JUDGMENT : Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. 1. Respondent no. 5, one Sass Med Private Limited, runs a clinical establishment at Premise No. 195/1, Park Street, P.S. – Beniapukur, Kol – 700 017. The said respondent is a lessee under the petitioners since 2021. The petitioners alleged that respondent no. 5 has violated all fire safety norms and has suffered a Notice under Section 5 of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950 (for short, “the 1950 Act”). 2. It is argued that such violation of norms jeopardizes the interests of the petitioners/owners, who also apprehend liability and legal action in that regard from the respondent-Authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on a Notification dated September 4, 2012 annexed at page 81 of the writ petition, issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Health and Family Welfare Department, by which all clinical establishments were directed to submit either of the documents specified therein, one of which was No Objection Certificate/clearance certificate issued by the Fire and Emergency Services Department of the Government of West Bengal. 4. Learned counsel also relies on the Notice under Section 35 of the 1950 Act dated September 8, 2023 issued by the Divisional Fire Officer, South Kolkata Division, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services, to respondent no. 5 in support of his submissions. 5. Due to such non-compliance, it is argued that respondent no. 5 should be restrained immediately from running its clinical establishment illegally in the leased premises. 6. Learned counsel cites Ahmedabad Medical Association Through Vice President Maulik Sureshchandra Shah v. State of Gujarat, reported at 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 904 where it was held that continued infringement of law encourages lawlessness and submits that Fire Safety Standards and Guidelines ought not to be relaxed. 7. Learned counsel next relies on Bhaskar Ghosh v. State of W.B. and others, reported at2020 SCC OnLine Cal 156 where under similar circumstances, non-compliance of Fire Safety Conditions by a clinical establishment was held to be a patent violation of law and the said establishment was asked to stop functioning. 8. Learned counsel for the State argues that respondent no. 5 applied four times for Fire Safety Certificate. The first application submitted on November 24, 2021 was rejected due to non-submission of hardcopies of plan drawings by respondent no. 8. Learned counsel for the State argues that respondent no. 5 applied four times for Fire Safety Certificate. The first application submitted on November 24, 2021 was rejected due to non-submission of hardcopies of plan drawings by respondent no. 5, which is apparent from pages 26 and 40 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the said respondent. 9. The State submits that the second application submitted on February 7, 2022 was auto-rejected on April 18, 2022 for the same reason. The third application dated September 12, 2023 was also auto-rejected on October 5, 2023 due to delayed response from respondent no. 5. 10. The fourth application was filed on January 6, 2024, pursuant to an order dated January 4, 2024 passed by this Court in the present writ petition. Pursuant to the same, an inspection was conducted on January 16, 2024 and the matter was referred to the Technical Expert Committee on February 2, 2024 who apparently rejected the request of respondent no. 5 on the ground of inadequate side open space, inadequate width and number of staircases and insufficient width of corridor. 11. In reply, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 argues that Section 11C of the 1950 Act contemplates “high-risk” buildings, which have been defined in Section 2(hb) of the Act, to require Fire Safety Certificates. Clinical establishments do not fall within the purview of the same. “Institutional buildings” as contemplated under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules do not come within the purview of high-risk buildings as envisaged in the 1950 Act. Although clinical establishments come under the domain of institutional buildings, Section 11C of the 1950 Act does not apply to such buildings. Hence, the very source of authority of the respondents to initiate action against respondent no. 5 is challenged. 12. It is submitted that respondent no. 5 has duly applied for Fire Safety Certificate several times but has not received the same due to delay on the part of the respondent-Authorities. Thus, the bona fides of respondent no. 5 regarding compliance of fire safety norms cannot be in doubt. 13. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 next argues that the Notification dated September 4, 2012 relied on by the petitioners gives two options to the clinical establishments. The first option is to produce a No Objection Certificate/clearance certificate from the Fire and Emergency Services Department. 5 regarding compliance of fire safety norms cannot be in doubt. 13. