AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P. (MD) No. 12094 of 2012 dated 18.1.2013, whereby the learned single Judge quashed the order dated 30.8.2012 passed by the District Collector/Chairman, Local Planning Authority, Madurai, rejecting the application of the first respondent herein for the grant of ''C'' Form licence for running five Cinema Theatres, and to direct the District Collector to grant ''C'' Form licence for running the cinema theatres named Inox Screens 1 to 5, constructed in the 5th and 6th floors of the property situated at T.S. No. 934/1, 2, 5, 8, 10 and 934/12 (part) in Gokhale Road, Chockikulam, Madurai. The case of the first respondent herein before the learned single Judge was as follows:
(a) The first respondent proposed to construct a Multi-Storeyed Shopping Mall in the name and style of ''Vishal De Mall'', for which the first respondent purchased the property comprised in T.S. No. 934/1, 2, 5, 8, 10 and 934/12 part in Gokhale Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai, which falls under the non-scheme area, from M/s. Sri. Vignesh Promoters.
(b) The founders of the first respondent applied for planning permission before the Madurai Corporation for construction of basement, ground + 4 floors, out of which the basement area is earmarked for car parking and ground floor to 4 floors are earmarked as shopping complex. The corporation of Madurai granted planning permission on 22.5.2007 and also collected LPA charges to the tune of Rs. 2,16,700/-.
(c) The first respondent constructed Multi-Storeyed Shopping Complex and during construction of the building, the first respondent applied for revised planning permission to construct 5th and 6th floors for housing five cinema theatres. The Madurai Corporation by order dated 29.12.2009 issued revised planning permission as requested.
(d) Since the entire 5th and 6th Floors are earmarked for cinema theatres, the first respondent applied for NOC and Plan Approval before the District Collector, Madurai, who is the Licensing Authority under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. The District Collector, by his proceedings dated 23.9.2010 granted NOC. After getting approval from the Special Chief Engineer of PWD, Planning and Design Circle (Buildings), Chepauk, Chennai, and after getting approval of the Electrical Inspectorate, TNEB, Madurai, plan approval was also granted on 23.2.2011 for construction of five Cinema Halls in the 5th and 6th floors.
(e) Based on the plan approval, the first respondent constructed the Cinema Halls in the 5th and 6th floors without any deviation and the first respondent, by application dated 3.10.2011 requested the Superintending Engineer, PWD Planning and Design Circle (Buildings), Chennai, to issue structural soundness certificate. By order dated 28.11.2011, individual structural soundness certificate for all the five theatres were granted. The first respondent also got approval from the Chief Electrical Inspectorate on 19.12.2011.
(f) According to the first respondent, it had entered into a registered agreement on 13.1.2012 with M/s. Inox Leisure Limited, for exhibiting films in all the five theatres viz., Inox Screens 1 to 5. For screening the films, the first respondent has to obtain ''C'' Form licence from the concerned authority, the District Collector, failing which the M/s. Inox Leisure Limited has a right to cancel the agreement.
(g) The first respondent obtained NOC from all the authorities, including Fire Service and applied for ''C'' form licence before the District Collector on 4.4.2012 in terms of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1955. After receipt of application for ''C'' Form licence, the District Collector issued a notice on 8.5.2012 seeking to produce the details regarding approval plan by Local Planning Authority for construction of the Multi-Storeyed Building. The first respondent submitted a reply on 10.5.2012 with all documents relating to Planning Permission as well as Plan approval granted by the Madurai Corporation and in spite of submission of the said documents ''C'' Form licence for five theatres was not granted on the ground that the planning permission obtained by the first respondent for construction of the building was not issued by the competent authority.
(h) The Member-Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Madurai, had issued a notice on 18.7.2012 stating that the first respondent should get planning permission and approval for the building from Local Planning Authority within 15 days, failing which action will be initiated under Sections 56, 57 and 88 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and a show cause notice was issued by the Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Madurai which was challenged in W.P. No. 10303 of 2012 and interim stay was granted by this court. (The writ petition was allowed along with connected matters on 2.11.2012 by this Court.).
