Jump to content
karira

Go-ahead was given for marriage halls, not multiplexes, malls

Recommended Posts

karira

Go-ahead was given for marriage halls, not multiplexes, malls

Express News Service

Ahmedabad, June 26: Real estate developers in the city sought permission to built marriage halls but instead, constructed multiplexes and malls. The Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) revealed this in reply to a query under RTI filed by a citizen concerned about public safety in malls and multiplexes mushrooming across the city.

 

Worried that mushrooming malls and multiplexes in the city could spell a great risk to the lives of people visiting them like in the case of Uphaar Cinema tragedy, Memnagar resident Kaushal Vinod Shah took recourse to the RTI Act and asked AUDA to explain how safe was all this booming construction for the general public.

 

AUDA told him that the three new buildings that have recently come in the city did not have its permission. Replying to Shah’s RTI query, senior town planner in AUDA, H P Shukla, said no such permission has been sought. If at all any permission has been sought, it was for a marriage hall. Before granting permission to such structures, AUDA and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation carry out inspection of staircases and emergency exits and so on. However, in buildings constructed without their permission, no such inspections are carried out, and neither the authorities nor the fire and emergency officials know whether the norms have been followed or not.

 

On May 5 this year, AUDA was asked whether builders of Cinemax Multiplex in Dev Arcade of Himalaya Mall on Drive-In Road, R-3 Mall near Manav Mandir and Acropolis on Thaltej Crossroads had taken its permission for constructing these multiplexes, or had submitted necessary maps and drawings to AUDA for approval.

 

Shah, who filed the queries, said, “A number of multiplexes and malls have been sprung up on Drive In Road and S G Highway. Some have five screens that run house-full during peak hours. I hope this doesn’t turn into a tragedy like what happened at Uphaar Cinema in Delhi several years ago.”

 

While General Development Control Regulations (GDCR) do not apply to multiplexes since they are not high-rise buildings, they are classified as special structures, which means they are supposed to follow strict fire-safety and public safety norms.

 

CEO of AUDA, Jagdish Pandya said, “Since malls are low-rise buildings, they do not fall under the ambit of GDCR, which says that fire-safety regulations apply to high-rise buildings. However, we insist that they follow fire safety regulations as they are a special structure.

 

* Worried that mushrooming malls and multiplexes in city could spell a great risk to the lives of people visiting them like in the case of Uphaar Cinema tragedy, Memnagar resident Kaushal Vinod Shah took recourse to the RTI Act and asked AUDA to explain how safe was all this booming construction for the general public

 

* AUDA told him that the three new buildings that have recently come in the city did not have its permission. If at all any permission has been sought, it was for a marriage hall

 

 

Go-ahead was given for marriage halls, not multiplexes, malls

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • ganpat1956
      By ganpat1956
      A Supreme Court lawyer has moved the Central Information Commission seeking information on the procedure of the recruitment of class III and IV employees in the Delhi High Court after it was denied by its administration.
       
      Advocate Kamini Jaiswal approached the CIC contending that orders of the High Court Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer (First Appellate Authority) refusing to part away with the information was a violation of the Right to Information Act and also her Fundamental Rights.
       
      She alleged that information had been denied for erroneous reasons and none of the exemption available under Section 8 of the Act allows the authority not to part away with the information sought.
       
      The lawyer had filed the application before the Public Information Officier on September 22, 2006 seeking information regarding number of class III and class IV employees recruited by the Court from the year 1990 to 2006 and the procedure followed for their recruitment.
       
      The High Court PIO while denying the information held that information pertaining to those decisions which were taken administratively or quasi-judicially would be available only to the affected parties.
       
      The lawyer then approached Appellate Authority challenging the PIO order contending that the High Court (Right to information) Rules were inconsistent with the provision of the Right to Information Act and it should be held void.
       
      But the Appellate Authority refused to accept the contention of the lawyer and dismissed her appeal. Now the lawyer has moved Central Information Commission against this order.
       
      CIC moved on recruitment procedure of High Court .:. NewKerala.Com, India News Channel

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy