Disposed

Omprakash S/O Shankarlalji Joshi v. School Education Department, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC17 Apr 2015PIL/108/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, disposed of this PIL seeking directions to regulate playschools and pre-nursery schools regarding fire safety measures by basing its decision on the statutory obligations of the local Corporation under the Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Act, 2006.

What the court decided

AI extract

Omprakash S/O Shankarlalji Joshi Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

PIL108-13

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 108/2013

¶5

(OMPRAKASH SHANKARLALJI JOSHI VERSUS SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI & OTHERS)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

- - - - Shri M. Anilkumar, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. B.H. Dangre, G.P. for the R-1 to 3, 5 & 8. Mrs.I.L. Bodade, counsel for the R-4. Shri S.K. Mishra, counsel for the R-6.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND

¶11

A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : APRIL 17, 2015.

¶12

By this petition, which is registered as a public interest litigation, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent nos.1 to 8 to scrupulously implement and follow the Government Circulars dated 03.11.2009 and 03.09.2013 and take action against the erring schools which are running the pre-nursery classes and playschools without taking proper fire protection measures.

¶13

It is stated by referring to the playschool run by the respondent no.7 that the premises is not safe for the school children.

¶14

Mrs. Dangre, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that the playschools and pre-nursery schools do not fall within the definition of “School” under the Bombay Primary Education Act and the Secondary School Code. It is stated that the Government is, therefore, not in a position to take cognizance and regulate the running of the prenursery and playschools by private parties and management. It is stated that the local authorities, i.e. the Corporation, are enjoined with a duty under the provisions of Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Act, 2006 to consider whether the

¶15

PIL108-13

¶16

¶17

playschools are being run in buildings with minimum requirements with fire fighting installations.

¶18

Shri Mishra, the learned counsel for the Corporation, states that as per Schedule-I of the Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Act, 2006, there are separate norms prescribed in respect of minimum requirements for residential buildings and educational buildings. It is stated that these norms are applicable only to the buildings constructed after 08.12.2008. It is stated that for residential building of less than fifteen meres in height, no standards are prescribed, whereas in respect of buildings which are used for educational purposes, the norms are prescribed for buildings which are less than fifteen meters in height. It is stated that the Corporation would ensure that the schools run in buildings which are less than fifteen meters in height adhere to the minimum requirements for fire fighting. It is stated that whenever a complaint is received by the Corporation, the Corporation would look into the matter and consider whether the building in which the school is established, possesses the minimum measures for fire fighting.

¶19

By accepting the statement made on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, which would be binding on the Corporation, we dispose of the public interest litigation with no order as to costs.

¶20

JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

APTE

Omprakash S/O Shankarlalji Joshi v. School Education Department, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Omprakash S/O Shankarlalji Joshi v. School Education Department, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of General Administration, Mumbai and 5 Oth

Cooperative Debts Effected Investors Action Committee Thr. Its President Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Ministery for Cooperation and Ors.

Datta Babanrao Borekar, Member Panchayat Samiti Vs the State of Mah. Thr. the Secty. and Ors.

Mr. Prashant S/O Narayanrao Kimmatkar and Another Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Public Works Department and Another

Vikrant Chandrahas Tawde Vs the Municipal Corporation of City of Thane through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Vanashakti Public Trust and Another Vs Municipal Commissioner, Mcgm and 3 Others

Navakal Newpaper and Navakal Press and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sharad Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vivek Ramchandra Vishwarupe Vs Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, Amravati through Its Registrar and Another

Dilipkumar S/O Asaram Meshram Vs Smt. Swarnalata Bhimrao Ghodeswar, Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara

Anand S/O Sitaram Gondane Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Division, Nagpur and Another

Ku. Vijaya D/O Madhaorao Rajput Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment Dept. Mumbai and 2 Other

Arpit Prakash Nimje Vs the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur

Chandrakant S/O Dayaram Mundhre Vs Director, Directorate of Sericulture (Textile Department), Nagpur and 2 Others