PIL-Khan-Market-watermark Sample Reference

Bar and Bench (www.barandbench.
com)
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______ OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
IN RE:
MANJIT SINGH …PETITIONER
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
INDEX
S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE
1. COURT FEES
2. NOTICE OF MOTION
3. URGENT APPLICATION
4. MEMO OF PARTIES
5. SYNOPSIS/LIST OF DATES
6. WRIT PETITION
(under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in

Public Interest seeking directions qua the
respondents directing them to order closure /
seal restaurants and terraces in Khan Market and
Connaught Place which pose safety risk to the
general public and imperil their right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.)
{Detailed prayers are in the prayer clause of the
petition}
7. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
8. ANNEXURE P-1
(Report dated 23rd February, 2017 in the
Hindustan Times e-paper captioned ‘Is Delhi’s
posh shopping hub Khan Market a disaster
waiting to happen?’) alongwith TRUE TYPED
COPY
Bar and Bench (www.barandbench.com)
9. ANNEXURE P-2
Hindustan Times e-paper captioned ‘After
crackdown on CP rooftop restaurants, is Delhi’s
Khan Market next?’) alongwith TRUE TYPED
COPY
10. ANNEXURE P-3
Hindustan Times e-paper captioned ‘CP building
collapse : NDMC tells Connaught Place shop
owners to get safety certificates.’) alongwith
TRUE TYPED COPY
MANJIT SINGH
19, Nizamuddin West Market,
New Delhi - 110013
through Counsel
Sidharth Gupta, Advocate,
19, Bungalow Road, New Delhi
NEW DELHI
DATED :

IN RE:
versus
COURT FEES

IN RE:
versus
NOTICE OF MOTION
To,
The Nominated Counsel,
Delhi High Court,
New Delhi
Sir,
That the petitioner is filing the abovenoted Petition before this

Hon’ble Court which is likely to be listed on ______ itself or any date
thereafter convenient to this Hon’ble Court.
Kindly acknowledge the receipt of advance copy of the complete
set of the paper book as per rules.
(COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

NEW DELHI
DATED :

IN RE:
versus
To,
The Deputy Registrar,
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi- 110003
Sir,
Will you kindly treat the accompanying petition as urgent in accordance
with the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders.
The grounds for urgency are:
“The petitioner has moved the present petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking urgent directions in the interest of
justice”.
Hence the urgency

NEW DELHI
DATED :

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Public

Interest seeking directions qua the respondents directing them to
order closure / seal restaurants and terraces in Khan Market and
Connaught Place which pose safety risk to the general public and
imperil their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(Detailed prayers wherefor are in the prayer clause of the petition)
MEMO OF PARTIES

s/o Dalip Singh,
New Delhi - 110013
versus
1. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Through its Chairman,
Palika Kendra, Parliament Street, New Delhi
2. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Through its Vice-Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
3. UNION OF INDIA
Through its Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
4. DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, GOVT OF NCT DELHI

Through its Commissioner, Excise,
Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi
5. DELHI FIRE SERVICES, GOVT OF NCT DELHI

Through its Director,
Fire Station, Connaught Place, New Delhi
6. DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE

Through its Chairman.
ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
7. DELHI POLICE
Through its Commissioner of Police,
IP Estate, New Delhi
… RESPONDENTS

NEW DELHI
DATED :

IN RE:
versus
SYNOPSIS / LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS :-

This petition will directly benefit the citizens of Delhi at large. The
petitioner is a public spirited individual who is instituting this writ
petition in the larger interest of the public.
Whereas several eateries/restaurants are operating in the NDMC
Area in posh markets such as Khan Market and Connaught Place. Most
of these eateries/restaurants are situated either on terraces or on the
first floor of these markets with extremely narrow staircases and with
no alternate fire exit/escapes and are therefore a fire risk imperilling
life of the general public thereby impinging on their Right to Life
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Connaught Place : The NDMC had closed 21 terraces in
restaurants in Connaught Place in February, 2017 citing safety
concerns after the wall and roof of the Jain Book Depot building in C-
Block and another vacant building in L-Block had collapsed. The open-
air terraces and restaurants have been reopened in a clandestine
manner.
Khan Market : The entrances to all restaurants in Khan Market
are extremely narrow and have no alternate fire exit and will prove to
be a disaster in case of a Fire Tragedy. Most of the restaurants do not
have a Fire Safety Certificate claiming exemption as being less than 50
seater
Whereas the petitioner has filed this petition, invoking the

extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court, seeking a direction to the
authorities to seal or order closure of all Restaurant establishments
which are running in Khan Market and Connaught Place in
contravention of municipal laws, and without licenses and those which
generally pose a fire risk to the citizenry so that no irreparable loss
may be caused to human life which is the most precious gift of god.
Hence this petition.


