Calcutta HC Quashes Fire Dept Evacuation Order Against AITC for Ignoring Petitioner's Reply and Skipping Re-Inspection

Justice Krishna Rao set aside a vacate order directing AITC to leave two floors at 9 Camac Street, finding the Director-in-Charge passed it without considering the petitioner's reply or conducting a fresh inspection.

The High Court at Calcutta has quashed an order by the Director-in-Charge, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services, directing the All India Trinamool Congress to vacate the 6th and 7th floors of the building at 9, Abanindranath Tagore Sarani (Camac Street), Kolkata – 700 017. Justice Krishna Rao, sitting singly in the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, found that the impugned order dated 4 September 2026 was passed the very next day after the petitioner submitted its reply, without the authority considering that reply or carrying out any fresh inspection of the premises. The Court directed the Director-in-Charge to reconsider the petitioner's reply, conduct a re-inspection after fresh notice, and only then decide whether any further steps were warranted.

The Evacuation Order and the Tenancy

The dispute arose from a lease deed dated 1 March 2020, under which respondent no. 11 — the owner of the multistoried building — let out the 6th and 7th floors to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in occupation of those floors since the lease was executed.

On 1 September 2026, the Director-in-Charge (respondent no. 4) issued a notice to the petitioner as occupier and to respondent no. 11 as owner, calling for a written explanation within 48 hours as to why an order of evacuation and sealing under Section 37A of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950 should not be passed. The notice set out six specific allegations stemming from an inspection: the absence of a valid fire safety certificate; a mild steel structure with corrugated sheet roofing encroaching on the driveway and obstructing fire appliances; LPG cylinders stored in the 7th floor kitchen/cafeteria area not shown in the approved plan; failure to maintain pump sequence in accordance with standard norms, with firefighting water not reaching the 7th floor riser system; only one exit from the office to the internal corridor of the 7th floor; and an inadequate and non-functional fire alarm and detection system on both floors.

The petitioner filed a detailed reply on 3 September 2026. On 4 September 2026 — the very next day — the impugned evacuation order was passed.

What the Petitioner's Reply Addressed

Before the Court, Mr. Kishore Datta, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, took the bench through the contents of the 3 September reply in some detail. On the driveway obstruction, the petitioner stated the structure had already been removed and the drive-way was clear and unobstructed. On the LPG cylinders, the petitioner informed the authority that they had been removed from the 7th floor kitchen/cafeteria. On the pump sequence issue, the petitioner explained that a butterfly valve had been kept in a non-operational position during maintenance, causing the pressure shortfall seen at the time of inspection, but that the system was otherwise maintained for emergency use. On exits, the petitioner stated there were in fact two entry/exit points from the office to the internal corridor of the 7th floor. On the fire detection system, the petitioner informed the authority that approximately 60 fire sprinklers and 15 smoke detectors were available on the 6th floor, and approximately 45 fire sprinklers and 15 smoke detectors on the 7th floor.

The petitioner also stated in its reply that it was ready and willing to extend full cooperation to the competent authorities to ensure all applicable fire and life safety requirements were met. In the writ petition itself, the petitioner reiterated willingness to participate in any fresh inspection directed by the Court and to undertake such reasonable fire-safety measures as may be lawfully required.

Mr. Datta also placed reliance on contractual provisions. Clauses 6.1.7 and 6.1.8 of the lease deed, he submitted, made the lessor responsible for maintaining statutory firefighting facilities, maintaining fire hydrants within and around the demised premises, arranging periodic statutory testing and certification of equipment in accordance with applicable rules, and providing No Objection Certificates or other documents required for utility connections. On the question of statutory liability, Mr. Datta argued that Section 11C of the Act of 1950 — which places the obligation of providing and maintaining fire prevention and fire safety measures on the occupier — applies only where the owner is not traceable. Since the owner was available and present in these proceedings, he submitted Section 11C could not be used against the petitioner.