(i) The District Collector, having not considered the application seeking ''C'' Form licence for running the cinema theatres, the first respondent filed W.P. No. 10325 to 10329 of 2012 and prayed for a direction to the District Collector to grant ''C'' Form licence to run five theatres. The said writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 26.7.2012 directing the District Collector to consider the applications submitted by the first respondent dated 4.4.2012 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of ten days. The District Collector thereafter passed the order dated 30.8.2012, rejecting the applications seeking grant of ''C'' Form licence.
(j) The said order dated 30.8.2012 rejecting ''C'' Form licence was challenged before the learned single Judge stating various grounds, principally contending that the Chairman of the Local Planning Authority, in exercise of powers u/s 91A(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, had delegated the power to the Madurai Local Planning Authority, i.e., Commissioner of Madurai Corporation, to grant planning permission to all the buildings in Madurai Corporation, which satisfy all the rules in force by its proceedings dated 30.12.1993. Therefore, the District Collector was not justified in contending that the building was not constructed after obtaining planning permission from the competent authority.
(k) The delegation of power to grant approval of planning permission to the Madurai Corporation was in force till 14.6.2010 and the first respondent got planning permission for construction of basement with ground + 4 floors on 22.5.2007 and got revised planning permission for 5th and 6th floors on 29.12.2009. The District Collector, who is the Chairman of the Local Planning Authority, by proceedings dated 23.9.2010 having granted NOC and plan approval for construction of five cinema theatres on 24.2.2011, rejection of ''C'' Form licence for running of five cinema theatres is improper.
(l) The Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services had already granted licence bearing No. 6/2012 on 5.1.2012 and the building having been constructed as per the approved plan and without any deviation, rejection of ''C'' Form licence is not legally sustainable and prayed for setting aside the order and for issuing a direction to issue ''C'' Form licence.
The said writ petition was resisted by the District Collector, who is the Licensing Authority, by filing counter affidavit contending as follows:
(i) The first respondent applied for building plan approval for five Mini Cinema Theatres on 29.9.2010 and reports were called for from the Special Chief Engineer, PWD, Planning and Design Circle, Chennai, who submitted his report on 22.10.2010 and Electrical Inspectorate, Madurai, submitted his report on 15.2.2011. Consequently, the building plan for five mini Cinema Theatres was approved by order dated 24.2.2011.
(ii) The first respondent applied for issuing permanent ''C'' Form licence on 4.4.2012, for which report was obtained from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, on 19.4.2012 and structural soundness certificate was obtained from the Superintendent Engineer, PWD on 28.11.2011 and certificate in Form D issued by the Electrical Inspector was issued on 2.4.2012.
(iii) It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the District Collector also called for a report from the Member-Secretary, Local Planning Authority on 7.8.2012, stating that the Multi-Storeyed Building/shopping complex was constructed without proper approval from the Local Planning Authority and without obtaining prior permission from the Director of Town and Country Planning. The said order was challenged by the first respondent and obtained interim stay.
(iv) It is further stated that the entire building was not left with requisite height of the building i.e., 9 mtrs on all sides, and no requisite side set back area was provided. The report of the Deputy Director of the Fire Rescue Services, Southern Region, Madurai, dated 28.8.2012 pointed out certain lacuna and the DGP/Director of Fire and Rescue Services, Chennai, had issued Fire Licence No. 6/2012 on 5.1.212 with certain conditions viz., to obtain specific exemption certificate from the competent authority for not possessing the required set back area, though Planning Permission was granted by the Madurai Corporation.
(v) As theatres are going to be housed in 5th and 6th floors of the shopping complex, all safety precautionary measures laid down in the rules should be strictly followed. The said fact was reported by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Planning and Design Circle, Chennai.
(vi) It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the first respondent, even though submitted all relevant documents, NOC, approved plans for issuing permanent ''C'' form licence, from the report obtained from the Department officials, it is clear that the building lacks safety measures, i.e., in case of emergency, the building do not possess any evacuation route plan, considering the number of persons expected to visit the shopping complex in the ground + four floors as well as to the Cinema theatres in 5th and 6th floors and other aspects concerning free movement of persons and vehicles. The space required to facilitate rescue operations is not available at 5th and 6th Floors. Therefore the ''C'' form licence request was rejected.