IN RE:
versus
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA IN PUBLIC INTEREST SEEKING DIRECTIONS QUA
THE RESPONDENTS DIRECTING THEM TO ORDER CLOSURE /
SEAL RESTAURANTS AND TERRACES IN KHAN MARKET AND
CONNAUGHT PLACE WHICH POSE SAFETY RISK TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC AND IMPERIL THEIR RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. {DETAILED
PRAYERS ARE IN THE PRAYER CLAUSE OF THE PETITION}
TO,
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HER OTHER COMPANION
JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW
DELHI
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Petitioner has no personal interest in the outcome of

the petition. The petition is not guided by self-gain or for the gain of
any other person or institution or body and there is no motive other
that of public interest in filing of the present writ petition.
2. The cause of the writ petition, in the nature of a Public Interest

Litigation arises from the running of the several restaurants/eateries in
posh colonies in the NDMC Area of Khan Market and Connaught Place
wherein there is an inherent safety risk to the life of the general public
visiting these restaurants.
3. That the source of knowledge of the facts alleged in the writ

petition are from the public records and various websites, and news
reports/articles appearing in various news-papers and websites, on the
issue involved in the writ petition.
4. That the petition has been filed for the benefit of public in general
who may be incapable of accessing the court themselves on account
of being not fully/properly equipped, financially as well as legally, and
thus they are in no position to resort to the remedy of 'Public Interest
Litigation' invoking intervention by recourse to Constitutional remedies
such as the present seeking necessary relief and redressal thereof
through it and also being unaware of the legal procedure/technicalities
involved therein.
5. That the institutions/persons likely to be affected by the orders

sought in the writ petition are the municipal authorities (New Delhi
Municipal Council), building authorities (Delhi Development Authority
and the Union of India/Ministry of Urban Development), and the
licensing authorities (Excise Department, Delhi Fire Services, Delhi
Police and the Delhi Pollution Contol Committee) who have been duly
impleaded as respondents in the writ petition and to the knowledge of
the petitioner, no other persons/body/institutions are likely to be
affected by the orders sought in the writ petition.
6. That the Petitioner herein is a public spirited individual and has

the means to pay the costs, if any, imposed by the court and gives an
undertaking to the court in this respect that it shall abide by any
direction in this regard.
7. That several concerned persons have made several

representations to the authorities concerned for remedial action but no
reply or action has been taken with regard to the same. The Petitioner
has not made any representation to the authorities concerned for
remedial action as the orders/reliefs sought in the present petition are

not likely to be granted by them particularly in view of the fact that
they have not done so/and or have already declined to do so despite
representations from various stakeholders.
8. That the Petitioner has in the past not filed any public interest
litigation or letter petition before this Hon’ble Court.
FACTUAL NARRATION
9. KHAN MARKET:
9.1. That so far as Khan Market is concerned, the same is under the
NDMC area of Delhi. Several restaurants/eateries are running on the
first floor of the Khan Market area as well as on their rooftops.
9.2. That most of these establishments only have access from the
narrow middle lane in Khan Market with only one entry-exit stairway
and that too by means of a narrow stairway.
9.3. That almost all of these establishments have no separate and

designated fire exit which can be used to exit the building in case
of any calamity/disaster inter alia in the nature of fires or
earthquakes etc. It is unknown as to what will be the fate of the
persons trapped inside the establishments if by reason of a calamity
the entry staircase is obstructed as there is no alternate fire escape
or point of exit.
9.4. Furthermore, these restaurants have access from the middle lane
which is a narrow service lane, where Fire Engines cannot reach in
case of a fire outbreak.
9.5. That most of the establishments do not possess an NOC from

the Delhi Fire Department on the ground that they are not
assembly buildings under the National Building Code, 2005 and
therefore do not attract Rule 27 of the Delhi Fire Rules, 2010.
9.6. The National Building Code, 2005 defines an assembly building

as follows:
“3.1.5 Group D Assembly Buildings : These shall include any

building or part of building, where number of persons not
less than 50 congregate or gather for amusement, recreation,
social, religious, patriotic, civil, travel and similar purposes; for
example, theatres, motion picture houses, assembly halls,
auditoria, exhibition halls, museums, skating rinks, gymnasiums,
restaurants, places of worship, dance halls, club rooms,
passenger stations and terminals of air, surface and marine
public transportation services, recreation piers and stadia, etc.”
9.7. Rule 27 of the Delhi Fire Rules, 2010 framed under the Delhi Fire
Services Act, 2007 reads thus:
“27. Classes of occupancies likely to cause a risk of fire.

