Order Of Evacuation Under Sec 37A WB Fire Services Act Must Reflect Application Of Mind To Petitioner’s Reply: Calcutta High Court

"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." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, set aside an order directing the evacuation of a commercial premises, holding that statutory authorities must address specific representations made by occupiers regarding fire safety compliance before initiating drastic measures.

A bench of Justice Krishna Rao observed that the failure to consider a detailed reply, coupled with a lack of follow-up inspection to verify claimed rectifications, renders an order under Section 37A of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950, unsustainable in law.

The petitioner, a lessee occupying the 6th and 7th floors of a building in Kolkata, challenged an order issued by the Director-in-Charge of Fire and Emergency Services directing them to vacate the premises due to alleged fire safety violations. The petitioner had received a show-cause notice on 1 September 2026 and submitted a detailed rebuttal on 3 September 2026, claiming that many of the cited shortcomings had been rectified. The Director passed the impugned evacuation order on 4 September 2026, without formally acknowledging or addressing the contents of the petitioner’s reply.

The primary question before the court was whether an evacuation order under Section 37A of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950, can be passed without considering the occupant's response to an initial show-cause notice. The court was also called upon to determine whether such an order is appealable under the existing statutory framework and whether the authority is required to conduct a fresh inspection after the occupant claims to have remedied the fire safety defects.

Maintainability of the Writ Petition

The court first addressed the objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The State argued that the order was appealable under Section 11-I of the Act of 1950. However, the court clarified that Section 11-I applies only to orders passed under Chapter IIIA. Since the impugned order was passed under Section 37A, which falls under Chapter VI, the court concluded that the specific appellate remedies under Section 11-I or Section 38 were not applicable, thereby rendering the writ petition maintainable.

Failure to Apply Mind

The bench emphasized that the petitioner had provided a point-by-point rebuttal to the allegations, including the removal of obstructions and LPG cylinders. By ignoring these submissions and issuing the order within one day of the reply, the authorities failed the test of fairness.

"The respondent no. 4 has not dealt with the reply submitted by the petitioner to the hearing notice dated 1st September, 2026."

Absence of Follow-up Inspection

The court underscored that in matters of public safety, authorities should verify the claims of compliance through a physical inspection rather than merely relying on preliminary reports. The petitioner had expressed readiness to cooperate and install necessary equipment, yet the authorities chose to proceed with evacuation without assessing the current ground reality.

"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."

Right to Opportunity for Rectification

The court held that where an occupier disputes the allegations of unsafe conditions and proposes remedial measures, the authorities are obligated to grant a reasonable opportunity for such rectification. Arbitrarily invoking powers of evacuation without granting time to comply with statutory norms constitutes a denial of justice.

"The petitioner is ready and willing to comply with all the requirements for the purpose of fire safety of the said premises, the respondent no. 4 ought to have granted time to the petitioner to comply with all the requirements to install fire safety equipments."

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the evacuation order and directed the Director-in-Charge to reconsider the petitioner's reply dated 3 September 2026. The authority is mandated to conduct a fresh inspection of the premises, and if shortcomings persist, the petitioner must be granted a specific timeline to rectify the same before any coercive action is taken.

Date of Decision: 16 September 2026