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 next argues that the Notification dated September 4, 2012 relied on by the petitioners gives two options to the clinical establishments. The first option is to produce a No Objection Certificate/clearance certificate from the Fire and Emergency Services Department. The second option is to swear an affidavit before a First Class Magistrate. Respondent no. 5has sworn such affidavit and as such, has sufficiently complied with the said Notification. Thus, it is argued that respondent no. 5 is legally carrying on its clinical establishment, having not violated any mandatory provision of law. 14. Lastly, learned counsel submits that respondent no. 5 is agreeable to furnish any affidavit or document in compliance with the extant Notifications and law if so required. 15. Respondent no. 5 has also hinted at the inaction on the part of the petitioners in complying with the Fire Safety Norms as the owners of the property. 16. Thus, in the present case, the private respondent no. 5 has raised a question as to the source of authority of the respondents and the Fire and Emergency Services Division to insist upon production of a Fire Safety Certificate for a nursing home. It has been argued that Section 11C speaks about ‘high-risk’ buildings. A perusal of Section 2, the definition clause in the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950 shows that Clause (hb) thereof defines “high-risk building” to mean a high-rise building or a building with such occupancy within the meaning of the relevant municipal law in force in a local area or such other occupancy or building or class or classes of building as the State Government may by notification specify. 17. Thus, the disjunctive conjunction “or” has been used to delineate high-rise buildings to come within the purview of “high-risk building”. Section 2(ha) defines a high-rise building as a building the height of which is fourteen and a half meters or more. 18. Admittedly, the building-in-question is a five-storied building and thus comes within the purview of “high-rise building” and hence, automatically falls within the definition of “high-risk building”. Thus, the provisions of Section 11C of the 1950 Act are applicable. Section 2(ha) defines a high-rise building as a building the height of which is fourteen and a half meters or more. 18. Admittedly, the building-in-question is a five-storied building and thus comes within the purview of “high-rise building” and hence, automatically falls within the definition of “high-risk building”. Thus, the provisions of Section 11C of the 1950 Act are applicable. Sub-section (1) of the said Section, however, provides that the owner or, where the owner is not traceable, the occupier of a high-risk building or part thereof shall provide fire prevention and fire safety measures in such building or part thereof and the occupier shall maintain the fire prevention and fire safety measures in good repair and in efficient condition at all times in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter or the Rules made thereunder. Thus, sub-section (1), read in isolation, would cast the primary liability on the owner, unless he is not traceable (which is not the case here,) to take fire prevention and fire safety measures. However, at the same time, the occupier has been separately cast with the liability to maintain fire prevention and fire safety measures in good repair. 19. Again, sub-section (2) of Section 11C of the 1950 Act provides that the owner or occupier of a high-risk building, as the case may be, shall obtain from the Director General or the nominated authority a Fire Safety Certificate in the prescribed form. 20. A strict reading of the said provision would entail that the primary liability is on the owner, unless he is untraceable, to provide fire prevention and fire safety measures in the first place. Sub-section (2) of Section 11C uses the expression “as the case may be” after “the owner or occupier”, thereby reverting to the provisions of sub-section (1) which shows that unless the owner is not traceable, it is his responsibility to provide the fire prevention and safety measures. 21. Section 35 of the 1950 Act empowers the Director or the superior nominated authority as the case may be, after completion of inspection of the building or part thereof under Section 34, to record his views on the deviations, contravention, etc. and to issue a notice to the owner or occupier of such building or part thereof or premises directing him to undertake such measures within such time as may be specified in the notice. and to issue a notice to the owner or occupier of such building or part thereof or premises directing him to undertake such measures within such time as may be specified in the notice. Where the owner is not available, the occupier shall undertake such measures in the interest of public safety, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. 22. In the event of non-compliance, Section 36 provides that the Director can take such steps as may be necessary for compliance. 23. It is noteworthy that Section 35 casts liability on the occupier, when the owner is not available (as opposed to ‘not traceable’) to undertake the measures as directed. Notice in such case may be issued to either the owner or occupier. 