(vii) It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the car parking provided in the underground area may be sufficient for the people visiting the shopping complex, however the entry and exit for the vehicle are one way and narrow. Hence, the vehicles can move one by one from ground level to underground level for parking. The Building has open projection at the entrance at the ground level and also at three sides of the building causing obstruction for free movement of the vehicles from the buildings. Thus, free flow at the time of emergency is not at all possible.
(viii) It is also stated that all the exits in the cinema halls and Mall leads to front portion of the Mall, as there is no exit on the sides of the Mall. In case of fire accident it would be a major disaster and the fire engine cannot come inside as there is no possibility of moving the fire engine towards sides of the building, including the backside.
In the light of the said stand taken by the District Collector in the counter affidavit, Advocate Commissioners were appointed on 15.10.2012 to verify the approved plan and file a report as to whether the fire safety measures have been properly incorporated; whether proper facility for evacuation of the theatre coming public in the event of emergency; whether there is access to the fire service personnel and rescue vehicles in case of emergency and to report; and whether the ground floor has facility for free flow of vehicle, men and women. The Advocate Commissioners were directed to ascertain the said facts in the presence of the officers of the Fire and Rescue Services.
As directed by this Court, the Advocate Commissioners inspected the building and filed a report stating that as per the approved plan, building has been constructed and all the safety measures have been incorporated. The only deviation is, absence of lift at the rear side of the Theatre No. 3. During Inspection, when the Advocate Commissioners enquired about the adequacy of the stair-cases from Floor No. 5, they were informed by the fire service personnel that already suggestions were given to provide stair-ways so as to deal with the emergent situation, in case of fire, as with the available stair-ways 1, 2 and 3, it may not be possible to evacuate public in the event of any untoward incident happens, that too, with the available step width of stair-ways only three persons in a row can move without rubbing shoulders. It was found that the available facilities are inadequate for evacuation of the public. It is further stated in the report that the building has huge main entrance and the fire service personnel can gain entry into the building in emergency situation. Between compound wall of the building and main wall of the building, the building has been extended by the cantilevers beams. Hence the rescue vehicles like skylifts will be of no use and ladders may not be of much use and the fire service authorities replied that with the availability of external stairways on both sides, evacuation could be done manually. In respect of movement of the vehicles in the basement No. 1 and 2, the building has ramp width of 49 mtrs and unlike fire service vehicles, small vehicles can move in and out freely. However, free flow of vehicles from the basement in the event of vehicles struck on either of the ramp like breakdown, is not ensured. The ramp width of 4.80 mtrs is not adequate as the building has single entry and exit at one side for the cars to be parked at basement No. 1 and 2 as on other sides of the building are closed with compound wall. The three stairways are inadequate to undertake fire fighting and rescue operations by the fire service personnel as the rescue vehicles cannot be pressed into service, as there are private buildings on north, west, south sides of the main building. There is an Indian Oil Corporation Petrol outlet located at the northern side of the building with tank capacity of 15,000 ltrs, which will add to danger in the event of fire at the main building. The distance between fuel tank at the petrol station and northern wall of the main building is 8.7 mtrs. Fire fighting vehicles of the Fire Service Department fail to negotiate to turn at the western corner of the building due to presence of the pillar. The first respondent informed that it is possible to provide additional stairway and remove the pillar, which hinders free movement of vehicles at basement No. 2.
During hearing of the writ petition this Court appointed an Expert Body, by appointing the Joint Director (Training and Rescue Operation), State Training Centre, Tambaram, Chennai-47, to inspect the Multi-storeyed Shopping Complex for the purpose of finding out fire safety, provided in the said building and to note down the fire safety measures provided in the building and also to make any additional suggestions for further safety measures. The said Officer inspected the premises and filed a report stating that in the building, fire and life safety measures are sufficient.