The following classes of occupancies for the purposes of sub-
section (1) of section 25 of the Act shall be construed to likely
cause a risk of fire, namely:-
xxx
(6) All Assembly buildings.
xxx”
9.8. That the classification of 50 persons, as reproduced

heretobefore, is founded on absolutely no intelligible differentia in
the National Building Code while defining assembly buildings. The
interpretation of the law, as it today stands, is to the effect that if a
restaurant is 49 seater then it does not qualify as an assembly
building and therefore does not warrant an NOC from the Fire
Department, however if it is a 50 seater restaurant, it would be an
assembly building and therefore would be an occupancy which is
likely to cause a risk of fire. Therefore, the prescription of 50
persons, being unfounded on any intelligible differentia, is also hit

by Article 14 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be
reconsidered by the authorities.
9.9. That the issues raised above were considered in detail by a

learned Single Judge of this Court in the pronouncement reported
at (2016) 235 DLT 161 Khan Market Welfare Association v.
New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors., wherein in the judgment
dated 27th October, 2016 it was observed in para 43 that “To say
the least, the said first floor flats of Khan Market being used
as restaurants are a disaster waiting to happen.”.
[A copy of a Report dated 23rd February, 2017 in the Hindustan

Times e-paper captioned ‘Is Delhi’s posh shopping hub Khan Market
a disaster waiting to happen?’ has been annexed as ANNEXURE
P-1.]
[A copy of a Report dated 23rd February, 2017 in the Hindustan

Times e-paper captioned ‘After crackdown on CP rooftop
restaurants, is Delhi’s Khan Market next?’ has been annexed as
ANNEXURE P-2.]
9.10. In Khan Market Welfare Association (supra) it was further

observed thus:
“36. The stand in this regard which has emerged is that an

eating house/restaurant, with a seating capacity of less than 50
persons, does not classify as a public place and no permission of
DFS is required for establishment thereof. It has further emerged
that though the norms laid down for such an eating
house/restaurant inter alia is, availability of at least 1.5 sq. mtrs.
of space for each of the upto 50 patrons, but no exercise in
respect thereof also had been done.
37. Taking up of the first of the aforesaid two aspects first, Rule
27 of the Delhi Fire Service Rules under the head “Classes of
Occupancies Likely To Cause A Risk of Fire” lists “all Assembly
buildings” thereunder. The word ‘Assembly’ or ‘Assembly
building’ is neither defined in the Act nor in the Rules. However,
the Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition defines ‘Assembly’ as a
group of persons organized and unified for some common
purpose. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary also defines the
word ‘Assembly’ as a gathering of people. Thus, the word
‘Assembly’ by itself, as commonly understood, does not require
any minimum number. However, the DFS has adopted the
definition of an ‘Assembly Building’ as in the National Building
Code to contend that only a building where more than 50 people
gather qualifies as an assembly building and a building where
less than 50 people gather would not classify as an assembly
building. I wonder, whether a citizen of Delhi, when
choosing a restaurant, knows the difference. For her, a
restaurant is a restaurant, whether the seating capacity
thereof is for 49 or 51 persons and she expects the same
standard of safety in both.
38. I had during the hearing enquired from the counsel for DFS
the reason for treating the occupancy as restaurant with a
seating capacity of 50 or more as likely to cause a risk of fire and
to satisfy the requirements prescribed and not treating a
occupancy, also as a restaurant but with a seating capacity of
less than 50 as not likely to cause risk of fire, when there does
not appear to be any reason for such differentiation. Both remain
places established, run and operated for profit motive, where
members of public collect for eating/drinking. Both are public
places and a restaurant with seating of less than 50 cannot be
treated as a private premises, where the owner and the occupier
is the same, save for occasional guests and which
owner/occupier takes due care of her own safety and is in full
control thereof. In comparison, in a public place, the owner may
be absent herself and the entire place may be occupied by
unsuspecting members of public having no control thereover.
Further, while the owner of a private premises would ensure that
the guests invited by her are not more than can be safely
accommodated, an owner of a public place as a restaurant, for
the sake of maximum profiteering therefrom would be interested
in letting in as many as can be squeezed in and/or are willing to
be squeezed in the premises, as long as they are paying therefor.
xxx xxx xxx
42. The position which emerges is that it is not as if the first floor
flats of Khan Market, permitted to function as restaurants, in
accordance with their size cannot seat more than 50 persons.
They have been found to be capable of seating more than 50
persons. However, the said restaurants fully knowing that they
do not satisfy the norms prescribed for NOC under the Delhi Fire
Service Act and taking advantage of the policy followed by DFS,
of buildings though used for assembly but if of less than 50
persons, not requiring fire clearance, have established
restaurants therein which they themselves claim and have
repeatedly urged before this Court, are a fire trap and fire hazard
and if there is an incident of fire therein, there are no
safety/evacuation measures. This is yet another instance of the
public-private partnership of municipal and police authorities-flat
and restaurant owners showing scant regard for human life.
xxx xxx xxx
44. I had, as aforesaid, during the hearing asked the reason for
exempting restaurants with a seating capacity of less than 50
persons from obtaining clearance under the Delhi Fire Service
Act. Though in the Court, the reason given was that if such
restaurants/eateries were to be included in the scope of Rule 27
of the Delhi Fire Service Rules, the DFS will have a much larger
number of premises to inspect and regulate and which they are
not equipped to do but in the affidavit filed of course, reliance
was placed on the National Building Code. Supreme Court,
in Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu (2000) 7 SCC
425 drew the attention of administrative authorities to the fact
that waiver of requirements regarding fire prevention and fire
fighting measures seriously endanger the occupants, resulting in
the building becoming a veritable death trap.
45. I entertain serious doubts as to the interpretation by DFS of
the Delhi Fire Act and the Delhi fire Service Rules. However
since the aspect involves interpretation of statutory rule
and which has not been raised by either of the parties I
refrain from proceeding further on the aspect. Suffice it
would be to in this petition, to issue a direction for re-
consideration thereof.”
9.11. That since the issues with regard to interpretation of the Delhi
Fire Services Act and the Rules thereunder were not raised by the
parties, the matter in that regard was not decided by the learned
Single Judge as are still res integra.
9.12. That most of these establishments are also serving liquor in open
areas such as terraces and balconies in severe contravention and
gross violation of the excise permissions with them.
9.13. That it is believed that all restaurants/eateries have not installed

