It’s no one’s fault
A blaze on the eighth floor of Broadway Business Centre on Tuesday morning had led to it being sealed in the evening. On Thursday, the non-functional fire equipment was being replaced at the building site; Pic: Nilkanth Dave
No action will be taken against the owner of a commercial building in Law Garden who allegedly put the lives of around hundreds of people in danger with no functional fire safety equipment in place. After the Broadway Business Centre (BBC) building was found with multiple fire safety violations despite possessing a Fire Safety NOC, Fire department officials in Ahmedabad have said that the building owner Kamal Sonwani will not be held accountable. Top fire officials claim there is no provision in civic laws that permits prosecution of the owner despite negligence in maintaining fire equipment. This decision is likely to impact 2,705 high-rises in the city whose fire safety checks are the responsibility of the AMC.
The Ahmedabad Fire and Emergency Services (AFES) had issued a No Objection Certificate to the building on March 20. A blaze on the eighth floor of BBC on Tuesday morning had led to it being sealed in the evening.
Mirror had reported on Wednesday (August 8) that the fire hoses were not functional and their boxes were filled with garbage, fire extinguishers were over 10 years old and their nozzles were rusted, the passageways on most floors were crammed with storage materials, the staircase and elevator had been separated by false walls, making escape difficult and that the stairwell was not open, leading to fumes not being able to escape the building. All this, after the Divisional Fire Officer Mithun Mistry had given the building a clean chit on March 20, 2018.
Two fire services, two different rules
While there is no provision in the AMC to prosecute the owner for negligence in maintaining the building, the GujaratState Fire Service Act of 2015, which is enacted only in municipalities, provides for a jail term ranging from one month to two years or a fine ranging from Rs10,000 to Rs1lakh if the owner/occupants fail to provide and maintain the fire prevention and life safety equipment in good repair and efficient condition’.
The CFO of Surat Fire Department Basant Parekh confirmed, “There is no provision to prosecute fire safety violators in any municipal corporation in Gujarat. This is, however, not the case inMumbai , where violators can be prosecuted.”
Discrepancy in prosecution provisions
Sources in the Fire Department raised questions over the separation of Municipal Corporation Fire Departments and the Gujarat State Fire Service and how technical discrepancies have allowed the owner to go scot-free. An official said, “When officials of both services are the same, when Dastoor is the head of AFES as well as the GSFS, why do the provisions vary? And why no provisions have been made for prosecution at the AMC-level in so many years?” When queried about this, DyMC Mukesh Gadhvi, in-charge of the AMC fire department, declined to comment in the matter.
Fire experts warned of municipal corporation areas that have more high-rise buildings and so have more potential for fire hazards, but have no prosecution provisions. While in case of municipalities the defaulter is held accountable.
Advocate Amit Panchal, who has represented the AMC for many years and is currently fighting a legal battle for the implementation of the GSFS Act in HC, told Mirror, “The occupants or owners of the building have primary responsibility of maintain the fire safety equipment. It often happens that when the Fire department goes to check, all ishunky dory but then it changes drastically once the NOC is issued. This is due to malpractice.
It is incumbent upon the residents to make sure they are safe from fire hazards.” During investigation, Mirror found that the management of Broadway Business Centre had in 2016 filed an affidavit with the AFES stating that they had entered into a three-year contract for the maintenance of fire safety equipment, which would be valid till 2019. However, after it has been found that the equipment is out of commission, “we could file a contempt of court petition against the owner,” said CFO Dastoor.
However, when queried more on this, the CFO said, “If we take up prosecution, then the building will remain sealed till the time the case is in court. This will be detrimental to all the people currently employed in the offices there. Hence, we will look to give them the NOC once they have complied with the recommended changes, for the sake of the employees.”
The police too has not registered any case of negligence against the building owner. Navrangpura PI A M Parmar said, “We will not be taking any action on negligence at the moment. However, we will investigate the matter after we get the FSL report and then consider what is to be done.”
