LexN.D.M.C. versus STATESMAN LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
N.D.M.C. v. STATESMAN LTD. OCTOBER 24, 1989 [RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] Punjab Municipal Act, 1911: Sections 193(3), Building Bye-Laws for Union Territory of Delhi, 1983: Bye-Laws 2.27, 16.4.8 and 16.4.8.1-Fire Safety Measures-"Refuge Areas"-Requirement of Bye-Laws-Not inflexible-The words "in any other manner"-Do not envisage a totally different idea of the location of "Refuge Areas"- Suggest some feasible alternative to the technical design of the construc- tion of the "Refuge Area"-Purpose of Refuge Area explained. Reduction in the extent of "Refuge-Area"-Permissibility of- Building plan-Fire Safety Measures-Clearance given hy Chief Fire Officer-Whether conclusive and binding on the Corporation- Whether Corporation can examine the question independently. "External-wall"-Provision intended to promote public safety, health and we/I-being-Refuge Area to be provided on the "external- wall"-Building plan providing refuge area abutting into an inner vacant space-Whether satisfies requirement. National Building Code of India, 1983: Part IV-Prescriptions for "Fire Precaution"-Envisage certain broad minimal assurances for fire-safety-Better and more reliable measures ought not to be excluded. Delhi Development Act, 1957: Section 9(2) Zonal Development Plan-Zone D-1 (Connaught Place Area) Building Plan-Provision for "Podium/Pedestrain Walk-way"-Feasibility and necessity of. A B c D E F Delhi Urban Art Commission Act, 1973: Section 12: 'Building operations' /'Development proposals'-Approval by local body- G Reference to Urban Arts co·mmission for scrutiny. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136-Appeal-Raising new issues-Supreme Court can consider if matters are of general public importance. 591 H A B c D 592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1989) Supp. 1 S.C.R. The respondent company obtained sanction of a building plan from the· New Delhi Municipal Committee for the construction of a building on a plot held by it on lease. After incorporating certain changes, the respondent company submitted a revised plan for sanction of the New Delhi Municipal Committee, but the same was rejected by an order Dated 18.12.1987. A rectified plan was thereafter submitted by the respondent to the New Delhi Municipal Committee, for necessary sanction, but as no orders were received, the respondent filed a writ petition in High Court seeking a direction to the New Delhi Municipal Committee to deal with the same for grant of necessary sanction. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ proceedings the Delhi Urban Art Commission approved the plans as required under Section 12 of the Delhi Urban Art Commission Act,1973. The Chief Fire Officer also gave clearance to the building plans in relation to the Fire Safety Precautions. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition by an Order dated 28.4.1989 holding that inspite of the clearance granted by the Urban Art Commission and the Chief Fire Officer, New Delhi Municipal Committee's disinclination to accord the sanction was unjustified, and directed the New Delhi Municipal Committee to convey the formal sanc- E lion in respect of the building plans. In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the New Delhi Municipal Committee, that (i) in the matter of fire safety require- ments, the building plans were not in accordance with Building Bye- Laws for the Union Territory of Delhi, 1983; (ii) The clearance given by f' the Chief Fire Officer is not binding on the New Delhi Municipnl Committee which can examine the question independently of such clearance and (iii) the proposed building plan does not provide for a 'Podium" /"Pedestrian Walk-way" as required under the approved Zonal Development Plan under Sec. 9(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. G Setting aside the High Court Order dated April 28, 1989, this Court, HELD: J. The requirements of Bye-Laws 16.4.8 are not inflexi- ble and in appropriate cases where the plans and designs incorporate H fire safety measures which, in judgment of the Corporation are. N .D.M.C. v. STATESMAN 593 considered to provide for the safety in a measure better than those envisaged by the bye-laws 16.4.8 the Corporation would not be pre- cluded from accepting them i.e. if a building-design incorporate fire safety measures in a measure promoting fire safety precautions far better than those suggested by the Bye-laws they should not fetter the hands of the licencing author
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.