the Oil and Grease traps as are required for Restaurants having
seating capacity more than 36 persons prescribed under Entry No.
39(ii) of Schedule I of the Environment (Protection) Rules,
1986 framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
which creates discharge which can have serious ramifications on the
sewers thereby adversely affecting the environment.
9.14. That the structure is more than 50 years old, and with the
overloading of the structures with water tanks and generators, the
foundation is being pressurised and is prone to grave danger.
10. CONNAUGHT PLACE

10.1. That so far as Connaught Place is concerned, it is under the
NDMC area of Delhi. Several restaurants/eateries are running on the
higher floors of these buildings and have balcony areas as well as
rooftops.
10.2. That the buildings in Connaught Place have been duly notified to
be a Grade II Heritage Site by the Heritage Conservation Committee
vide notification no. F.No.4/2/2009/UD/I6565 dated 1st October,
2009.
10.3. That in February, 2017 the roof and wall of a building in C-Block,
Connaught Place above Jain Book Depot had collapsed.
10.4. That in the subsequent week thereto, another vacant building in

L-Block, Connaught Place caved in and collapsed.
10.5. That, immediately in the aftermath of these calamities, the NDMC

closed 21 terraces of the restaurants in the Connaught Place area.
[A copy of the Report dated 23rd February, 2017 in the Hindustan

Times e-paper captioned ‘CP building collapse : NDMC tells
Connaught Place shop owners to get safety certificates.’ has been
annexed at ANNEXURE P-3.]
10.6. That, now the NDMC has given permission to these restaurants
to open the terraces for the limited purposes of cleaning and
removing their items/articles therefrom. However, in the garb of this
limited permission, the restaurants have once again started full
fledged restaurant/commercial operations in these terraces which is
contrary to the limited permission given by the NDMC. Therefore,
commercial operations have resumed on these terraces in a
clandestine manner.
10.7. That in addition thereto these restaurants/bars/eateries are

serving liquor in the balconies or other open areas which is in gross
violation of the excise permissions with them.
10.8. That it is believed that all restaurants/eateries have not installed

the Oil and Grease traps as are required for Restaurants having
seating capacity more than 36 persons prescribed under Entry No.
39(ii) of Schedule I of the Environment (Protection) Rules,
1986 framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
which creates discharge which can have serious ramifications on the
sewers thereby adversely affecting the environment.
10.9. That the structures are more than 50 years old, and with the
overloading of the structures with water tanks and generators, the
foundation is being pressurised and is prone to imminent threat of
collapse and endangering the life of the public.
GROUNDS
A. BECAUSE the negligent attitude and non-compliance of municipal

