JUDGMENT : SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J. 1. The private respondent, whose ownership in respect of the premises at building no. 12/1, Keyatala Lane, Kolkata – 700 029, has been challenged by the petitioners, who claim to be owners of the premises. The bone of contention is a lift installed by the private respondent no. 2 in the suit building. According to the petitioners, the installation and operation of the same is unlawful, being contrary to the existing law. 2. The petitioners have specifically challenged a communication by respondent no. 1, the Joint Chief Electrical Inspector and Member Secretary (Lifts), Directorate of Electricity, Government of West Bengal. Vide such communication no. SS/397 dated February 22, 2022, the respondent no. 1 intimated the respondent no. 2, with reference to a letter dated February 17, 2022 by respondent no. 2 regarding permission of install and operate such lift, that, as per the West Bengal Lift and Escalator Act and Rules, a single phase home lift does not require any licence from the Directorate of Electricity, Government of West Bengal. It was further indicated that hence, the respondent no. 2 need not require erection permission and licence for operation of the lift from the end of respondent no. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the West Bengal Lifts, Escalators and Travelators Act, 2019 (for short, “the 2019 Act”). By placing particular reliance on the definition of “lift” as provided in Section 3(i), it is contended that a lift means a hoisting and lowering mechanism equipped with a lift car which is designed to move in guides in a substantially vertical direction and is worked by power and includes a machine room less lift. 4. Section 2 stipulates that nothing in the Act shall apply to installation and working of any lift, escalator or travelator in certain cases as stipulated therein, which includes mines, factories, premises of the Central Government or its undertakings and premises owned or controlled by the Public Works Department of the Government of West Bengal. However, 2(v) provides that such non-applicability extends to any premises or any class or sub-class of elevating device as the State Government may, by notification, exempt. 5. It is argued that Section 5 cannot go against the grain of the Act itself. 6. However, 2(v) provides that such non-applicability extends to any premises or any class or sub-class of elevating device as the State Government may, by notification, exempt. 5. It is argued that Section 5 cannot go against the grain of the Act itself. 6. Section 5(1) provides that no owner of any premises shall, on or after the commencement of the Act, install lift or escalator or travelator in such premises except under, and in accordance with, the permission granted under the Act. Sub-section (2) provides that such application of permission to install lift or escalator or travelator shall be made to the Chief Electrical Inspector. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 stipulates that on receipt of an application under sub-section (2), the chief Electrical Inspector shall, after making such inspection as he deems necessary, either grant or refuse to grant permission. In the present case, it is contended, such inspection was never held by respondent no. 1 at all. 7. Section 6(1) of the 2019 Act stipulates that no lift or escalator or travelator shall be worked except with a licence granted under this Act and in conformity with the terms and conditions of the licence and in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed in this behalf under the Act. 8. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 provides that on receipt of an application under sub-section (2), the Chief Electrical Inspector shall, after making such inspection as he deems necessary, either grant or refuse to grant licence. 9. In the present case, since the requirement of obtaining permission was waived by the Chief Electrical Inspector, the respondent no. 2 proceeded to install and operate the lift, contrary to the law. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the West Bengal Lifts Rules, 1958 (in brief “the 1958 Rules”). It is argued to have been prevalent at the relevant juncture when the impugned communication dated February 22, 2022 was made. 11. There is no provision in the said Rules equivalent to Rule 80 of the subsequent Rules of 2022, which has been relied on by the private respondent no. 2. 12. It is argued by the petitioner that, in the Act, there is no exception for „home lifts?, nor is there any definition of the said term within the four corners of the Act. 13. 2. 12. It is argued by the petitioner that, in the Act, there is no exception for „home lifts?, nor is there any definition of the said term within the four corners of the Act. 13. It is further argued that Rule 80 of the 2022 Rules, relied on by the respondent no. 2, excludes certain types of lifts from the operation of the Rules themselves and not the 2019 Act. 14. Learned counsel further argues by placing reliance on the Preamble of the 2019 Act that one of the primary objects and purposes of the statute is to ensure safety in respect of lifts and escalators, which has been flouted in the present case. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 places reliance on Rule 80 in Chapter VII of the West Bengal Lifts, Escalators and Travelators Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as, “the 2022 Rules”) which provides for lifts, escalators and travelators not covered under the Rule. It is argued that Home Lifts (Single Phase) is, inter alia, included within such exceptions as stipulated in Rule 80. 16. It is further contended that Home Lifts (Single Phase), as mentioned in Rule 80 of the 2022 Rules, are put in a separate class than lifts, escalators and travelators installations owned by the Central Government, or Central Government Undertakings and State Government and Public Works Department within the State of West Bengal, as being excluded from the purview of the Rules. Hence, it is argued that the respondent no. 1 was justified in communicating that no permission was necessary for installing and operating such a lift. