Summary
After the Delhi Master Plan was amended in 2013 to permit residential buildings of 15 m without stilt parking or 17.5 m with it, the appellant sought sanction of a revised plan raising his partly built Defence Colony house to just over 16 m including the stilt. The SDMC withheld sanction for want of Delhi Fire Service clearance. The fire authorities applied high-rise requirements under Rule 27(2) of the Delhi Fire Service Rules, 2010, which covers residential buildings over 15 m. The Court upheld the High Court's refusal to strike down or direct amendment of the rule. Read with the Delhi Development Act, the Master Plan and the building bye-laws, 15 m in Rule 27(2) means 15 m excluding permissible stilt parking. The building was therefore not high-rise, and high-rise fire norms could not be applied. The SDMC was directed to decide the plan afresh within the bye-law timelines.
Issues
- Whether a residential building within 17.5 m including stilt parking, but over 15 m, is a high-rise or multi-storeyed building attracting fire clearance and high-rise fire safety norms under the Delhi Fire Service Act and Rules.
- Whether the High Court should have struck down Rule 27(2) of the Delhi Fire Service Rules or directed its amendment, and what relief was due on the revised plan.
Provisions considered
- Rules 27(2) and 28, Delhi Fire Service Rules, 2010The rule covers residential buildings over 15 m. Read with the Master Plan and bye-laws, it was construed as 15 m excluding permissible stilt parking, so a building of up to 17.5 m with stilt is outside it. The challenge to its validity was rejected. (¶¶ 72, 73, 85, 86, 96)
- Sections 53 and 53A, Delhi Development Act, 1957The Act, the Master Plan and the regulations under it prevail over inconsistent laws, and bye-laws cannot contravene the Master Plan. In the absence of any notified height under Section 2(s) of the Fire Service Act, the Master Plan height is deemed to apply. (¶¶ 26, 47, 69, 84)
- Sections 2(s) and 32 to 35, Delhi Fire Service Act, 2007Special fire safety provisions govern multi-storeyed buildings, whose height is to be prescribed and notified. Since no height had been notified, the Master Plan definition applies, and the appellant's building is not multi-storeyed. (¶¶ 33, 67, 68, 69, 83, 84, 103)
- Clauses 1.3.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.3(b), 7.15.1 and 8.0, Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi, 2016Master Plan height norms apply automatically, and stilt parking is excluded when measuring 15 m for high-rise status. Fire clearance is mandatory only for high-rise buildings, and outside agencies must respond within 15 days or be deemed to have approved. (¶¶ 45, 46, 94, 104, 105)
Held
- In the Master Plan, as amended in 2013 and 2014, buildings up to 15 m without stilt or 17.5 m with stilt are not high-rise. These norms are part of the bye-laws, which must be read with the Master Plan. A building of 15 m and above is high-rise only when measured excluding permissible stilt parking. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47, 82, 103)
- No height for multi-storeyed buildings had been notified under Section 2(s) of the Delhi Fire Service Act, so the Master Plan with the bye-laws is deemed to be the prescription. Rule 27(2)'s 15 m is to be read as 15 m excluding stilt, so only buildings with stilt above 17.5 m are high-rise or multi-storeyed. (¶¶ 69, 84, 85)
- The challenge to Rule 27(2) was misconceived, as height limits may vary by place, and no mandamus lies under Article 226 directing a rule-making authority to amend rules. But the High Court erred in granting no relief and should have moulded relief on the prayer for sanction of the revised plan. (¶¶ 86, 87, 96, 97)
- Construction must meet safety norms applicable to its class, but high-rise rules cannot be applied to buildings that are not high-rise. Fire clearance is mandatory only for high-rise buildings, and the fire authorities lacking long enough ladders is no ground to deny an owner lawful use of his property. (¶¶ 91, 92, 94, 95, 99, 100, 101, 102)
- The SDMC cannot keep the revised plan in abeyance indefinitely or reject it for non-compliance with high-rise fire requirements. It may consult the fire authorities, who must respond with reasons within the bye-law time limit, failing which clearance is deemed granted. A decision must be taken within the bye-law timelines. (¶¶ 104, 105)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. The rejection of the revised building plan is set aside and the SDMC is to decide afresh in light of the judgment, while the challenge to Rule 27(2) stays rejected.