Accepting the report of the Expert, the learned single Judge set aside the impugned order dated 30.8.2012 and allowed the writ petition with direction to issue ''C'' Form licences for running cinema theatres, within a week. The said order is challenged in this writ appeal by the Licensing authority and the Member-Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Madurai.
During the hearing of the writ appeal, a Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order on 7.3.2013, which reads as follows:
Going by Rule 53(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Rules, 1957, this Court directs the revenue authorities along with Police Department, the authorities of Planning Department, Fire Services Department and Public Works Department to inspect the building and suggest whether the existing measures are sufficient or further measures are to be provided for.
Learned counsel for the first respondent produced a plan which seeks to have two more staircases in the sites.
The authorities may find out whether such extra measures would satisfy the safety norms or further steps are to be taken and if so, the same may be worked out and a report be submitted before this Court to that end by the first appellant-District Collector by 14.3.2013.
Post on 14.3.2013.
Based on the said interim order, inspection was conducted in the presence of the representative of the first respondent, officials of the PWD, LPA, Fire and Rescue Department, Traffic Police of Madurai Municipal Corporation. The District Collector, Madurai, filed a report stating that during Joint inspection, the first respondent suggested that it will provide two external stair-cases connecting 5th and 6th floor Cinema Halls and the ground floor for evacuation purpose. The Executive Engineer, PWD and Deputy Director, Fire and Rescue services, Madurai were requested to make suggestions about the feasibility of the proposal and a drawing was submitted by the first respondent, for which the Deputy Director, Fire and Rescue Services, gave a suggestion that in case of external stair-case, the guidelines contained in the National Building Code of India, 2005, are to be followed and the first respondent undertakes to provide steel stair-cases and the said steel structure stair-cases can withstand heavy fire only for two hours. It is further stated in the report that the District Collector of Madurai also sent a letter on 21.3.2013 to the Engineer in Chief/Chief Engineer (General) and Chief Engineer (Building) PWD, Chennai, requesting to make arrangements for scrutiny of drawings proposing additional structures as submitted by the first respondent and give a report and the said report is awaited.
The Member-Secretary, Local Planning Authority, has stated that the Planning Permission and the Building permission was granted to the Mall in violation of the rules and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the concerned official and action is also taken to cancel the building permission. The Deputy Director, Fire and Rescue Services, Madurai has stated that only after completion of the construction of external stair-cases he can give opinion with reference to evacuation, after physical verification. The Member-Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Madurai further stated that as per norms fixed in the Development Control Rules, the building should accommodate 283 four wheelers, whereas only 65 four wheelers can be accommodated in the building. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Traffic, stated that adequate car parking should be provided, otherwise the excess cars will cause hindrance to free flow of traffic and road users. Thus, the first respondent must provide the additional stair-cases as per the National Building Code of India, 2005 and satisfy the requisite standards of safety and evacuation to be ascertained by Fire and Rescue Services Department and also provide adequate parking facilities.
The first respondent has filed an undertaking affidavit in the writ appeal stating that it is agreeable to provide two stair-cases on north eastern and south eastern side of the Mall in the front side as per the suggestions and specification made by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Chennai dated 25.4.2013 and the Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Department, Southern Region, Madurai, dated 5.6.2013.
The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the District Collector/Licensing Authority is an appealable order before the Commissioner of Land Revenue and a further revision is also provided before the Government. Thus, entertaining the writ petition while effective alternate remedies are available as per the statute, is not proper and the learned single Judge was not justified in issuing a positive direction to issue ''C'' Form licence before compliance of safety norms, which are prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955.
The learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent on the other hand submitted that the District Collector, who is the Licensing Authority having issued NOC and granted approval for the building plan for construction of 5th and 6th floors to accommodate five cinema theatres, is not justified in rejecting the request of the first respondent seeking ''C'' Form licences to run the theatres even after the approval granted by four agencies viz., PWD, Fire Service Department, Traffic Police and Local Planning Authority. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that even if alternate remedy is available, this Court can entertain the writ petition and there is no total bar. The first respondent having invested huge amount for construction of five theatres after getting NOC and planning permission, cannot be denied of ''C'' Form licences. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the objection regarding approval obtained from the incompetent authority for the construction of Mall is unsustainable as the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation was delegated with power to grant Planning Approval by order dated 30.12.1993 in terms of Section 272 of the Madurai City Municpal Corporation Act, 1971, and Section 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the said permission for approval having not been cancelled, the same is binding on all the authorities, including the District Collector. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the first respondent is willing to comply with the safety measures as suggested by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Chennai and also willing to remove the pillar, which is obstructing the free movement of Fire Service vehicles and after complying with the said two conditions, the District Collector may be directed to issue ''C'' Form licences.
We have perused the entire materials on record and considered the rival submissions.
The issue arises for consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether the first respondent was justified in rejecting the request of the appellant seeking ''C'' Form licence to run five mini Theatres under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955.
The five mini cinema theatres are constructed at the 5th and 6th floors of the building constructed in the property comprised in T.S. No. 934/1, 2, 5, 8, 10 and 934/12 (part) in Gokhale Road, Chockikulam, Madurai. M/s. Sri. Vignesh Promoters, the vendors of the first respondent promoters applied for planning permission to the Commissioner of Madurai Municipal Corporation for basement, ground + four floors, out of which the basement area is earmarked as car parking area and ground floor to 4th floor are earmarked as shopping complex/shopping mall. The planning permission was granted on 22.5.2007. The Vendor promoter also paid LPA charges of Rs. 2,15,700/-. The first respondent constructed the Multi-storeyed shopping complex as per the approved plan. While the construction was in progress, it applied for planning permission to construct 5th and 6th floors, which are earmarked for five mini cinema theatres. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation by order dated 29.12.2009 issued revised planning permission for such construction. As the 5th and 6th floors are meant for cinema theatres, the first respondent applied for NOC and plan approval from the District Collector, who is also the Chairman, Local Planning Authority, Madurai, u/s 5A(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. The said section reads as follows:
5-A. Licensing Authority to permit construction and reconstruction of buildings, installation of machinery, etc. for cinematograph exhibitions - (1)(b) to use any site for constructing a building thereon for the exhibition of cinematograph films.
The first respondent by proceedings dated 23.9.2010 granted NOC for such construction and after getting approval from the Special Chief Engineer of PWD, Planning and Design Circle (Buildings), Chepauk, Chennai, and after getting approval of the Electrical Inspectorate, TNEB, Madurai regarding drawings of wirings, the District Collector by proceedings dated 24.2.2011 granted plan approval for the construction of five mini cinema theatres. The first respondent, after getting plan approval constructed five cinema theatres in the 5th and 6th floors and after completion of the construction, the first respondent applied for structural soundness certificate individually for all five theatres. Approval was also obtained from the Chief Electrical Inspectorate on 19.12.2011.
For exhibiting the films in all five theatres, which were named as Inox Screen-1, Screen-2, Screen-3, Screen-4, and Screen-5, the first respondent has to obtain Form ''C'' licences from the concerned authority viz., the District Collector. The said licence is required u/s 5 of the Act read with Rule 42 and 108 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957. After receipt of the application for the grant of ''C'' Form licences, the District Collector directed the first respondent to produce the details regarding approval of Local Planning Authority for construction of Multi-storeyed Complex, and on the instruction of the District Collector, the Member-Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Madurai, issued notice on 18.7.2012 stating that the first respondent should get planning permission and plan approval for the building from the Madurai Local Planning Authority within 15 days, failing which action will be initiated under Sections 56, 58 and 88 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The first respondent challenged the said notice issued by the Local Planning Authority in W.P. No. 10303 of 2012 and obtained interim stay. The said writ petition was allowed subsequently in batch of cases by order dated 2.11.2012. The writ appeals filed against the common order were also dismissed by this Court today (17.7.2013). As the request for the grant of ''C'' form licences was not considered, the first respondent filed W.P. No. 10325 to 10329 of 2012 and prayed for issuing mandamus to the District Collector to issue ''C'' Form licences for running five theatres. This Court on 26.11.2012 directed the District Collector to consider the applications dated 4.4.2012 seeking grant of permanent ''C'' Form licences for running the theatres and pass appropriate orders within a period of 15 days. The District Collector rejected ''C'' Form licences by order dated 30.8.2012 on two grounds i.e., (1) there is deficiency in fire safety measures as per the report of the Joint Director of Fire Safety, South; and (2) the entire building was constructed without obtaining planning permission from the Local Planning Authority, Madurai.