laws by the restaurants in these areas are impinging on the
Fundamental Right to Life enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
B. BECAUSE the legal maxim “Salus Populi Suprema Lex” which

means ‘let the safety of the people be the highest law’ has
been accepted and applied in the Indian context by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India and is therefore the Supreme Law of the
land.
C. BECAUSE the interest of the general public is paramount and has

to override any consideration for private interests.
D. BECAUSE the municipal authorities are responsible to address

the issues flagged hereinabove under the mandate of the
governing statutes aswell as under Article 243W read with the
Twelfth Schedule to the Constitution of India.
E. BECAUSE human life has to be appreciated and valued and no

one has the right to endanger or imperil the life of another at
any cost, especially when guided by business motices.
F. BECAUSE the definition of ‘assembly buildings’ in the National

Building Code of India is not founded on any intelligible
differentia and ought to be reconsidered / struck down being
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
G. BECAUSE the state is responsible for protection and

improvement of the environment which has to be preserved in
view of the mandate of Article 48A of the Constitution of India.
H. BECAUSE this court possesses the extraordinary writ jurisdiction

to pass orders to safeguard the interest of the people of this
country.
11. That in the aforementioned facts and circumstances it is

necessary, expedient and in public interest that this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and grant the prayers sought for in the present petition.
12. That there is no other equally efficacious alternative remedy for

the reliefs prayed for in the petition.
13. That this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to deal with this matter.
14. That the petitioner has not previously filed a similar writ petition
in this Hon'ble Court, in the Supreme Court of India or in any other
High Court in the territory of India.
15. That the present petition is maintainable and in conformity with

notification No. 451/Rules/DHC dated 25.11.2010 and the Delhi High
Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010.
PRAYER
In the premises of the above narration of facts, it is humbly and

respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus and/or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to
reconsider Clause 3.1.5 in the National Building Code of India,
relating to assembly buildings so far as it prescribes the
qualification of such a building to one only where number of
persons not less than 50 congregate as the same is ultra vires to
Article 14 of the Constitution of India being unfounded on any
intelligible differentia.
OR
Issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus and/or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, striking down Clause 3.1.5
in the National Building Code of India, relating to assembly
buildings so far as it prescribes the qualification of such a building
to one only where number of persons not less than 50
congregate as the same is ultra vires to Article 14 of the
Constitution of India being unfounded on any intelligible
differentia.
close restaurants/bars/terraces on the First Floor in Khan Market
running in contravention of Building Laws as well as Municipal
Laws as well as in contravention of requirements of the various
licenses as well as all of those which are structurally unsafe.

ensure that excise laws are not violated by serving liquor in open
areas by restaurants in Khan Market.
close terraces in Connaught Place running in contravention of
Building Laws as well as Municipal Laws as well as in
contravention of requirements of the various licenses as well as
all of those which are structurally unsafe.
ensure that excise laws are not violated by serving liquor in open
areas by restaurants in Connaught Place
6. Order the creation of a task force comprising of officials from the
NDMC, Delhi Fire Services, Delhi Excise Department, Delhi Police
Licensing Branch the Delhi Pollution Control Committee, aswell
as independent public spirited individuals to conduct random
inspections in these markets and submit reports to this Hon’ble
Court.
7. Such other and further orders and/or directions as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of
the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS SHALL

AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
MANJIT SINGH
New Delhi 110013
through Counsel
NEW DELHI
DATED :


IN RE:
versus
AFFIDAVIT
AFFIDAVIT OF SH. MANJIT SINGH s/o SH. DALIP SINGH,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, r/o 19, NIZAMUDDIN WEST MARKET,
NEW DELHI 110013.
I, the deponent abovenamed, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:-
1. That the deponent herein, is the Petitioner in above captioned
matter and is well conversant with the facts and circumstances
of the case.
2. That the deponent has filed this Writ Petition in Public Interest.
3. That the deponent has gone through the Delhi High Court (Public
Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 and does hereby affirm that the
present Public Interest Litigation is in conformity thereof.
4. That the deponent has no personal interest in the outcome of

the petition and neither the deponent nor anybody in whom the
deponent is interest is interested in would in any manner benefit
from the relief sought in the present litigation save as members
of the General Public.
5. That the petition is not guided by self-gain or for the gain of any
other person or institution or body and there is no motive other
than of public interest in filing the writ petition.
6. The deponent has done all inquiries / investigations which were