Meanwhile, the non-functional fire equipment was being replaced at the building site on Thursday. Haresh, the manager at the site, said, “We are changing the fire extinguishers and pipes. We are also putting in new fire alarms and trying to get fresh NOC at the earliest.”
The Ahmedabad Fire and Emergency Services (AFES) had issued a No Objection Certificate to the building on March 20. A blaze on the eighth floor of BBC on Tuesday morning had led to it being sealed in the evening.
Mirror had reported on Wednesday (August 8) that the fire hoses were not functional and their boxes were filled with garbage, fire extinguishers were over 10 years old and their nozzles were rusted, the passageways on most floors were crammed with storage materials, the staircase and elevator had been separated by false walls, making escape difficult and that the stairwell was not open, leading to fumes not being able to escape the building. All this, after the Divisional Fire Officer Mithun Mistry had given the building a clean chit on March 20, 2018.
Chief Fire Officer (CFO) MF Dastoor, expressing helplessness at the situation in not being able to take action against Sonwani, told Mirror, “There are no laws in the AMC permitting prosecution of building owner. So, no action can be initiated except making him replace all the defunct equipment and follow the recommended changes.”
Two fire services, two different rules
While there is no provision in the AMC to prosecute the owner for negligence in maintaining the building, the Gujarat
The CFO of Surat Fire Department Basant Parekh confirmed, “There is no provision to prosecute fire safety violators in any municipal corporation in Gujarat. This is, however, not the case in
Discrepancy in prosecution provisions
Sources in the Fire Department raised questions over the separation of Municipal Corporation Fire Departments and the Gujarat State Fire Service and how technical discrepancies have allowed the owner to go scot-free. An official said, “When officials of both services are the same, when Dastoor is the head of AFES as well as the GSFS, why do the provisions vary? And why no provisions have been made for prosecution at the AMC-level in so many years?” When queried about this, DyMC Mukesh Gadhvi, in-charge of the AMC fire department, declined to comment in the matter.
Fire experts warned of municipal corporation areas that have more high-rise buildings and so have more potential for fire hazards, but have no prosecution provisions. While in case of municipalities the defaulter is held accountable.
Advocate Amit Panchal, who has represented the AMC for many years and is currently fighting a legal battle for the implementation of the GSFS Act in HC, told Mirror, “The occupants or owners of the building have primary responsibility of maintain the fire safety equipment. It often happens that when the Fire department goes to check, all is
It is incumbent upon the residents to make sure they are safe from fire hazards.” During investigation, Mirror found that the management of Broadway Business Centre had in 2016 filed an affidavit with the AFES stating that they had entered into a three-year contract for the maintenance of fire safety equipment, which would be valid till 2019. However, after it has been found that the equipment is out of commission, “we could file a contempt of court petition against the owner,” said CFO Dastoor.
However, when queried more on this, the CFO said, “If we take up prosecution, then the building will remain sealed till the time the case is in court. This will be detrimental to all the people currently employed in the offices there. Hence, we will look to give them the NOC once they have complied with the recommended changes, for the sake of the employees.”
The police too has not registered any case of negligence against the building owner. Navrangpura PI A M Parmar said, “We will not be taking any action on negligence at the moment. However, we will investigate the matter after we get the FSL report and then consider what is to be done.”
Meanwhile, the non-functional fire equipment was being replaced at the building site on Thursday. Haresh, the manager at the site, said, “We are changing the fire extinguishers and pipes. We are also putting in new fire alarms and trying to get fresh NOC at the earliest.”
The occupants or owners of building have primary responsibility of maintain the fire safety equipment. When Fire dept checks, all is fine but then it changes once NOC is issued.
There are no laws in AMC permitting prosecution of building owner. So, no action can be initiated except making him replace defunct equipment and follow recommendations.
Recent Messages ()
Please rate before posting your Review
SIGN IN WITH
Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.