KOCHI: District Collector K. Mohammed Y. Safirulla on Thursday ordered the suspension of operation of multiplex screens at Centre Square Mall on M.G. Road on the grounds that they were functioning without the No Objection Certificate (NOC) of the Fire and Rescue Services Department.
In his order issued to the Corporation Secretary, Mr. Safirulla said the civic body should take steps to suspend the operation of the screens till further orders. The Collector, who is also the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA), issued the order invoking Sections 30, 33, 34, and 51 (b) of the Disaster Management (DM) Act.
The Collector said as DDMA Chairman, it was his responsibility to avoid circumstances leading to potential disasters.
The action was taken on the basis of reports submitted by the Fire and Rescue Services Department Divisional Officer and the Kochi Corporation. The company had sought NOC from the department for constructing a 53.30-metre-tall building for commercial and housing purposes. The applicant had also said that up to the height of 28.60 metres, the building would be used for commercial purposes.
While the department issued NOC based on these submissions in the application, the company allegedly effected changes in the plan and secured permit for construction in the assembly section directly from the corporation.
In his order, the Collector pointed out that as many as 11 screening halls of 40.60-metre height, categorised under the assembly occupancy section, functioned in the building. According to the National Building Code of India - 2005, the permissible height was 30 metres, and the assembly occupancy could not be allowed beyond that limit.
It was pointed out that any mishap in the multiplex with a combined seating capacity of 1,675 would lead to a serious disaster. The Collector had issued notice for hearing the company based on the report of the Divisional Officer. Though the company officials appeared for hearing on September 27 last year, no documents were produced on securing permission for operating multiplex screens in the assembly occupancy section.
The Collector had then issued notice to the corporation, directing it to take immediate action. However, the Corporation Secretary had responded that the civic body had the right to issue cinematography licence on the applicant’s own risk without fire NOC and even cited a High Court order to that effect.
Subsequently, the Collector sought legal opinion from the Advocate General based on the reports of the Fire Divisional Officer and the Corporation Secretary. The Advocate General drew attention to the verdict of the Supreme Court on the Upahar cinema fire case and its severe criticism of the theatre owners.
He further said that the corporation’s right, as claimed by the Secretary, was linked to the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, and that it did not stop the Collector from taking action.