in his power to do, and has collected all material which was
available in the public domain and which is relevant for this Court
to entertain the present Petition.
7. That the deponent further confirms that the deponent has not
concealed in the present petition any data / material /
information which may have enabled this Court to form an
opinion whether to entertain this Petition or not and / or whether
to grant any relief or not.
8. That all paras of the annexed Petition are true and correct to the
best of knowledge and belief of the deponent and have been
read over to the deponent in vernacular and are understood by
the deponent to be true and correct.
9. The contents of the annexed Petition may kindly be read as part

and parcel of the said Affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on _______, that the contents of the above affidavit

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing material
has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
ANNEXURE P-1
TRUE TYPED COPY
Is Delhi’s posh shopping hub Khan Market a disaster waiting

to happen?
The incident of roof and front wall collapse of a heritage building in

Connaught Place’s C Block on Wednesday raises serious concerns over
safety of buildings in the iconic 84-year-old market that has been
undergoing a revamp.
The incident of roof and front wall collapse of a heritage building in

Connaught Place’s C Block on Wednesday raises serious concerns over
safety of buildings in the iconic 84-year-old market that has been
undergoing a revamp.
Wednesday’s collapse, which luckily injured no one, also puts a

question mark on the state of all iconic Central Delhi markets in terms
of structural safety.
For example, like Connaught Place, Khan Market, too, is not in the best
of shapes, if traders are to be believed.
For one, overloading on the roofs of various buildings is a major issue

at Khan Market, too. A team from IIT-Roorkee had conducted a survey
on structural safety of the market over 1.5 years ago as part of the
Khan Market redevelopment project. The revamp proposal, however,
is stuck.
“We are scared. Khan Market is in a similar situation, too. With 10,000-
20,000 litre water tanks and generator sets crowding the roofs, we are
in a precarious situation. Every year, the foundation of these buildings
gets weaker and the load has increased manifold posing a grave
danger to these structures.
“Experts from IIT-Roorkee were hired by New Delhi Municipal Council

two years back for advice on retrofittings of the old structures of this
market established in 1950. However, we are yet to see any real
action,” Khan Marker traders’ association president Sanjeev Mehra
said.
There are 156 shops and 74 residential spaces in Khan Market, which
was set up as a neighbourhood market in 1950 and is now one of the
most expensive commercial spaces in the world. Of these 74 residential
spaces on the first and second floors, 44 are engaging in commercial
activities housing 30 restaurants, while another 10 eateries are located
on the ground floor, Mehra said.
The association had in 2013 moved Delhi High Court against the New
Delhi Municipal Council for allegedly not having implemented the
redevelopment plan, which included a fire emergency plan, thereby
putting lives of traders, shoppers and visitors at risk.
The NDMC fire department, before the redevelopment project at

Connaught Place started, had done a survey on the structural safety
of CP buildings too.
“Before the façade restoration, a structural safety survey was done by

the fire department. It was found that many roofs had either turned
into junk yards or been converted into office spaces. Most were being
used to keep generator sets along with petrol and diesel containers to
run these. Notices were issued to such buildings.
“Later, it was found out that the structures built in 1930s were not
vibration proof, especially against the ones caused by generator sets.
More notices were gthen slapped. Some removed their gensets, others
didn’t,” a council official said.
Till 2010, there were only 50 restaurants in Connaught Place. Today,

that number has seen a four-time jump. There are about 500 small
and big shops here, according to the New Delhi Traders’ Association.
No safety inspections are conducted at CP by the New Delhi Municipal

Council and the individual owners have been asked to get experts for
their respective properties and conduct regular repairs.
Some people take expert help from architects and structural engineers,
while others themselves go ahead and conduct unplanned
construction.
ANNEXURE P-2
TRUE TYPED COPY
After crackdown on CP rooftop restaurants, is Delhi’s Khan

Market next?
Khan Market, a favourite haunt in Delhi, may be a disaster waiting to

happen just like the iconic Connaught Place, if experts and traders are
to be believed.
Khan Market, a favourite haunt in Delhi, may be a disaster waiting to

happen just like the iconic Connaught Place, if experts and traders are
to be believed.
The roof of Unplugged Courtyard, a restaurant in L-Block, caved in on