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 also places reliance on a subsequent report filed upon enquiry by the respondent no. 1 which endorses the view that Rule 80 of the 2022 Rules carves out an exception to the applicability of the Act of 2019 insofar as Home Lifts (Single Phase) are concerned. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, by placing reliance on the averments made in paragraph no. 1 which endorses the view that Rule 80 of the 2022 Rules carves out an exception to the applicability of the Act of 2019 insofar as Home Lifts (Single Phase) are concerned. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, by placing reliance on the averments made in paragraph no. 4(i) and 4(j) of his affidavit-in-opposition, submits that one M/s. Sky Elevator and Technology, a firm engaged in the business of installing lifts which was contacted in the Month of February, 2021, upon inspecting the premises, provided a specification of Hydraulic lift to be installed within the space available between the staircase with a capacity of wheel chair with one person. The said lift did not require any work of construction, it is argued. Iron shaft and rod is to be affixed by use of nuts and bolts with slide excavation of a lift pith of less than 2 ft. The lift would not require any machine room and the entire lift is within the existing staircase which remains untouched. Admittedly, eighty-five per cent of the work had been completed by the end of November, 2021. 19. Hence, it is argued that the petitioners’ challenge to the communication of the respondent no. 1 in that regard is frivolous and ought to be dismissed. 20. A perusal of the materials-on-record indicates that the impugned communication, intimating that no permission would be required for a Home Lift (Single Phase), was made by the respondent no. 1 on February 22, 2022. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the said Rules were published in the Kolkata Gazette, Extraordinary dated November 11, 2022 and came into force only subsequent to such communication being made by the respondent no. 1. As such, the said Rules could not have been invoked at the relevant juncture, when the installation of the lift started. Admittedly, eighty-five per cent of the work was completed by November, 2021 and, by the time the 2022 Rules came into force, the lift had been substantially constructed. Hence, the 2022 Rules are not applicable to the present case. 21. Even if it was assumed that the said Rules are applicable, Rule 80 clearly exempts certain categories of lifts, escalators and travelators from the purview of the Rule of 2022 and not the Act, as rightly argued by the petitioner. 22. Hence, the 2022 Rules are not applicable to the present case. 21. Even if it was assumed that the said Rules are applicable, Rule 80 clearly exempts certain categories of lifts, escalators and travelators from the purview of the Rule of 2022 and not the Act, as rightly argued by the petitioner. 22. There is sufficient scope of doubt as to whether Home Lifts (Single Phase) can be culled out as a separate category altogether, to disjunct the same from the expression “owned by Central Government or Central Government Undertakings.” 23. Rule 80 is quoted herein-below: “80. Lifts, Escalators and Travelators not covered under this Rule.- Home Lifts (single phase), Lift, Escalator, Travelator installations owned by Central Government or Central Government undertakings, Lift installations owned by State Governments or erected or maintained by Public Works Department or installations of any other State Governments within the State of West Bengal are not covered by this Rule.” 24. A perusal of the same indicates that apparently, the expression “Home Lifts (Single Phase)” find place in the same category as lift, escalator, travelator installations, which are qualified by the expression “owned by Central Government or Central Government Undertakings” and lift installations owned by the State Government, etc. 25. Thus, on a plain reading of the said Rule, it transpires that Home Lifts (Single Phase) have also to come within the category of installations owned by the Central Government, the State Government or Public Works Department for being exempted from the Rules. In the present cause, it is nobody’s case that the building-in-question is a Government building or belongs to the PWD. Thus, under no stretch imagination can Rule 80 of the 2022 Rules be invoked in the present case. 26. Inasmuch as rules are concerned, the 1958 Rules were in vogue till the coming into force of the 2022 Rules and, thus, it is the 1958 Rules which were prevalent at the relevant point of time when the impugned communication was made by respondent no. 1 and the lift was substantially constructed. 27. There is no provision in the said Rules regarding home lifts, single phase or otherwise, either in the definition clause or as an exception within the four corners of the said Rules in general. 28. Hence, we are reverted back to the 2019 Act itself. 1 and the lift was substantially constructed. 27. There is no provision in the said Rules regarding home lifts, single phase or otherwise, either in the definition clause or as an exception within the four corners of the said Rules in general. 28. Hence, we are reverted back to the 2019 Act itself. The only rider which could perhaps be relied on by the respondents is Section 2(v) of the said Act, which stipulates that nothing in the Act shall apply to installation and working of any lift, etc. in any premises or any class or sub-class of elevating device as the State Government may, by notification, exempt. In the present case, no such notification has been produced by the respondents at all. The sole reliance placed by the Chief Electrical Inspector himself in the subsequent enquiry is on the 2022 Rules and no other notification has been brought forward. 29. Nowhere in the definition of “lift” or “lift installation” as provided in Section 3(i) and (k), is there any special provision for home lifts. 