24. Section 34 empowers the Director or the nominated authority to enter and inspect any building or part thereof between sunrise and sunset where it appears necessary for ascertaining contravention of any of the fire prevention and fire safety measures referred to in Section 11C. 25. Thus, a composite reading of the said provisions shows that in respect of high-rise buildings as defined in the 1950 Act, the fire safety authorities are entitled to hold an inspection and thereafter to issue notice and take steps under Sections 34 and 35 of the 1950 Act respectively. 26. In the present case, it is not clear whether the fire authorities issued notice to the owner and if not why. However, the fact remains that for running the clinical establishment, the respondent no. 5 has to have compliance of the fire safety norms. 27. In the present case, the Divisional Fire Officer, South Kolkata Division of the West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services Authority issued a communication on September 8, 2023 to respondent no. 5 under Section 35 of the 1950 Act, requesting the latter to undertake proper fire and life safety measures and apply for Fire Safety Certificate followed by Fire Safety Recommendation immediately. Thus, respondent no. 5 was well aware that it had to comply with the said formalities. 28. In conjunction with such liability, we are to look into the Notification dated September 4, 2012 annexed at page 81 of the writ petition issued by the Principal Secretary of the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of West Bengal. Thus, respondent no. 5 was well aware that it had to comply with the said formalities. 28. In conjunction with such liability, we are to look into the Notification dated September 4, 2012 annexed at page 81 of the writ petition issued by the Principal Secretary of the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of West Bengal. The said Notification clearly stipulated that for grant or renewal of licence under the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, it would be mandatory for persons intending to commence, keep or carry on a clinical establishment to submit any one of the documents enumerated therein. The expression “any one” has been sought to be interpreted by respondent no. 5 to mean that either one of the two would suffice. 29. The first document is a No Objection Certificate/clearance certificate issued by the Fire and Emergency Services Department of the Government of West Bengal and the second an affidavit sworn before a First Class Magistrate affirming that the applicant will abide by the Fire Safety Guideline and Standard Operating Procedures for hospitals/nursing homes, circulated under No. 171/FES/Secy/210/212 dated January 19, 2012 of the Fire and Emergency Services Department of the Government of West Bengal. Hence, the No Objection Certificate/clearance certificate and the affidavit were apparently put on the same footing. If so, the applicant would have to be bound by the affidavit sworn before a First Class Magistrate to comply with the requirement therein. The alternative interpretation, that mere filing of an affidavit without complying with the undertaking given therein would do, would be a mere empty formality and would be an absurd interpretation, since such affidavit could not be an alternative to a No Objection Certificate/clearance certificate issued by the Fire and Emergency Services Department. 30. In the present case, respondent no. 5has annexed an affidavit affirmed before the First Class Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, which was notarized on March 3, 2023. However, the date of the same has been kept blank. In any event, respondent no. 5 has failed to produce any Fire Safety Certificate or other compliance in terms of its affidavit. Admittedly, respondent no. 5 has applied on several occasions to obtain the said documents, thereby acquiescing to the need of furnishing such documents to carry on its clinical establishment. 31. In any event, respondent no. 5 has failed to produce any Fire Safety Certificate or other compliance in terms of its affidavit. Admittedly, respondent no. 5 has applied on several occasions to obtain the said documents, thereby acquiescing to the need of furnishing such documents to carry on its clinical establishment. 31. However, the State, in its written notes of arguments, has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent no. 5 and argues that the first application submitted by respondent no. 5 on November 24, 2021 was rejected due to non-submission of hardcopies of plan drawings by the clinical establishment, which is evident from the opposition. 32. As per the State, the second application dated February 7, 2022 was auto-rejected on April 18, 2022 for the same reason. 33. The third application filed on September 12, 2023 was again auto-rejected on October 5, 2023 due to delayed response from respondent no. 5. 34. The last application filed on January 6, 2024 was presented only after an order dated January 4, 2024 passed by this Court to that effect. Regarding the same, inspection was conducted on January 16, 2024 and the matter was placed before a Technical Expert Committee on February 2, 2024 but the prayer was rejected for three reasons: a) Inadequate side open space; b) Inadequate width and number of staircases; and c) Inadequate width of corridor. 