The Calcutta High Court on Thursday restrained the authorities from acting upon a notice issued by the Fire and Emergency Services Department directing the vacation of certain portions of the Trinamool Congress (TMC)'s Camac Street office over alleged fire safety violations.

Justice Krishna Rao was hearing a petition filed by the TMC challenging the notices issued by the Fire Department following a fire safety audit of the building.

Senior Advocate Kishore Dutta, appearing for the TMC, challenged the notices and submitted that the party was willing to comply with the directions issued by the Fire Department and undertake the necessary fire safety measures.

However, Dutta submitted that under the agreement between the TMC and the owner of the premises, the responsibility for ensuring fire safety compliance was that of the owner.

Advocate General Surajit Nath Mitra, appearing for the State, submitted that the Fire Department had found alleged fire safety lapses during the inspection. He further submitted that the fire safety compliance certificate of the building had expired and had not been renewed.

During the hearing, the Court noted that the petitioners had appeared before the authorities after receiving the initial notice and questioned whether they could not be granted some time to comply with the directions before an order requiring vacation of the premises was issued.

"Can't you give another opportunity to comply within a certain date... if he has already appeared, whether it is proper on the authorities to not give time to comply, before ordering vacating," Justice Rao observed.

The Court further told the State, "It is not an immediate risk, you can give a time for compliance."

The owners of the building, who were arrayed as private respondents, opposed the petition through Senior Advocate Soumya Majumdar. It was submitted on their behalf that responsibility for fire safety compliance fell upon the occupier of the premises.

The private respondents also submitted that they had already issued a notice terminating the lease of the premises.

The Court, however, questioned the apparent inconsistency between the submissions of the State and the private respondents.

"Now contradictory statements are coming from the private respondents and the State," Justice Rao observed.

The Court then questioned how the responsibility for fire safety compliance could be shifted upon the occupier when the owners themselves had stated that the lease had been terminated.

"First you are saying that it was their responsibility, and that you have issued termination notice... how can you shift the burden on the occupier?" the Court asked.

The Court further observed that no notice had apparently been issued to the petitioners alleging violation of the terms and conditions of the lease.

"You have issued no notice on violation of terms and condition of the lease... if you have terminated the lease deed, how can the occupier do anything?" Justice Rao asked.

Taking into account the submissions made by the parties, the Court observed that owing to paucity of time, the matter could not be heard further on Thursday.

The Court accordingly directed that the authorities shall not act upon the vacation notice issued to the petitioners.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 16