The legal battle of Rahul Jain v/s Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others surrounding the installation of cantilevered stack parking spaces in Mumbai highlights significant concerns regarding fire safety, public safety, and adherence to development control regulations. This case, filed by an individual petitioner, primarily focuses on the dangers posed by stack parking structures, which were added to accommodate additional parking spaces required due to the construction of two new floors in a housing society.
Background:
The petition was initiated by a medical practitioner who raised concerns about the installation of cantilevered stack parking in the RBI Employees Ashish Co-operative Housing Society, located in Borivali, Mumbai. The stack parking, although intended to resolve the parking issues created by the additional floors, has created several hazards, both to the residents of the society and the general public. The parking spaces obstruct the entrance driveway and, more critically, impede access for fire-fighting vehicles—an issue that has gained considerable attention in light of safety concerns.
The Core Issue:
The central issue raised in the petition is the substantial safety risk posed by the stack parking system. The petitioner argues that the system, although approved by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and the Fire Safety Department, presents serious fire safety concerns, particularly the inability of fire engines to access the building in case of an emergency. The Chief Fire Officer of MCGM admitted that no fire tender could pass under the cantilevered stack parking, raising serious doubts about the adequacy of fire safety measures in the building.
In its order, the Court dismissed the MCGM's argument that fire safety measures could be relaxed for buildings under 13 floors, emphasizing that public safety cannot be compromised based on a building’s height. The Court also rejected the argument that financial considerations, such as the collection of premiums, could justify violations of safety norms.
Legal Framework and Public Safety:
The Court referenced Regulation 6 of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034, which grants discretionary powers to the Municipal Commissioner. However, the regulations specify that any relaxation of requirements, including those for fire safety, must not endanger the health or safety of building inhabitants or the neighborhood. The Court made it clear that the stack parking system, which obstructs fire and emergency vehicle access, is a violation of these regulations.
It is significant that the Court made the point that "demonstrable hardship"—one of the conditions for relaxing building norms—cannot be equated to financial losses for developers. Instead, hardship must be rooted in genuine safety concerns, and in this case, the compromise on safety posed by the stack parking system cannot be justified by any financial or operational hardship.
Court's Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, issuing a writ of mandamus that directs the MCGM to remove the seven mechanized cantilevered parking spaces. The MCGM has been given the responsibility of notifying the society's owners about this directive, which is aimed at ensuring compliance with safety regulations. Additionally, the Court noted that the removal of the stack parking could affect the legitimacy of the additional floors constructed by the developer. However, the Court made it clear that the occupants of these floors could seek an alternative parking solution through proper channels.
The ruling also pointed out that although the stack parking system has obstructed access to the petitioner’s consulting rooms, the Court’s concern was primarily centered around the broader public safety and fire safety issues posed by the parking system, rather than the petitioner’s individual access.
Conclusion:
This case serves as a reminder that urban planning and construction must not only focus on providing amenities but also ensure compliance with essential safety norms, particularly when it comes to fire safety and public welfare. The Court’s decision reiterates that legal frameworks such as DCPR are not merely technical regulations but are grounded in protecting human life and safety. In an ever-growing city like Mumbai, where space is limited, the Court’s ruling is a call to action for both developers and municipal authorities to prioritize the safety and well-being of citizens over financial or logistical convenience.
This case also emphasizes the need for vigilant enforcement of building regulations, as well as a strong commitment to ensuring that safety standards are met without compromise. Going forward, developers and societies must consider not just the financial and practical implications of new constructions but also their impact on safety, accessibility, and emergency services.
