Delhi HC relief for Khan Market restaurants
The Delhi High Court has allowed several Khan Market restaurants to continue operating without a fire No Objection Certificate, subject to conditions. In W.P.(C) 5706/2021, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that the restaurants shall not be denied operation only on account of lack of a fire NOC, so long as they maintain an occupation of less than 50 guests at any given point of time.
The Court also took on record the petitioners’ undertaking that they would abide by any other possible mechanism to ensure all fire safety measures as may be directed by the respondent departments. It further directed that if any action is contemplated against the restaurants for want of a fire NOC, the same shall not be given effect to without 30 days’ prior notice, after which the petitioners would be free to take recourse in accordance with law.
The matter formed part of a batch of pleas filed by restaurants operating in Khan Market, including Perch, Yum Yum Cha, Starbucks Coffee, Khan Chacha, Anglow and Sly Granny. The lead matter is titled Perch A Unit of Sunrise F and B Restaurant Pvt Ltd v. NDMC & Ors.
According to the petitioners, they had obtained the requisite licences and approvals from the concerned authorities, which were subject to periodic renewal. In most cases, however, the necessary permissions were recalled on account of non-renewal or non-issuance of licences. Their case was that they did not fall within the definition of an “assembly building” under the Unified Building Bylaws 2016.
The restaurants contended that a building or its part would qualify as an assembly building when it gathers 50 or more guests for amusement, recreation, social, religious, civil and similar purposes, including restaurants. They further argued that the requirement of occupant load factor was being applied inconsistently, since health licences had previously been granted by treating their sitting capacity as below 50 guests, but a different standard was later insisted upon.
Justice Kaurav noted that when notice had been issued earlier in the petitions, a coordinate Bench had directed that no coercive action be taken against the restaurants, and that the interim protection remained in force during the pendency of the matter. The Court also recorded that, in 2024, authorities had been directed to convene a joint meeting to explore a practical mechanism that would allow continuous operation of the restaurants while ensuring compliance with safety requirements. The Court further noted that the restaurants had undertaken to abide by instructions issued for fire safety. It also recorded that the NDMC was working with authorities, including Delhi Fire Services, to ensure adherence to safety guidelines.
At the final hearing, the Court noted a recent NDMC notification stating that it would no longer be mandatory for establishments to maintain a health trade licence if they complied with other applicable requirements. The authority submitted that the requirement of a trade licence had been dispensed with, subject to compliance with other directives. In view of this development, the Court observed that the legal issue concerning renewal of licence on account of lack of fire NOC might not require final adjudication.
Even so, the Court said it had to balance the equities in light of the facts and circumstances noted during the proceedings. Justice Kaurav observed that the shops are situated in one of Delhi’s most prestigious and historically significant commercial areas and that Khan Market is also a heritage market. The Court noted that its iconic architecture, character and culture are well established, and that because of structural constraints, the market has only one feasible entry and exit point for the first and second floors where the restaurants are located.
The Court said there was no reason to disbelieve the petitioners’ submissions. It also noted that the restaurants were ready and willing to abide by all safety measures imposed by government departments. In that backdrop, the Court held that there should be no reason to disallow the petitioners from operating only on account of structural constraints. The Court referred to the area as the “shaan of Delhi.”
The writ petitions were disposed of with protection to the restaurants, but only on the condition that they would not house more than 50 guests at a given time. The Court made it clear that, if this undertaking is breached, the concerned department would be at liberty to take action. However, any such action for want of a fire NOC must still be preceded by 30 days’ prior notice before it is given effect.