35. Thus, to date, respondent no. 5 has failed to honour its commitment as given in the affidavit affirmed before the First Class Magistrate. In any event, no Fire Safety Certificate has been obtained by respondent no. 5-clinical establishment, although the said establishment is running for about three years since 2021. 36. The judgments cited by the petitioner acquire relevance in this context. 37. In Ahmedabad Medical Association (supra), the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court placed reliance on Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and others, reported at (1996) 5 SCC 281 to observe that the continued infringement of law over a period of time is made possible by adoption of such means which are best known to the violators of law. Continued tolerance of such violations of law not only renders legal provisions nugatory but such tolerance by enforcement authorities encourages lawlessness. Adoption of such means cannot or ought not to be tolerated in any civilized society. 38. Continued tolerance of such violations of law not only renders legal provisions nugatory but such tolerance by enforcement authorities encourages lawlessness. Adoption of such means cannot or ought not to be tolerated in any civilized society. 38. In the judgment of this Court in Bhaskar Ghosh (supra), under similar circumstances, the clinical establishment therein had failed to fulfill several conditions as recommended by the West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services and no final Fire Safety Certificate had been issued for running the clinical establishment, which was held to add to the illegality in the running of the said business. It was observed that the argument of the private respondent there with regard to the petitioner/owner having no legal right being hampered was held to be thoroughly unacceptable since the owner, irrespective of the date of purchase, was an owner of the residential portion of the building-in-question and was directly affected by the violation of norms and law by the private respondent’s clinical establishment housed in the said building. 39. It was, however, held that in view of the nature of the work being done from the establishment, the same, if stopped overnight, would hamper the interest of various patients and some time was given to the establishment to stop. 40. Following the principles laid down in the above-referred judgments, further continuance of respondent no. 5’s clinical establishment would perpetuate the safety hazard to the patients housed therein as well as the doctors and other staff functioning therefrom, apart from the other residents of the building and the owners as well as the entire neighborhood and the public at large. 41. The reliance of respondent no. 5 on the definition of “institutional buildings” in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Rules is misplaced, since the 1950 Act contemplates a self-sufficient ecosystem, irrespective of invocation of the provisions of the Municipal Act. That apart, the Notification of 2012 has not been challenged by respondent no. 5 and binds the respondent no. 5-clinical establishment. 42. In view of the above, WPO No. 1853 of 2023 is allowed on contest, thereby directing respondent no. 5, that is, Sass Med Private Limited to stop the functioning of the clinical establishment being run from the disputed property at Premise No. 195/1, Park Street, P.S. – Beniapukur, Kol – 700 017 within March 31, 2024. 43. 5-clinical establishment. 42. In view of the above, WPO No. 1853 of 2023 is allowed on contest, thereby directing respondent no. 5, that is, Sass Med Private Limited to stop the functioning of the clinical establishment being run from the disputed property at Premise No. 195/1, Park Street, P.S. – Beniapukur, Kol – 700 017 within March 31, 2024. 43. About a month and a half’s time is being given in order to accommodate the patients who are housed therein and in order to facilitate shifting of such patients to alternative establishments/locations. 44. However, nothing in this order shall be construed to be a charter for the petitioners to forcibly evict respondent no. 5 from the premises-in-question. In the event the petitioners intend to evict respondent no. 5, the petitioners shall be free to take recourse to due process of law for such purpose. 45. Also, nothing in this order shall prevent respondent no. 5 from making endeavour to ensure that all the fire safety norms are satisfied prior to March 31, 2024. If such compliance is achieved by respondent no. 5 within the said period, it will be open to the said respondent to approach the respondent-Authorities for appropriate sanction to continue the clinical establishment. If such sanction is obtained from the said authorities in writing, respondent no. 5 will be at liberty to approach this Court with a proper application for modification/recall of this Order. 46. There will be no order as to costs. 47. Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance of due formalities.