.jpg)
Adequate access for the fire-engines as an essential requirement:
37. Having noted the submissions of all the counsel in this behalf, what we find is that whereas the provisions for the mid-rise buildings up to 13 floors are somewhat adequate, those beyond are required to be strictly implemented from within as well. The provisions for the refuge floor and various requirements from within have to be strictly scrutinized and insisted upon. That apart the second proviso to DCR 43(1)(A) cannot stand scrutiny of minimum safety requirement. If the access of 6 meters is required from at least one side within the property for the fire engine to enter and move inside, we fail to see as to how in redevelopment proposals under DCR 33(7) where the plot size is up to 600 sq. mts., open space of 1.5 meters, can be said to be adequate. As fairly pointed out by Mr. Bhatt, the buildings on such plots can also go up to 20 floors, depending upon the number of flats for the occupants to be provided for. If that is so, it is necessary to have an open space of the width of 6 meters within the property for the fire engine to enter the property at least from one side which is so provided for every other building.
38. It is true that in Jayant Achyut Sathe (supra) the challenge to the five feet open space in the schemes under DCR 33(7), came to be rejected. However, as can be seen from paragraph 49 of the judgment, it was principally rejected on the ground that the challenge was hopelessly delayed since this provision restricting the open spaces in these schemes had been in existence since 1984. The question of fire engines not being able to go inside such plots, was raised in the Bombay High Court, but this Court has not gone into that aspect in the said judgment. We are looking into the issue of the side space on the backdrop of the failure of the fire brigade to quickly extinguish the fire even in the six storeyed Secretariat building in Mumbai, which has sufficient side spaces on all sides. Not providing a minimum space of 6 meters which makes room for the fire-engine to access the building amounts to violation of the right to life and equality of the residents of these buildings, by not providing the same standard of safety to them which is available to residents of all other buildings. It is true that some of these plots under the DCR 33(7) schemes are small plots and are in congested areas. But if that is so, nothing prevents the State Government from taking over such schemes for which it can finance from the overall cess collection. In such cases, it may have to accommodate only the existing occupants. This can also be achieved by calling upon such occupants to partly contribute towards the construction cost. But human life cannot be made to suffer only on the ground that in the redevelopment scheme sufficient access cannot be provided for the fire engine to enter within the plot even from one side.
39. We are, therefore, of the view that the second proviso to DCR 43(1)(A) is discriminatory as against the occupants of the plots up to the size of 600 sq. mts. and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The provision is likely to lead to a hazardous situation, affecting the life of the occupants, and therefore violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. We, therefore, hold the provision to be bad in law. If the fire is to be extinguished at the earliest the fire-engine must be able to reach the spot of fire, without any delay. Maneuverability of the fire engine is, therefore, of utmost importance. As such, most of the city roads are very narrow. On top of that if there is no adequate space for the fire engine to enter the property, the situation will become worse. We are clearly of the view that even for redevelopment proposals of plots up to the size of 600 sq. mts. under DCR 33(7), an open space of the width of 6 meters within the property which is accessible from the road on one side, will have to be maintained unless the building abuts roads of 6 meters or more on two sides, or another appropriate access of 6 meters to the building is available apart from the abutting road. This will be subject to the decision of the Chief Fire Officer in writing. Besides, we also feel that it is necessary to direct that the fire department must insist from the developer/society of all the buildings, to certify at least once in six months that the access to the building, the internal exits and the internal fire fighting arrangements are maintained as per the expectations under the DCR, the norms of the fire department, and must check them periodically, on its own.1
Citation: 2014(2)ABR73, 2014(2)ALLMR422, 2014(1)BomCR586, 2013(15)SCALE379, 2014 (2) SCJ 178
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided On: 17.12.2013
Appellants: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private Limited and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private Limited and Anr.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:H.L. Gokhale and Jasti Chelameswar , JJ.
No comments:
Post a Comment