30. Section 5 clearly indicates that no owner of any premises, after the commencement of the Act, shall install a lift except under and in accordance with the permission granted under the Act. Section 6 precludes any such lift from being worked or operated except a licence granted under the Act and in conformity with the terms and conditions of the licence and in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed in the behalf under the Act (in the present case, the 1958 Rules). 31. The installation and the working of lifts in West Bengal are to be preceded by permission and licence respectively, both of which, again, are required to be preceded by inspection by the Chief Electrical Inspector. In the present case, there is nothing from the end of the Chief Electrical Inspector to show that any such inspection was made at any point of time. Although the expression “as he deems necessary” is used as a suffix to the term “inspection” in Sections 5(3) and 6(3), such discretion pertains to the nature of inspection. The expression used is “such inspection as the Chief Electrical Inspector deems necessary” and not “inspection, if he deems necessary.” In the present case, there is no whisper of any such inspection having been made at all. The expression used is “such inspection as the Chief Electrical Inspector deems necessary” and not “inspection, if he deems necessary.” In the present case, there is no whisper of any such inspection having been made at all. In any event, the impugned communication dated February 22, 2022 precludes the scope of such prior inspection, since the Chief Electrical Inspector was, at the outset, of the opinion that no permission is required for Home Lifts (Single Phase). 32. As regards the object and purpose of the 2019 Act, the Preamble thereof is a sufficient indicator that the same is to provide for the regulation of the installation, maintenance and safe working of lifts, escalators and travelators and all machinery and apparatus pertaining thereto in the State of West Bengal and for matters connected or incidental thereto. 33. The provisions of the Act amply demonstrated the safety measures required. Prior licence, permission, etc., for working and installation of lifts are all for ensuring public safety as envisaged in the Preamble, which has been patently flouted in the present case. Any other interpretation of the Act than that sought to be given by the petitioner would flout such safety, in particular the interpretation sought to be lent to the Act by the respondents. 34. In view of the expression “lift” and “lift installations” having clearly been defined in the 2019 Act and there being no definition of any special category or exception provided for the category of “home lift”, single phase or otherwise, in the 2019 Act itself, the sub-class sought to be created as exempted by the respondents is wholly de hors the law and patently unlawful. 35. In Arabinda Nath Jati vs. State of West Bengal and Others in WPA No. 4013 of 2023, cited by the petitioner, the Court was considering the submission of counsel that there is no specific qualification or exception regarding home lifts for the purpose of obtaining licence, apart from home lifts which are owned by the Central Government or Central Government undertakings, etc. However, no conclusive finding was returned on such submission by the Court. As such, the said judgment did not lay down any ratio on such score. 36. However, no conclusive finding was returned on such submission by the Court. As such, the said judgment did not lay down any ratio on such score. 36. As regards Avishek Goenka vs. Union of India and Another, (2012) 5 SCC 321 , learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in arguing that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to safety against crime. Although, in the present case, the safety contemplated in the 2019 Act is not exactly from crime, the same is for safety of the public at large nonetheless. Hence, the proposition laid down in Avishek Goenka (supra) to the effect that the citizens at large have a right to life, that is, to live with dignity, freedom and safety, which emerges from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, as opposed to this Constitutional mandate, a trivial individual protection or inconvenience, if any, must yield in favour of the larger public interest, holds true in respect of the present case as well. 37. As held therein, even if some individual interests are likely to be affected, such individual or private interests must make way for the larger public interest. It is the duty of all citizens to comply with the law. The rules are mandatory and nobody has the authority in law to mould the Rules for the purposes of convenience or luxury and certainly not for crime. In the present case, the respondents patently flouted the 2019 Act and the then existing Rules of 1958 to come to the conclusion that no permission was necessary for the lift-in-question and in installing and commencing operation of the said lift. 38. Hence, the impugned communication dated February 22, 2022 (Annexure P-5 at page 68 of the writ petition) is patently illegal and does not deserve to be sustained. 39. Hence, WPA No. 15519 of 2022 is allowed, thereby setting aside and quashing the impugned communication bearing no. SS/397 dated February 22, 2022 made by the Joint Electrical Inspector and Member Secretary (Lifts), Government of West Bengal. Hence, the erection and operation of the lift-in-question is patently unlawful and unauthorized. Thus, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the appropriate forum seeking demolition of the said lift and ancillary constructions. Upon such approach being made, the concerned authorities shall proceed on such complaint immediately. 40. Hence, the erection and operation of the lift-in-question is patently unlawful and unauthorized. Thus, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the appropriate forum seeking demolition of the said lift and ancillary constructions. Upon such approach being made, the concerned authorities shall proceed on such complaint immediately. 40. There will be no order as to costs. 41. Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance of due formalities.