The grounds stated by the District Collector for rejecting ''C'' Form licences on the ground that permission from the Local Planning Authority, Madurai, has not been obtained and directing the first respondent to obtain the approval, failing which action will be initiated u/s 56 ,58 and 88 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, was quashed by this Court along with the batch of cases, which order was confirmed by this Court. Thus, the said ground stated in the impugned order passed by the District Collector no longer survives.
Insofar as the Fire Safety measures are concerned, it is the contention of the first respondent that it has provided all the fire safety measures as envisaged under the National Fire Safety Code, 2005, and the same is made clear in the report submitted by the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Department, dated 28.8.2012 and 11.10.2012. The building was constructed without deviation. The 5th and 6th Floors where the Cinema theatres are located are constructed without any deviation. The Superintending Engineer, PWD, inspected the building on 18.10.2011 and after satisfaction of the norms prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, granted individual structural soundness certificate to all the five theatres through his proceedings dated 23.11.2011.
On behalf of the District Collector, during the course of the arguments before the learned single Judge it was submitted that it is very difficult to rescue the public in case of fire accident, because all the exits in the cinema halls and the Mall lead to front portion of the Mall, as there is no exit point on the sides of Mall, was rejected by the learned single Judge stating that the certificates were issued only after inspection of the premises.
However, an expert body was appointed by this Court to inspect the Multi-storeyed Shopping Complex for the purpose of finding out fire safety provided in the said building and to suggest additional safety measures, if any, and the said expert body, headed by the Joint Director of Tamil Nadu State Training Centre, Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Department, Tambaram, Chennai-47 submitted its report stating that life safety measures are found to be sufficient as per the National Building Code of India, 2005. The Expert Committee in its report stated as follows:
� Total number of 179 Fire Extinguishers of required types as per IS 2190: 1992 have been provided throughout the building from basement to sixth floor.
� Hose reel hose per 1000 M2 floor area have been provided.
� Wet riser per 1000 M2 floor area and adequate number of hoses have been provided.
� Yard hydrant all around building with 30 M intervals are provided.
� Manually operated fire alarm system to entire building are provided.
� Automatic smoke detection and alarm system to entire building have been provided.
� To feed water supply, one terrace level tank of capacity 20,000 litres and one underground sump of capacity 2,00,000 litres have been provided exclusively for the fire fighting purpose.
� To charge the wet riser, two electric pumps and one diesel of capacity 2850 LPM and one jockey of capacity 180 LPM have been provided at the underground sump.
� Fire service inlet at ground level has been provided.
The learned single Judge, based on the opinion expressed by the Expert Body, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the District Collector to issue ''C'' Form licences. Not satisfied with the said order this appeal was filed and during pendency of the appeal an interim order was passed by this Court on 7.3.2013 and directed the Revenue Authorities along with Police Department, Authorities of Planning Department, Fire service Department and Public Works Department to inspect the building and to suggest whether the existing measures are sufficient or further measures are to be provided for. The learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent also produced a plan to provide two more staircases in the side. The same was also directed to be considered by the authorities and a report was directed to be filed by 14.3.2013. Pursuant to that, a report was filed stating that there is insufficient car parking, insufficient drive-in facilities in basement floor, as per the DCR Norms 283 cars are to be parked in drive away basement 1 and 2.
Insofar as the proposed measures to construct two emergent staircases, it is stated that the Superintending Engineer, PWD, has sent a report to the District Collector on 25.4.2013 in his Lr. No. SE/P& D/AEEIV/0092CE/2013/53/M. In the said report the Superintending Engineer, PWD, has given his opinion to the following effect;
(i) The provision of two staircase one on the southern side of open space and another on the northern side of the open space proposed by the Licensee shall obstruct the free movement of vehicles, as the support members of the proposed steel staircases shall reduce the drive way.