February 10 — a few days after New Delhi Municipal Corporation
(NDMC) banned dining on the terrace in Connaught Place due to safety
concerns. On February 2, a part of the C Block building near the
popular Jain Book Depot collapsed.
The NDMC shut down the rooftop sections of 21 open-air restaurants

after the incident at C Block.
There are 156 shops and 74 residential spaces in Khan Market, which
was set up as a neighbourhood market in 1950 and is now one of the
most expensive commercial spaces in the world.
Of the 74 residential spaces on the first and second floors, 44 are

engaging in commercial activities housing 30 restaurants, while
another 10 eateries are located on the ground floor.
Delhi Fire Service chief GC Mishra said every structure has certain
limitations and overloading the rooftops of these structures are causing
a lot of harm. If you keep loading indiscriminately, then it becomes
unsafe.
“Be it Connaught Place or Khan Market. Any construction, especially

one which is more than 50 years old, with time it’s loading capacity
decreases. If you keep adding floors to these and put generators,
water tanks and mobile towers, they will become vulnerable. Safety is
largely influenced by loading characteristics,” Mishra told HT.
Khan Market was initially meant for shops on the ground floor and
residential flats on the first floor. In 2000, residential flats on the first
floor were converted into commercial complexes. In the past few
years, most restaurants have come up on the first and above floors.
“These were meant for four people. Instead, if there are 40 people,
the load gets multiplied. There is an inadequacy in the law regarding
the number of persons these establishments can cater to,” the fire
chief said.
Restaurants that have a seating capacity of more than 50 need

necessary clearances from the fire department. However, those with a
seating capacity of less than 50 need no such nod from the fire
personnel.
“Most restaurants at Khan Market have got their licenses showing a

seating arrangement of 48 people and thereby are out of the ambit of
the fire department’s jurisdiction. The law needs to be revisited.
Criteria for determining the number of seats should be made
methodically, rather than leaving it up to the restaurants,” Mishra said.
In November last year, Delhi high court directed NDMC to reconsider

its policy that exempts restaurants with a seating capacity of fewer
than 50 persons from obtaining clearance under the Delhi Fire Service
Act, observing that the eateries on the first-floor flats of the market
are a disaster waiting to happen.
“We are working on making changes to the policy so that fire clearance
is made mandatory for all eateries in Khan Market. This is being done
in compliance with high court orders. Inspections are also being done
to check unapproved constructions,” a senior NDMC official said.
In its order in October, the high court directed the NDMC and the Delhi
Fire Service to decide within two months whether the first-floor flats
that can cater to more than 50 persons qualify as “assembly building”
and, if yes, whether these eateries satisfied all requirements, including
fire safety norms.
“NDMC cannot on the one hand assume the power to grant licence for
using the premises as a restaurant/eatery and on the other hand
absolve itself of responsibility to satisfy itself that restaurant does not
pose a fire hazard to the safety of those patronising the same and that
in the event of fire, proper measures for evacuation of the patrons
therein and to prevent the fire from spreading to the entire market,
exist,” the court had said.
Fire officials say Khan Market has over the years become so congested
that reaching there in the time of emergency is also a problem. “Fire
brigade response time will also get hindered due to this. There is no
provision for fire exits, too,” an official said.
The Khan Market Traders association had in 2013 moved Delhi high
court against NDMC for allegedly not having implemented the
putting lives of traders, shoppers and visitors at risk.
A team from IIT-Roorkee conducted a survey on the structural safety

of the market almost 2 years ago as part of the Khan Market
redevelopment project. The revamp proposal, however, is stuck.
“We are scared. Khan Market is in a similar situation, too. Every year,
the foundation of these buildings gets weaker and the load has
increased manifold posing a grave danger to these structures.
“Experts from IIT-Roorkee were hired by New Delhi Municipal Council

two years back for advice on retrofitting of the old structures of this
market established in 1950. However, we are yet to see any real
action,” Khan Market traders’ association president Sanjeev Mehra
said.
There are 156 shops and 74 residential spaces in Khan Market
Khan Market was set up as a neighbourhood market in 1950
It is one of the most expensive commercial spaces in the world
Of the 74 residential spaces on the first and second floors, 44 engage

in commercial activities house 30 restaurants.
Another 10 eateries are located on the ground floor
Khan Market was initially meant for shops on the ground floor and
residential flats on the first floor
In 2000, residential flats on the first floor were converted into

commercial complexes
In the past few years, most restaurants have come up on the first and
above floors
Fire officials say Khan Market has over the years become so congested
that reaching there in the time of emergency is also a problem
The Khan Market Traders association had in 2013 moved Delhi high
court against NDMC for allegedly not having implemented the
putting lives of traders, shoppers and visitors at risk
ANNEXURE P-3
TRUE TYPED COPY
CP building collapse: NDMC tells Connaught Place shop

