Fire NOC Is A Statutory Safety Measure, Not Mere Procedural Formality; Article 285 No Bar Against Fire Cess: Rajasthan High Court
Fire cess regulatory in nature and linked to public safety; commercial lessee on railway land must obtain fire NOC and cannot claim constitutional immunity
The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) has upheld the levy of Urban Improvement Tax and Fire Cess on a private developer operating a commercial complex on Railway land. The Court held that Article 285 of the Constitution of India does not shield a commercial lessee from compliance with municipal taxation and fire safety regulations. The requirement of obtaining a Fire NOC, the Court noted, is not a procedural formality but a mandatory safeguard to protect life and property.
The Bench further emphasised that Fire Cess is regulatory in nature and is imposed to modernise fire safety infrastructure, strengthen fire-fighting capabilities, and ensure compliance with statutory safety norms. It is intrinsically linked to public safety objectives and applies uniformly to commercial establishments.
A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed, “The fire cess and the requirement of a fire safety NOC arise from statutory provisions that apply not only to Union property but to all commercial establishments. As rightly contended by the State, the Fire Cess is regulatory in nature and is levied to modernise fire safety equipment and to facilitate fire prevention and fire-fighting services, and is intrinsically connected to public safety objectives. Likewise, the requirement of Fire NOC is not a mere procedural formality but a statutory safety measure, intended to ensure compliance with prescribed fire safety norms so as to safeguard life and property of the citizens. The petitioner, without following the mandatory fire safety measures, cannot be allowed to play with the lives of the public at large. The immunity claimed under Article 285 of the Constitution does not extend to exemption from compliance with regulatory statutes enacted in the interest of public safety and welfare. Therefore, the petitioner is bound to pay the Fire Cess and to seek necessary Fire NOC, and cannot operate without the same”.
Advocate Punit Singhvi appeared for the appellant and G.S. Gill, AAG appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, the petitioner-company had taken railway land on long-term lease from the Rail Land Development Authority (RLDA) for developing a Multi-Functional Complex (MFC) at Ajmer.
After construction, the Ajmer Municipal Corporation issued notices demanding Urban Improvement Tax, Fire Cess, and requiring the company to obtain a Fire No Objection Certificate (NOC).
Therefore, challenging the demands, the petitioner argued that since the land belonged to the Union of India, it was exempt from State taxation under Article 285 of the Constitution of India and Section 184 of the Railways Act, 2005.
The Division Bench rejecting the contention, held that Article 285 protects only the “property of the Union” and does not extend immunity to a private company merely because it holds Union land on lease. The Court observed that once the land is leased for commercial exploitation, and the lessee operates as an independent juristic entity, municipal taxes and regulatory levies can validly be imposed.
The Court further clarified that s commercial establishment cannot operate without adhering to fire safety standards, merely because the underlying land vests in the Union.
Accordingly, holding that the action of the municipal authorities was neither unconstitutional nor without jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed that the petitioner is bound to pay the Urban Improvement Tax, discharge the Fire Cess liability, and obtain the requisite Fire NOC before operating the commercial complex.
Cause Title: Taleda Square Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8711/2022
Appearances:
Appellant: Punit Singhvi, Ayush Singh, Naman Dadhich, Shraddha Mehta, Yashowardhan Agrawal, Advocates.
Respondent: G.S. Gill, AAG, Shikha Sharma, Divyesh Maheshwari, Anurag Sharma, Anoop Meena, Brij Kishore Sharma, Advocates.