The recent decision by the Dhaka South City Corporation (DSCC) to revoke trade licences of restaurants operating in buildings not originally approved for restaurant use, especially rooftop establishments, has sparked controversy. Citing fire hazards and unauthorised construction, the city corporation presented the crackdown as part of a long overdue effort to improve building safety in the capital. The memory of the deadly fire at Green Cozy Cottage on Bailey Road in February 2024 that killed 46 people still looms large in public discourse, which reinforces the urgency behind such measures. Nevertheless, the abruptness of the move has prompted criticism. What the authorities see as long-delayed enforcement, others view as a hasty swing from negligence to overcorrection that threatens livelihoods in an economy already struggling with high unemployment.
On paper, the DSCC's decision might appear as a timely intervention to enforce crucial building codes and fire safety regulations. Restaurants operating in violation of design approvals in Dhaka are hardly new. Many restaurants, especially the rooftop ones, are only accessible by narrow, rickety elevators and often lack fire exits. There is a higher risk of fire at these locations since gas cylinders and cooking equipment are sometimes kept in cramped spaces and flammable materials are often used for decoration. Similar safety concerns recently prompted the Kolkata municipal authorities in India to crack down on their rooftop restaurants, which cited the need to keep rooftops clear for evacuation and rescue during emergencies. Fires in high-rises are especially dangerous, as evacuating from upper floors takes time even under the best circumstances. In poorly designed buildings, the risks only increase. The fact that these restaurants were allowed to open without proper approvals is a clear indication of the failure on the part of both owners and regulators.
Despite this, the backlash from restaurant owners and workers is not without merit. For one thing, the decision came without warning and with no time to adapt. Many say that securing the approval for a restaurant in Dhaka is a lengthy and cumbersome process. Given the complexity and perceived near-impossibility of full compliance, a number of establishments opted to bypass the regulations entirely and are now operating from buildings not intended for commercial use. As of March 2024, only 1,026 establishments in Dhaka South reportedly held valid trade licences, which is an alarmingly small fraction of the total. To make the matter worse, now the city corporation is revoking many of the very licences it once issued.
Hence, the burden of this failure cannot fall solely on business owners, especially when it was the DSCC itself that granted the trade licences to these restaurants in the first place. This also indicates that either due diligence was not performed or rules were knowingly overlooked during licensing process. Ultimately, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that all approvals including trade licences are consistent with safety standards. Granting business licences, only to then penalise them for non-compliance that the authority should have prevented, creates a system that unfairly punishes those who invested heavily and generated employment. Furthermore, these businesses are taxpayers who contribute significantly to public revenue through income taxes and VAT, particularly at a time when the country struggles with budget deficits. Shutting them down without offering a path to compliance thus undermines economic stability as well.
Enforcement without reform accomplishes little. Rather than sudden closures, the DSCC could implement a phased plan by granting businesses a reasonable window to address safety shortcomings. Most urban buildings worldwide use two basic strategies to ensure fire safety in high-rises: suppression and evacuation. Suppression involves limiting the spread of fires through compartmentalisation, which is dividing buildings into fire-resistant sections. Evacuation means ensuring that all occupants can safely and quickly exit in the event of a fire. Both can be implemented in existing buildings, albeit with effort. The DSCC could, for instance, mandate the installation of fire escapes, require regular inspections or issue conditional licences that are contingent on compliance within a fixed period. These steps would encourage businesses to invest in safety while continuing to operate.
Additionally, urban planning authorities like RAJUK must also update its building codes to reflect modern urban commercial needs. Rooftop dining, while risky without proper precautions, is a global trend that contributes to urban vibrancy and aesthetics. Major cities around the world host rooftop venues that adhere to strict safety norms. There is no inherent reason why Dhaka cannot do the same. Achieving this, however, requires forward-thinking policy, long-term vision and coordination among government departments.
Transparency is another crucial element missing from this initiative. If the DSCC publicly disclosed which establishments failed safety checks and why, it would build trust and reduce perceptions of arbitrary action. Citizens would be more likely to support crackdowns if they saw clear, consistent standards being applied. Such openness would also deter corruption, a persistent issue in city governance, where selective enforcement and under-the-table negotiations are all too common.
The decision by the DSCC follows a familiar pattern of erratic policymaking that rarely delivers lasting results. From ineffective mosquito control that fuels recurring dengue outbreaks to botched up efforts to reduce polythene use, past initiatives have often been unsuccessful due to weak planning and poor execution. Unless the DSCC revisits its decision with an eye on economic realities, this latest move risks ending the same way. Some restaurants may be forced to close, while others will reopen quietly through informal arrangements. Underhand dealing may do the trick. Inspections will be performed sporadically, if at all. In the end, public safety will not improve and confidence in governance will decline further. No one disputes the urgency of fire safety. But a blanket ban that ignores institutional failures and fails to give businesses a pathway to address safety shortcomings risks doing more harm than good.
shoeb434@gmail.com
© 2025 - All Rights with The Financial Express
