In this building as per the DCR norms, 300 cars should be accommodated with driveway facilities in Basement Floor I & Basement Floor II. But, the space is not sufficient for parking and it violates the DCR Rule 3(3) 11.” 3. The District Collector, Madurai rejected the application for issuing licence for opening multiple theatres at the shopping mall. The mall got the licence to open five theatres on the top floor of the building and exhibit films pursuant to the direction given by this Court by agreeing with the submission of the builder that it was constructed in accordance with the planning permission given by the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, notwithstanding the legal position that the Commissioner has no authority to approve the building plan for a multi-storeyed building. The builder is now banking upon the earlier orders of the High Court to prevent the enforcement action by the authorities and is operating a shopping mall with shops, theatres, make shift star hotel, bar and food court with car parking space for 95 cars, notwithstanding the rules mandating parking area for 300 cars, excluding the hotel portion. Since the challenge in the present writ petition is only to the grant of liquor licence, and in view of the earlier orders, we are not in a position to examine the large scale violation and the threat to the safety of the people visiting the mall and the theatres and the public in general. With this introductory note, we propose to consider the issue raised in this writ petition in public interest. Brief Facts 4. The challenge in this writ petition is to the proceedings relating to the F.L.3 licence issued to the Vishaal De Mal, the fifth respondent herein. The writ petition filed as a pro bono publico contain the details of the violations committed by the authorities while granting the Bar licence and the ineligibility of the fifth respondent to obtain such licence. 5. The writ petition filed as a pro bono publico contain the details of the violations committed by the authorities while granting the Bar licence and the ineligibility of the fifth respondent to obtain such licence. 5. According to the petitioner, there is no hotel as such at the mall and the fifth respondent manipulated records to make it appear as if there is a hotel functioning with star category. The mall has no sufficient parking place. The vehicles are parked on road, resulting in traffic bottleneck in and around the Gokhale Road. The hotel was not approved by the Tourism Department. The so called hotel would not come under the definition of “Star Hotel” qualifying for the grant of F.L.3 licence. 6. The petitioner placed reliance on the complaints given by the nearby Women's college and the people of that area regarding the opening of a “Ladies Pub” by the mall to encourage drinking by ladies. The mall is giving free liquor to the women and girl students once in a week. The petitioner has pointed out string of other statutory violations. 7. The fifth respondent filed a counter affidavit, contending that the building was constructed in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation. The hotel was inspected by the authorities before granting F.L.3 licence. Since the Development Control Rules are not applicable to the Mall, existing parking area is sufficient. 8. Since the petitioner alleged that F.L.3 licence was issued to the 5th respondent in violation of the statutory provisions and without providing necessary parking space and taking into account the other serious violations alleged, we have directed the District Collector, Madurai, to inspect the building in question and submit a report. 9. The District Collector along with the District Fire Officer, the Secretary, Local Planning Authority and the Inspector of Survey, inspected the building and submitted a report. The report contained the details regarding the series of violations committed by the 5th respondent. The building must have the parking facility to accommodate 300 cars. However, the total number of car parking slots are only 95. 10. The District Collector in his report submitted that the hotel is situated on the 3rd floor of the building. There are 16 rooms available in the hotel. The building must have the parking facility to accommodate 300 cars. However, the total number of car parking slots are only 95. 10. The District Collector in his report submitted that the hotel is situated on the 3rd floor of the building. There are 16 rooms available in the hotel. Six rooms are situated at the 3rd floor, five rooms at the 4th floor, four rooms at the 5th floor and one room is found at the 7th floor. On a perusal of the documents, the District Collector reported that from 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017, only 43 persons occupied the rooms. The sale of liquor was for a sum of Rs. 35,84,582/- which was not proportionate to the occupancy. The area of the bar is 65 sq. mtr. which is situated on the 3rd floor. 11. The petitioner produced documents relating to the licence granted to the 5th respondent obtained by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act. It is found that the Hotel obtained liquor licence valid upto 31.07.2017. There was no licence given by the Director of Tourism, which is a condition precedent for issuance of F.L.3 licence. 12. The licence issued by the Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Chepauk, dated 4 February, 2015 does not contain any indication that the 5th respondent obtained a licence from the Director of Tourism. 13. We have perused the file produced by the District Collector relating to the licence in question. The file does not contain any indication that before granting F.L.3 licence, either the District Collector or the Commissioner of Excise conducted physical inspection of the building. The Tahsildar granted the certificate under the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965 without examining the safety of the building and its lack of facilities for accommodating people. 14. The 5th respondent submitted an application for F.L.3 licence under the Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules, 1981. The F.L.3 licence would be given for possession of liquor by Star Hotels for supply to foreign tourists, foreigners - resident in India holding personal permits and also to the citizens of India holding personal permits for consumption within the licensed room of the Hotel or for supply in their private rooms in the same Hotel in which they stay for consumption. Therefore, it is clear that for possession of F.L.3 licence, the applicant must be a star hotel. 15. Therefore, it is clear that for possession of F.L.3 licence, the applicant must be a star hotel. 