Of course, not following building codes during the construction of factories, shopping malls, or residential quarters is a punishable offence. Absence of fire safety devices like fire extinguishers, water sprinklers poses far greater challenges if the approach roads to the places are narrow and thus prove difficult for fire fighters to use and do their job promptly and effectively. People who own those buildings vulnerable to fire, people who occupy those place as residents or as tenants to run business must be held accountable for doing a shabby job. The safety of customers, staff members and diners cannot be compromised. Unsuspecting visitors are unlikely to know about the faulty system of restaurant operation with glitzy bill boards and eye-catching interior decoration. But now that the restaurant tragedy has happened, people will think twice before going to restaurants in multi-storey buildings. They are not supposed to know if the building is unsuitable for restaurants, if there is no fire safety devices, etc. However, they can have a look if there are wide staircases for emergency exit. Both owners of the buildings and restaurant operators must take responsibility for any breach of the building code and other laws guiding construction of a building to suit the purpose for which it was built in the first place. The authorities like Rajuk, city corporations, fire fighting agencies and law-enforcers cannot also wash their hands of the devastating conflagrations producing excuses like warnings were issued to the occupants of the places in question of possible dangers, or that notices were served to evacuate the places so gutted by fire and so on.
The common public generally do not act of their own volition to disrupt the status quo. So, it is the responsibility of the enforcers of the rules and law to force the owners, tenants or other occupants of those vulnerable places to vacate after expiry of the notice periods or warnings so issued. Sometimes, unwilling owners and occupants of buildings in question go to court and have court rules issued in favour of maintaining the status quo. These are definitely instances of legal hurdles deliberately created obstructing law-enforcers to do their job. In that case, in the face of the increasing incidents of destructive fires in the city and elsewhere in the country, the judicial authorities may take suo moto cognizance of the issues and order law enforcers to forcibly vacate or if necessary demolish the sites reported to be vulnerable to fire or any other calamity of human or natural origin. No excuse for not taking the required precautionary measures to protect life and property by the authorities concerned would be acceptable.
In the present case of Bailey Road fire, alongside doing their routine job of finding the cause of fire, compensating victims and so on, the authorities concerned should not fail to hold to account those who mindlessly allowed operation of restaurants for the purpose of which the building was not designed in the first place.
sflaim.ds@gmail.com