If you can issue 400 GRs, can't a fire safety committee be set up in 3.5 months? Bombay High Court to Maharashtra government

The Bombay High Court on Monday ordered the State of Maharashtra to produce relevant records to assess the progress on enforcement of fire safety regulations in buildings which are vulnerable to man-made disasters..A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik took exception to the fact that a committee, which was to be set up in this regard, had not yet been constituted despite the passage of more than 3.5 months since the last order of the Court.“Three and half months is not enough for setting up committee? There was some urgency in the last one month but what happened before that? We read in newspapers that 400 Government Resolutions were issued, and a simple committee could not be constitituted and lives of people are at stake” CJ Datta said.After examining an affidavit filed by the State setting out the further course of action, Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik retorted that 3 and a half months for setting up of a committee was too ling a time period.The Bench the proceeded to call for relevant records of the files of the State government to see what progress has been made by the State after their last order of April 2022..The stern remarks came in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by lawyer Abha Singh seeking directions to the government for the issuance of the final notification on the Special Regulations for buildings vulnerable to man-made disasters in the DCPR-2034.The regulations were formulated in 2009 in the aftermath of the November 2008 terrorist attack.Through an earlier affidavit filed in April this year, the State had submitted that objections and suggestions had been sought from public on the draft regulations for fire safety issued in 2009.The affidavit indicated the intention of the State to appoint an expert committee for the purpose of ascertaining, based on advancements made in the field of science and technology, as to whether it necessary to introduce the special regulations..The Court had, thereafter, made stern observations against the failure and omission by the State to finalize the special regulations..Special counsel for State Hiten Venegaonkar submitted a fresh affidavit explaining the further course of action that the State intended to undertake.However, advocate Aditya Pratap representing the petitioner, pointed out on Thursday that the entire exercise of issuing a draft special regulation was completed way back in 2009 and the current exercise seemed like an attempt by the State to redo the entire exercise.“We all know the pervasive intent of developers lobby. Even if the committee is set up, the final draft regulations will be set up. What happens to the earlier exercise? There is grave apprehension that state will reject the draft of 2009” Singh argued.