15. Star Hotel is defined under Section 2(xvi) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981, which reads thus: "Star Hotel" includes a beach resort hotel which satisfies the following criteria, and is certified as such by the Director of Tourism of the State Government:- (a) that it has twenty lettable bed rooms or forty beds with attached bath rooms; (b) that it has separate dining room and restaurant; (c) that it has good quality cuising both Indian and Continental; (d) that it has clean kitchen and washing facilities; (e) that it has well trained staff with uniform; (f) that it has special facilities like conference hall, recreation facilities (indoor games) and the like; (g) that it has adequate parking space." 16. The Star Hotel must have 20 lettable bed rooms or 40 beds with attached bath rooms. Similarly, it must have special facilities like Conference Hall, recreational facilities (indoor games) and the like. The hotel must have good quality cuisine, both Indian and Continental. It must have a separate dining room and restaurant. The building must have adequate parking space. 17. The inspection report submitted by the District Collector indicates that the 5th respondent failed to fulfil any of these essential conditions for issuance of licence in F.L.3. The file regarding the grant of licence produced before us also does not contain any material suggesting that the 5th respondent satisfied the essential conditions. 18. The parking is a perennial problem at Gokhale Road, in view of the location of the mall owned by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent admittedly has got a parking place for accommodating 95 cars only. The building must have a minimum of parking place for accommodating 300 cars. This would not include the Hotel building, which must have additional parking area. The 5th respondent is not providing necessary car parking place on the ground that the development control rules would not apply to the mall. The question is not as to whether building rules would apply to the mall or not. The building must have sufficient parking place to accommodate the people visiting the mall. Even according to the 5th respondent, several shops are located inside the mall. There is a food court and 5 cinema theatres. The question is not as to whether building rules would apply to the mall or not. The building must have sufficient parking place to accommodate the people visiting the mall. Even according to the 5th respondent, several shops are located inside the mall. There is a food court and 5 cinema theatres. Even the common assembling point was converted as a shopping area. There was no hotel originally. It was only after obtaining permission to open the mall and thereafter to open the cinema theatre through Court, the 5th respondent obtained a liquor licence under the pretext that they are conducting a star hotel. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation, 2013 (5) SCC 336 , observed that illegal and unauthorized construction of buildings and other structures not only violate the Municipal Laws and the concept of planned development of the particular area but also affect various fundamental and constitutional rights of other persons. 20. The report submitted by the District Collector clearly indicates that in each floor there are few rooms converted to make it appear as if it is a Hotel to qualify for the grant of a liquor licence. The Star hotel must be certified by the Director of Tourism of the State Government. The 5th respondent has not produced any certificate given by the Director of Tourism to prove that the Tourism Department has given the status of a star hotel to M/s. Vishaal De Mal. Therefore, it is very clear that the concerned authorities have flouted the rules and on extraneous consideration granted F.L.3 licence to the 5th respondent. 21. We have reasons to believe that the concerned officers have danced to the tune of the 5th respondent and without any regard to the public interest and safety of the people, various licences were given to the Mall, the last one being the liquor licence in F.L.3. There are reputed educational institutions in and around the mall. The Principal, Lady Doak College, Madurai, in her complaint to the District Collector and the Excise authorities demonstrated the difficulties experienced by the students. The vehicular traffic is a perennial problem on account of this mall. The Police finds it extremely difficult to manage the traffic especially during peak hours on account of the large number of vehicles entering the mall and coming out of the mall. The vehicular traffic is a perennial problem on account of this mall. The Police finds it extremely difficult to manage the traffic especially during peak hours on account of the large number of vehicles entering the mall and coming out of the mall. The vehicles are parked on the road on account of non- availability of parking space inside the Mall. Even then the 5th respondent is taking shelter under the permission given by the Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai for building the mall without obtaining permission under the Development Control Rules. We are not examining the issue regarding the multiple violations, the structural stability of the building and the safety aspects in this writ petition, as the scope is very limited here. We are now concerned only with the legality and correctness of the F.L.3 licence issued to the 5th respondent. On the basis of the materials available on records, we are convinced that the F.L.3 licence issued to the 5th respondent was in total violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules 1981. 22. In view of the reasons aforesaid, we quash the F.L.3 licence issued to the 5th respondent. We make it clear that in case a fresh application is made by the 5th respondent for F.L.3 licence, the District Collector and the authorities under the Excise Act, Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act and all the other concerned authorities must inspect the building, conduct a safety audit and must satisfy for reasons recorded in writing that the hotel is a star hotel and it has got all the facilities as provided under the Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules 1981, and other relevant Acts and Regulations including provision for sufficient car parking. We make it clear that the building must have sufficient car parking taking into account the area constructed, the number of people visiting the mall, the number of shops, food court and cinema theater's functioning at the mall. This is all the more necessary on account of the fact that the so called hotel is located on three different floors of the mall, which was primarily constructed only as a shopping mall. 23. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.