(ii) Also, the provision of one corridor from the proposed staircase on the southern side open space shall certainly reduce the open to sky area. It will affect the rescue operation of the Fire Fighting personnel in times of any emergency.
(iii) Moreover, the two staircases are proposed at the locations, where there are staircases already in existence. Hence the persons, who require to get out of the Auditorium floor in times of any emergency shall assemble only near the staircases in existence, whereas there is no provision of escape at the North East and South East end of the mall.
(iv) Hence, I am of the view that, to avoid any stampede in times of emergency, two staircases as per the requirement of Fire & Rescue Department for fire escape may be provided one at North Eastern side of the mall and another at the South Eastern side of the mall from the theatre floor level to the ground floor (i.e., on the front side) so that the audience from the Auditorium Lobby and also from the Exit Corridor level may use them easily in times of emergency. The staircases may also be connected at all the floors of the mall, wherever possible. The locations of the additional staircases are marked in the indicative sketch.
(v) Further, the staircases suggested now on the North Eastern side and South Eastern Side of the mall shall have direct exit towards, Gokhale Road and do not obstruct the drive way on any side.
(vi) However, the following conditions have to be satisfied by the Licensee,
a. The proposed staircase shall be erected in such a way that there should not be any hindrance to the free flow of vehicles in case of emergency.
b. The arrangement of staircases as suggested by this office has to be got approved from the competent authorities including Fire & Rescue Department before execution.
c. The staircases may be provided either in reinforced Cement Concrete or structural steel members. If it is provided with structural steel members, a coat of intumescent paint, which is capable of protecting steel elements for two hours of fire should be applied on the exposed surfaces of the structural steel members.
On perusal of the above report of the Superintending Engineer, it is evident that two staircases must be provided one at the north-eastern side and another at the south-eastern side of the Mall from the theatre floor level to the ground floor on the front side to move the audience from the auditorium lobby and also from the exit corridor in times of emergency and the staircases must be connected to all the floors, wherever possible and the first respondent shall also satisfy the conditions mentioned in Clause (iv) a, b and c, mentioned above.
In compliance with the said suggestions made by the superintending Engineer, Chennai-5, the first respondent has filed an undertaking affidavit on 17.6.2013, wherein paragraphs 4 and 5 reads as follows:
It is respectfully submitted that the first respondent is agreeable to provide the two staircases on the North Eastern and South Eastern side of the Mall in the front side as per the suggestions and specifications made by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Chennai, bearing Lr. No. SE/P&D/AEEIV/0092CE/2013/153.M, dated 25.4.2013 and the Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Department, Southern Region, Madurai vide his proceedings bearing R.C. No. 2709/C/2013 dated 5.6.2013.
The 1st respondent is filing the present undertaking affidavit agreeing for the suggestions made by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Chennai, bearing Lr. Lr. Lr. No. SE/P& D/AEEIV/0092CE/2013/153.M, dated 25.4.2013 and the Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Department, Southern Region, Madurai vide his proceedings bearing R.C. No. 2709/C/2013 dated 5.6.2013.
In the light of the above said report of the Superintending Engineer as well as the Undertaking Affidavit filed by the first respondent, this writ appeal is disposed of with a liberty to the first respondent to act upon the suggestions made by the Superintending Engineer, Chennai-5, on 25.4.2013 as well as the Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Department, Southern Region on 5.6.2013. The first respondent must see that the pillar/projection, which is obstructing the free flow of movement of vehicles in the basement should be suitably modified, enabling the vehicles to move freely without any obstruction. The first respondent shall file a compliance report after making the above modifications. On filing such compliance report, the District Collector/Licensing Authority is directed to inspect the Multi-Storeyed complex and pass fresh orders on the applications submitted by the first respondent seeking ''C'' Form licences to five theatres, within two weeks therefrom. The order passed by the learned single Judge stands modified to that effect. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.