Fire-safety evacuation order quashed for ignoring the occupier’s reply and denying reasonable opportunity to rectify deficiencies.

The petitioner, a lessee in occupation of the 6th and 7th floors of premises no. 9, Abanindranath Tagore Sarani, Kolkata, challenged an order dated 4 September 2026 directing vacation of the premises on the ground of inadequate and improperly maintained fire-safety measures, rendering the occupancy unsafe.

A notice dated 1 September 2026 alleged, inter alia, absence of a valid Fire Safety Certificate, obstruction of the driveway by an unauthorised structure, storage of LPG cylinders, deficiencies in the fire-pump and riser system, inadequate exits, and a non-functional fire-alarm and detection system.

The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 3 September 2026, asserting that several deficiencies had been rectified or removed and expressing willingness to comply with all lawful fire-safety requirements.

The authority passed the impugned order on the following day without addressing the petitioner’s reply or conducting a further inspection, and communicated the order only to the owner, not to the petitioner.

The State contested the writ petition on the ground that an alternative statutory appeal was available under Sections 11-I or 38 of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950 and Rule 24 of the 2003 Rules.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the alleged availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 11-I or Section 38 of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950, and Rule 24 of the West Bengal Fire Services (Fire Prevention and Fire Safety) Rules, 2003.

Whether the impugned order directing vacation of the premises under Section 37A of the Act was passed in breach of natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner’s reply and by not conducting a further inspection before taking coercive action.

Whether the authority was required to grant the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to rectify any remaining fire-safety deficiencies before directing vacation of the premises.

The Court applied Section 11C of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950, which places responsibility for providing and maintaining fire-prevention and fire-safety measures upon the owner and, in the circumstances specified by the provision, the occupier of a high-risk building.

Section 11-I provides an appeal against an order of the Director made under Chapter IIIA of the Act, while Section 38 provides an appeal against orders under Sections 35, 36 or 37; neither provision applies to an order made under Section 37A, which falls under Chapter VI.

The Court also considered Rule 24 of the 2003 Rules, relied upon by the State as providing an appellate remedy.

It applied the principles of natural justice and the requirement that administrative orders affecting rights must disclose reasons, relying on Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. Juliana Maria Lasrado & Anr., (2004) 7 SCC 431, for the principle that failure to provide reasons may amount to denial of justice.

The Court rejected the maintainability objection because the impugned order was issued under Section 37A, whereas Sections 11-I and 38 create appellate remedies only for specified orders under different statutory provisions.

On the merits, although the petitioner was required to maintain adequate fire-safety arrangements under Section 11C, the authority was required to consider the petitioner’s specific reply before taking coercive action.

The petitioner had addressed each allegation, stated that the structure and LPG cylinders had been removed, explained the temporary condition of the pump and riser system, asserted the existence of two exits, identified the available sprinklers and smoke detectors, and expressed willingness to comply with further requirements.

The authority nevertheless passed the order on the very next day without dealing with the reply, without conducting a further inspection, and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to cure any continuing deficiencies.

The failure to communicate the order to the affected occupier further impaired procedural fairness.

Accordingly, the decision-making process was vitiated by non-application of mind and denial of a meaningful opportunity of compliance.

It set aside and quashed the order dated 4 September 2026.

Respondent no. 4 was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s reply dated 3 September 2026, issue notice to the petitioner, and conduct a fresh inspection.

If further deficiencies were found, the authority was directed to inform the petitioner and provide an opportunity to rectify them; failure to comply thereafter would permit appropriate action in accordance with law.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.