A further procedural grievance was that the impugned order, though it affected the petitioner directly, was communicated only to respondent no. 11 (the owner) and not to the petitioner.

The State's Position and the Maintainability Challenge

Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, Learned Advocate General, appearing for the State respondents, raised a preliminary objection on maintainability. He argued that the impugned order was appealable and that the petitioner ought to have pursued that remedy rather than filing a writ petition directly. He pointed to Section 11-I of the Act of 1950, which provides an appeal against orders of the Director under Chapter IIIA of the Act, and to Rule 24 of the West Bengal Fire Services (Fire Prevention and Fire Safety) Rules, 2003, which also provides an appeal mechanism.

On the merits, Mr. Mitra submitted that the petitioner's reply of 3 September had in effect shifted all responsibility to the owner, which was precisely why the impugned order was served on the owner rather than the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner had admitted violation of Section 11C in its reply and had neither sought additional time to rectify shortcomings nor applied for a Fire Safety Licence even after receipt of the notice. He argued that the order was not without reasons, since it identified the petitioner's failure to maintain required fire safety measures as an occupier.

Mr. Soumya Majumder, Senior Advocate for respondent no. 11, submitted that the owner had not authorised any unsafe use of the premises, had not been given access to the demised floors during the lease period, and that the lessee was obliged under the tenancy to maintain the premises and carry out internal minor repairs at its own cost.

The Court's Reasoning

Justice Krishna Rao disposed of the maintainability objection before turning to the merits. The Court examined the statutory scheme and found that Section 11-I of the Act of 1950 provides an appeal only against orders passed by the Director under Chapter IIIA of the Act. The impugned order, however, was passed under Section 37A, which falls under Chapter VI (Miscellaneous). Section 38 of the Act provides an appeal against orders under Sections 35, 36 or 37, but the impugned order was passed under Section 37A. The Court concluded that neither Section 11-I nor Section 38 provided an available appeal against the impugned order, and the writ petition was therefore maintainable.

On the merits, the Court identified two connected procedural failures. The petitioner submitted its reply on 3 September 2026. The impugned order was passed on 4 September 2026. The order did not engage with or deal with the petitioner's reply to the hearing notice. No fresh inspection was conducted after the reply was submitted to verify whether the petitioner's stated remedial steps — removal of the obstructing structure, removal of LPG cylinders, clarification on the pump and exit issues — were accurate.

The Court also noted a significant procedural irregularity regarding the owner's reply. Respondent no. 11 submitted its own reply to the 1 September notice only on 4 September 2026 at 16:32 hours — that is, after the impugned order had already been passed. The authority had therefore acted without the benefit of either the occupier's reply being considered or the owner's reply having been received.

The Court observed that given the petitioner's stated willingness to comply with all fire safety requirements, the Director-in-Charge ought to have granted time to the petitioner to address any remaining shortcomings and install the required equipment, rather than passing a vacate order the following day.

Mr. Datta's reliance on Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. v. Juliana Maria Lasrado & Anr., reported in (2004) 7 SCC 431, was cited in support of the proposition that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The Court found that the respondent no. 4 had referenced provisions of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950 without dealing with the specific points raised in the petitioner's reply, and had passed the order without conducting any verification after the reply was received.

Order

The impugned order dated 4 September 2026 passed by the Director-in-Charge, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services, directing the petitioner to vacate the 6th and 7th floors of the building at 9, Abanindranath Tagore Sarani (Camac Street), Kolkata – 700 017 was set aside and quashed.

The Director-in-Charge was directed to reconsider the petitioner's reply dated 3 September 2026 and to inspect the premises again after issuing notice to the petitioner. After the inspection, if any further shortcomings in fire safety measures are found, the Director-in-Charge shall inform the petitioner to complete those shortcomings. If the petitioner fails to comply even after such notice, the Director-in-Charge will be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

WPA No. 24876 of 2026 was disposed of on 16 September 2026.