HC questions relevance of govt's fire safety law for eateries

The Delhi High Court today questioned the relevance of a city government law which makes it mandatory for eateries to comply with fire safety norms only if they have a seating capacity exceeding 50.
"What is the relevance that 50 people can sit without fire safety and when it is more than 50 it requires fire safety?" Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw asked.
Delhi Fire Service Act, 2009 says a restaurant with seating space for less than 50 people doesn't need a no objection certificate from the fire department.
The court also said if New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) was not checking the seating capacity in an eatery during inspections, then it was "dereliction of duty".

"Who checks the seats to see whether they (eateries) have confined to the number of seats given in their application for licence? If you are not doing it (checking seats), then that is dereliction of duty. How can you do that," the court asked.
It directed NDMC to inform it on the next date whether its inspectors check the seating capacity or not and listed the matter for further hearing on August 26.

The direction was issued after NDMC's counsel said it issues licences to eateries on the basis of how hygienic they are and do not check the seating capacity. However, he sought time to take instructions on the issue from NDMC.

As no one was present on behalf of Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing), the court directed the petitioner association to serve them with the notice again.
The court was hearing a plea of a welfare association of Khan Market seeking directions to NDMC to carry out redevelopment of the community centre there by including fire safety measures and sanitation arrangements.
The association today said that the Khan Market Community Centre Redevelopment Plan placed before the court on the last date had received approval by the Delhi Fire Services (DFS).
They placed a 2011 letter of the Chief Fire Officer in support of their contention and said the DFS had termed the plan as "acceptable".

NDMC opposed the claim saying the plan was only a consultant's view and was unapproved.
It also said that the plan was of 2013 so how can it be approved by a letter of 2011.