owners to get safety certificates
The action comes after a portion of the building in C-Block that houses
Jain Book Agency collapsed on February 2 and then a part of the roof
of Cafe Unplugged caved in on February 10. New Delhi Municipal
Council has told shop owners to engage structural safety engineers to
get the audit done.
The New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) has asked all shop owners
in Connaught Place to get safety certificates from structural engineers.
“This will include self declaration by the owners and attestation by the
structural engineer that the particular shop space doesn’t deviate from
the sanctioned building plan and items on rooftop are there with
necessary permission,” an NDMC official said.
In case, any building is found dangerous further action will be taken

as per provisions of NDMC Act 1994 in this regard.
The council has also formed 15 teams to take stock of condition of the
buildings in Connaught Place to prevent any collapse like the two
incidents which took place on February 2 and 10.
The teams, consisting of technical officers of different departments,

will work under the overall supervision of chief engineers, chief
architect, director and medical officer of health. The teams will submit
their report within two days.
“They will carry out visual inspection of the buildings to identify the
structural stress, if any, and inspect the rooftops terrace of each
premise, list out utilities like water storage (capacity), generators and
other stacked material. Tentative estimate of load on each premises
will also be assessed and signs of seepage or other factors leading to
building deterioration will be identified,” an official said, adding that

the current use of the premises will also be inspected.
The council actions come after the roof of Unplugged Courtyard, a

restaurant in L-Block, caved in on February 10 — a few days after
NDMC had banned dining on the terrace in Connaught Place due to
safety concerns. Earlier, on February 2, a part of the roof in C block
near the popular Jain Book Depot had also collapsed, raising concerns
regarding safety of this 84-year-old shopping hub.
After the first incident, the NDMC had also shut down the rooftop
sections of 21 open-air restaurants. Unplugged Courtyard was on that
list too, along with My Bar Headquarters, Warehouse Cafe in D-block,
The Vault Cafe in F-block, Kinbuck-2 and Kitchen Bar in C-block, Lord
of the Drinks, Open House Cafe, Jungle Jamboree, Boombox Cafe,
Farzi Cafe, House of Commons, Hotel Palace Heights, Office Canteen
Bar, Luggage Room, Cafe OMG, Barbeque Nation, TC Bar &
Restaurant, Teddy Boy Restaurant and The Niche Restaurant and Cafe
Public Connection.
Earlier on Monday, the NDMC suspended four engineers for dereliction

of duty resulting in the two incidents. According to senior officials, they
were responsible for monitoring the Connaught Place area.

PIL-Khan-Market-watermark Sample Reference

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PIL-Khan-Market-watermark Sample Reference

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bar and Bench (www.barandbench.

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

(under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

That the petitioner is filing the abovenoted Petition before this

(COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

(COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Public

MANJIT SINGH …PETITIONER

1. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

2. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

4. DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, GOVT OF NCT DELHI

5. DELHI FIRE SERVICES, GOVT OF NCT DELHI

6. DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE

(COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

SYNOPSIS / LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS :-

Whereas the petitioner has filed this petition, invoking the

Hence this petition.

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner has no personal interest in the outcome of

2. The cause of the writ petition, in the nature of a Public Interest

3. That the source of knowledge of the facts alleged in the writ

5. That the institutions/persons likely to be affected by the orders

6. That the Petitioner herein is a public spirited individual and has

7. That several concerned persons have made several

remedial action as the orders/reliefs sought in the present petition are

9.3. That almost all of these establishments have no separate and

9.5. That most of the establishments do not possess an NOC from

9.6. The National Building Code, 2005 defines an assembly building

“3.1.5 Group D Assembly Buildings : These shall include any

“27. Classes of occupancies likely to cause a risk of fire.

9.8. That the classification of 50 persons, as reproduced

persons, being unfounded on any intelligible differentia, is also hit

9.9. That the issues raised above were considered in detail by a

[A copy of a Report dated 23rd February, 2017 in the Hindustan

[A copy of a Report dated 23rd February, 2017 in the Hindustan

9.10. In Khan Market Welfare Association (supra) it was further

“36. The stand in this regard which has emerged is that an

9.13. That it is believed that all restaurants/eateries have not installed

10. CONNAUGHT PLACE

10.4. That in the subsequent week thereto, another vacant building in

10.5. That, immediately in the aftermath of these calamities, the NDMC

[A copy of the Report dated 23rd February, 2017 in the Hindustan