Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 416 (TS)

C. Jagapathy Rao v. State of Telangana

2023-06-06

G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed seeking to quash all further proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 and 15 in STC.No.7 of 2015 on the file of XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Miyapur, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 13 and 19 of the A.P. Fire Services Act, 1999 and Rules 15 and 27 of A.P. Fire and Emergency Operations and Levy of Fee Rules, 2006. 2. The Assistant District Fire Officer, West Zone, Madhapur, Hyderabad has filed a complaint against the owner/occupier of M/s.SHL Ventures, Block Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 at Sy.Nos.26/A, 27 to 31 and 32P at Kothagudem and 32 to 35 at Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District, alleging that they have failed to take fire safety and fire preventive measures. 3. The Inspecting Committee authorized under Sec. 20 of A.P. Fire Services Act, 1999, inspected the premises on 31/3/2015 after issuing notice in Form No.9 of A.P. Fire and Emergency Operation and Levy of Fee Rules, 2006, dtd. 31/3/2015 to the owner/occupier of multi storied building of M/s.SHL Ventures. It is further contended that the District Fire Officer, West Zone, Ranga Reddy District has issued notice dtd. 9/4/2015, in Form No.12 as per Rule 26 of A.P. Fire and Emergency Operation and Levy of Fee Rules, 2006 to provide fire safety systems and fire preventive measures ensuring the safety of residents, within 30 days from the date of receipt of said notice. 4. It is alleged that the owner/occupier has constructed the multi storied building M/s. SHL Ventures, Block Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 at Sy.Nos.26/A, 27 to 31 and 32P at Kothagudem and 32 to 35 at Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District, in Basement-I plus Basement-II plus ground floor plus 7 upper floors with a height of 23.80 meters for residential occupancy and occupied the building without providing the fire preventive and fire safety systems and not obtained the 'No objection certificate' for occupancy from the Telangana State Disaster Response and Fire Service Department under the provisions of Sec. 13 of the A.P. Fire Services Act, 1999 and National Building Code of India, 2005. The owner/ occupier had failed to provide the minimum requirements of fire fighting installations as required under Sec. 23 of the National Building Code of India, 2005. 5. The owner/ occupier had failed to provide the minimum requirements of fire fighting installations as required under Sec. 23 of the National Building Code of India, 2005. 5. Heard Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents. 6. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners that even if the allegations made in the STC are taken to be true on their face value, they does not satisfy the ingredients of offences under Ss. 13 and 19 of the A.P. Fire Service Act, 1999 and Rules 15 and 27 of the A.P. Fire and Emergency Operations and Levy of Fee Rules, 2006. Not even a single averment or allegation or charge is made against the petitioners with respect to committing of alleged offences, therefore, registering the offences and continuation of same is abuse of process of criminal justice. It is further contended that the deficiencies pointed out in the STC, which form basis for impugned criminal action against the petitioners, were not present at the time of issuance of final NOC and NOC had been given showing minor deficiencies, and therefore, there cannot be any violation of the NOC conditions. It is further contended that Sec. 19 of the A.P. Fire Service Act talks about owner/occupier and that the petitioners, in their replies dtd. 16/5/2015 and 18/6/2015, have specifically stated that the deficiencies with respect to the working of the fire safety and preventive systems have been attended and have been restored to order, and therefore, no offence can be made out under Sec. 19 of the Act. Further, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners that the respondents, without undertaking any further inspection pursuant to the show cause notice, have directly initiated steps and filed the present STC and it is settled law that once reply is given to the show cause notice, the same needs to be examined and only when it still discloses an offence, further action of prosecution can be initiated. But in the present case, after reply, no further inspection was made whether the deficiencies pointed out have been made good and directly STC is filed, and therefore, the same suffers from non-application of mind. But in the present case, after reply, no further inspection was made whether the deficiencies pointed out have been made good and directly STC is filed, and therefore, the same suffers from non-application of mind. In order to prove his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel has also filed photographs of the apartment to show that they complied with the fire safety measures. 7. On the other hand, Sri S. Ganesh, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has contended that it is a fit case to be prosecuted, as the petitioners have violated the fire safety norms, and therefore, they are liable for prosecution for the offences punishable under the Fire Safety Act. 8. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the Director General, State Disaster Response and Fire Services, Hyderabad, has addressed a letter to the Commissioner, GHMC, intimating that the Multi-storied Inspection Committee has inspected the multi-storied building M/s.SHL Ventures on 2/5/2013 and submitted the report recommending issuance of Fire No objection Certificate while stating that all the conditions have been complied with but there were very minor deficiencies with respect to open spaces to be provided by the builder. Accordingly, No objection certificate was issued on 24/5/2013. Further, on 31/3/2015, the District Fire Services Officer, Ranga Reddy has inspected the premises and issued Notice to M/s.SHL Ventures in order to enter into the building premises for inspection. On the same day, the Director General, State Disaster Response and Fire Services, Telangana had given the inspection report showing the open spaces, measurements and minor deviations. Further, Notice in Form-12 was issued to the petitioners herein, which clearly disclose that the requirements mentioned in the table were provided, but they were not in working condition. The Fire equipments i.e. the Hose Reel system, Down comer, manually operated electric fire alarm in entire building, automatic sprinklers in cellar, terrace pump 900 LPM are required by the building and they are provided, but are not in working condition. The Fire equipments i.e. the Hose Reel system, Down comer, manually operated electric fire alarm in entire building, automatic sprinklers in cellar, terrace pump 900 LPM are required by the building and they are provided, but are not in working condition. Further, the GHMC has given the occupation certificate which clearly discloses that the owners/builder/developer/Licenced Architect/Engineer/ Structural Engineer have given the building completion notice that the building has been completed as per the specifications of sanctioned plans and it is declared that the building conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Building Regulations contained under the Statutory provisions in the respective Municipal Act and the Rules issued by the Government and certified that the building has been inspected and declared fit for occupation with effect from 24/10/2013. The record also reveals that on 18/5/2015, the District Fire Officer has issued show cause notice under Rule 29(5)(b) of the Rules in Form-14 to the petitioners, to provide fire safety systems and fire preventive measures within 60 days from the date of receipt of said notice. On 18/6/2015, the petitioners have replied to the said show cause notice stating that the deficits with respect to the working of the fire safety and preventive systems have been attended to and have been restored to order. With regard to movement of the fire vehicles etc., they submitted that they require time for necessary alterations and also requested for guidance for the same. Further, petitioners submitted that the complainant had already approached the High Court by filing W.P.No.30489 of 2014 with regard to the structures referred to in Cellars 1 and 2, and thus, the same is now sub-judice. 9. Admittedly, after receiving the reply dtd. 16/5/2015, the fire safety department, without re-inspecting the premises, has filed STC before the Court. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that they have complied with all the objections and that the fire systems were in working condition. Even at the time of inspection, the respondents have found that the systems were installed, but they were not in working condition. Even the photographs reveal that arrangements have been made for free movement of fire vehicles and the vehicles can now move without any obstruction. Even at the time of inspection, the respondents have found that the systems were installed, but they were not in working condition. Even the photographs reveal that arrangements have been made for free movement of fire vehicles and the vehicles can now move without any obstruction. Therefore, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings, as the petitioners have complied with the objections which were being noted by the fire safety department and no prosecution need to continue against the petitioners. 10. In the result, this petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 and 15 in STC.No.7 of 2015 on the file of XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Miyapur. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.