The Karnataka High Court held that private interest must remain subordinate to public safety where inadequate setbacks obstruct movement of fire engines and aerial ladder vehicles during emergency rescue operations.
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by M/s. Vishnu Sri Builders and Developers and upheld a Single Judge’s order that kept a modified sanction plan in abeyance until the builder brought it in line with fire safety setback requirements.
A Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf held that courts cannot protect construction that affects fire vehicle movement, especially when public safety and emergency rescue operations remain at stake.
The Bench delivered the judgment on April 7, 2026, in M/s. Vishnu Sri Builders and Developers v. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike & Ors., Writ Appeal No.1637 of 2025.
The builder filed the writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. It challenged the order dated September 3, 2025, passed by the Single Judge in W.P. No.3076 of 2024.
The appellant had appeared as respondent No.3 before the Writ Court. The Single Judge had declared that the modified sanction plan at Annexures H, H1 and H2 would remain in abeyance until it complied with the setback requirement around Residential Block A, as recorded in the Fire NOC dated April 19, 2014.
Members of the Rajsri Apartment Owners’ Association had filed the writ petition. They challenged the revised No Objection Certificate dated June 13, 2023, issued by the Karnataka State Fire and Emergency Services Department.
They also challenged the modified sanction plan dated August 31, 2021, issued by BBMP authorities. The modified plan sought to convert an earlier residential development into a mixed development with commercial space.
The petitioners also sought a direction to BBMP to consider their representation dated November 25, 2023. In that representation, they requested BBMP to restrict or stop construction work because the project had reduced access for fire engines, vehicles and ambulances.
The association sought quashing of the revised Fire NOC bearing No.GBC(1)195/2013, Docket No.KSFES/NOC/059/2023 dated June 13, 2023. It also sought quashing of the modified sanction plan bearing No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD South/LP/0021/20-21 dated August 31, 2021
During the writ proceedings, the Court directed the Fire Department to inspect whether firefighting vehicles could move through the setback area of the commercial building. The building stood in front of Rajashree Apartments at Khata No.413/251, Ward No.160, Halagadevarahalli, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru.
The Director General of Police and Director General, Karnataka State Fire and Emergency Services conducted the inspection.
The Fire Department recorded the building height as 36.90 metres. It stated that the project required a 12-metre setback on all sides. The builder, however, claimed relaxation under TDR provisions and proposed minimum 8-metre setbacks on all sides.
The inspection found only 7.65 metres on the eastern side against the required 8 metres. It found 6.30 metres on the western side against 8 metres. On the northern side, it found 7.60 metres against 8.08 metres.
The department concluded that the required 8-metre setback or driveway was not available. It reported that the aerial ladder platform would not move easily during emergency rescue operations.
The Single Judge considered the Fire Department report and the later BBMP report. The Writ Court stressed the importance of rescue operations during any disaster.
It relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767, and M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, 1999 6 SCC 464.
The Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The Court restrained further construction until rectification. It also directed demolition of construction made in the setback area around Block A Wing B, insofar as Commercial Block-B was concerned.
Senior Advocate P.S. Rajagopal, appearing for the appellant through Advocate Sudhakar G.V., submitted that no rule required a setback of more than 8 metres.
He argued that the sanctioned building plan showed an 8-metre setback on all sides. The appellant also relied on the Karnataka Fire Force (Amendment) Act, 2023.
The builder submitted that the amendment to Section 13 came into effect only from the date of amendment. It argued that the law merely prescribed a No Objection Certificate from the Karnataka State Fire and Emergency Services Department.
The appellant contended that the authorities had sanctioned the plan under the existing rules. On that basis, it sought setting aside of the Single Judge’s order.
Advocate Madhukar Deshpande, appearing for caveator-respondent No.4, submitted that the Fire Department’s inspection clearly showed lack of the required 8-metre setback or driveway around the building.
He argued that the aerial ladder platform could not move properly during emergency operations. Additional Government Advocate M.N. Sudev Hegde, appearing for respondent No.3, supported the Single Judge’s judgment and advanced similar submissions.
The Division Bench noted that the Single Judge had considered the violation of fire safety norms. It also referred to the reliance placed on Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others, (2021) 10 SCC 1.
The Court noted the Single Judge’s finding that the National Building Code would require maintenance of a 12-metre setback. It also referred to the finding that the second Fire NOC had calculated the minimum distance from the edge of the cluster of buildings. The Single Judge found this approach incorrect in light of Supertech.
The Bench further noted that fire safety measures under Section 13 may require open space for vehicle movement as contemplated under the National Building Code.
According to the Court, such requirements become more important in high-rise buildings. Fire regulations operate in a specialised field and must receive precedence over general planning and building construction regulations.
The Division Bench rejected the appellant’s argument based on the 2023 amendment. It held that the Court could not accept a highly technical argument about later enactment when the case involved larger public interest, safety and security of residents.
The Court observed that zoning regulations and planning norms may cause hardship to developers. However, such restrictions do not become arbitrary or unreasonable merely because they regulate the use of property.
The Bench held that the Fire Department’s report showed the actual position at the building. It found that the Fire Department would face difficulty in handling any unforeseen disaster because heavy vehicles with aerial ladders lacked free passage.
The Court said high-rise buildings and apartment complexes cannot stand at the risk of residents, neighbours and the general public.
It observed that private interest must remain subordinate to public interest and public good. Proper setback provisions, alignments and structural requirements remain indispensable for public safety and general welfare.
The Bench held that courts cannot condone any deviation made at the cost of public safety. It said authorities must bring such construction in line, including by demolishing the portion that obstructs free passage of fire engines and safety equipment.
The Court also observed that professional builders stand on a different footing from private individuals. It said builders must understand the law and the applicable regulations.
The Division Bench found that the Fire Department report dated July 12, 2024, along with the sketch of the building and setbacks, clearly showed that vehicles with aerial ladders could not move properly during emergency rescue operations.
The Court declined to accept the appellant’s submissions in view of the larger public interest of residents and people in the neighbouring area.
The Karnataka High Court held that the Single Judge had passed a well-reasoned order. It found no infirmity in the order. Accordingly, the writ appeal failed and stood dismissed.
