Calcutta High Court Quashes Order Directing TMC To Vacate Camac Street Office Over Fire Safety Violations, Orders Fresh Inspection
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order directing the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) to vacate the 6th and 7th floors of its office at Camac Street, Kolkata, over alleged violations of fire safety requirements.
Justice Krishna Rao held that the Fire and Emergency Services authorities had passed the evacuation order without considering the party's reply to the fire safety notice and without conducting a fresh inspection after the alleged shortcomings were addressed.
The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the reply submitted by TMC and conduct a fresh inspection of the premises after issuing notice to the party.
The Court was hearing WPA No. 24876 of 2026 filed by the All India Trinamool Congress challenging the order dated September 4, 2026, issued by the Director-in-Charge, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services, directing it to vacate the 6th and 7th floors of the building at 9, Abanindranath Tagore Sarani, Camac Street.
The evacuation order had cited non-maintenance and inadequacy of required fire safety measures and stated that the occupancy was unsafe from the perspective of fire and life safety and posed an imminent threat to life and property.
The fire authorities had, in a September 1 notice, alleged that no valid renewed Fire Safety Certificate was found during inspection. Other allegations included construction of a mild steel structure encroaching upon the driveway, storage of LPG cylinders on the 7th floor, improper pump sequencing and absence of firefighting water in the riser system at the 7th floor, only one entry/exit from the office to the internal corridor, and inadequate and non-functional fire alarm and detection systems.
TMC submitted its reply on September 3, stating that the structure had been removed and the driveway was clear. It also stated that the LPG cylinders had been removed from the location mentioned in the notice.
Regarding the firefighting pump, TMC explained that the butterfly valve pertaining to the riser system had been kept in a non-operational position during maintenance, resulting in inadequate pressure at the 7th floor during the inspection, while claiming that the system was otherwise maintained for proper functioning during an emergency.
The party also informed the authorities that there were two entry/exit points from the office to the internal corridor of the 7th floor. It further stated that approximately 60 fire sprinklers and 15 smoke detectors were available on the 6th floor, while the 7th floor had approximately 45 fire sprinklers and 15 smoke detectors.
TMC further expressed its willingness to cooperate with the authorities and comply with all applicable fire and life safety requirements.
Justice Rao noted that the reply was submitted on September 3 and that the impugned order was passed on the very next day.
"In the impugned order, the respondent no. 4 has not dealt with the reply submitted by the petitioner to the hearing notice dated 1st September, 2026," the Court observed.
The Court further noted that the authority had not conducted any inspection after receiving TMC's reply to ascertain whether the deficiencies pointed out in the September 1 notice had been rectified.
"This Court finds that the respondent no. 4 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and without carrying out any inspection after the reply submitted by the petitioner, has passed the impugned order," Justice Rao held.
The Court also rejected the State's objection that the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground that an appeal was available under the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950.
The Advocate General had relied on Section 11-I of the Act and Rule 24 of the West Bengal Fire Services (Fire Prevention and Fire Safety) Rules, 2003, to contend that the impugned order was appealable.
The High Court, however, held that Section 11-I provided an appeal against an order passed under Chapter IIIA of the Act, whereas the impugned order had been passed under Section 37A, which falls under Chapter VI. The Court also held that Section 38, which provides an appeal against orders under Sections 35, 36 or 37, did not apply to an order under Section 37A.
"Considering the above, this Court finds that neither Section 11-I nor Section 38 is applicable to the petitioner for preferring an appeal against the impugned order," the Court held.
The Court ultimately set aside and quashed the September 4 evacuation order.
It directed the Fire and Emergency Services authority to reconsider TMC's September 3 reply and conduct another inspection after issuing notice to the party. If further shortcomings were found, the authority was directed to inform TMC and provide it an opportunity to complete the required fire safety measures.
The Court made it clear that if TMC failed to comply even after such notice, the authorities would be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.