A day after this newspaper reported on how a few clubs that were sealed wrote to the District Collector seeking desealing, claiming that they had obtained the mandatory No Objection Certificate from the fire department, skeletons began to tumble out of the Fire Department’s closet. The Department, on Friday, withdrew the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued to Café CO2 less than three days after it was issued, citing public safety concerns.
The irony is that the NOC was issued a day after the department issued a tough protocol detailing the requirements of fire clearances. It had circulated a detailed notice that highlighted the need for strict adherence to fire safety standards. The circular spoke about steps to be taken for the acquisition and maintenance of NOCs, obligatory inspections, and strict compliance with safety protocols.
While the clubs’ swift move to seek permissions could be in a frantic effort not to lose out on the peak season business, the department’s hurry in granting clearances, especially against the Birch horror, is baffling. The withdrawal of NOC is itself an admission that something is amiss, so why was it granted in the first place?
This development casts a shadow on the credibility of the Fire Department and raises serious questions regarding transparency, compliance with procedures, and the overall effectiveness of the enforcement mechanisms. The fire department, which is traditionally the mainstay of excellence in firefighting, is at risk of losing its reputation as a warrior against fire. While top officers of the department were maintaining that it does not have the jurisdiction of enforcement or sealing premises, this haste in granting NOCs muddies their sincerity. Safety, transparency and proactive compliance cannot be compromised for the sake of business or any other expediency.
What complicates the problem even more is that fire safety is a single aspect of a mesh of violations, including CRZ (Coastal Regulation Zone) infringements, illegal constructions, and misuse of permissions. Activists are correct in stating that it is necessary to have a comprehensive plan instead of concentrating on one issue only, thus leaving an opening for illegal activities to be hidden under the guise of fire safety.
The move of rushing or favouritism might lead to loss of public confidence and attract attention from the judicial authorities, as the High Court is already monitoring the situation closely. Moreover, the Court’s suo moto intervention highlights the need for cautiousness and adherence to rules.
Departments should not be inclined to give priority to tourism or economic revival if that means compromising safety and legality. It is particularly the responsibility of the Fire Department to maintain its moral worth by ensuring that no clearance is given except after thorough inspection and document verification. Making this process open to public view is a must if the organisation wants to get rid of the shameful “corruption” tag that it has recently been associated with.
The district officials should exercise the greatest caution possible, making sure that all necessary permissions—whether structural, environmental, or operational—are secured prior to the granting of a desealing. Taking this kind of all-encompassing stance is what will be a first step towards a cleanup.
The fire department must come clean on this development, because at the end of it all, there has to be accountability. It must bear in mind that there will be blood on the hands of officers who indulge in such dubious clearances or issuing permissions under pressure. It is of the utmost importance to maintain tough standards, follow processes in letter and spirit, and maintain the trust of the public.
