Subscribe
Nearly half of the paying guest (PG) accommodations inspected in Bengaluru East are operating illegally, the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) has told the Karnataka High Court.
Of around 5,000 PG accommodations inspected in the East Zone, nearly 2,500 were found to be operating without proper licences, sanctioned building plans or fire safety clearances, advocate B S Karthikeyan, appearing for the GBA, told the court.
The areas covered by the inspections include Whitefield, Mahadevapura, KR Puram, Indiranagar and CV Raman Nagar, which are home to several IT companies and multinational firms.
Karthikeyan said notices were being issued to the owners of the illegal PGs. The GBA has also filed caveats before the High Court and jurisdictional civil courts to ensure that PG owners do not obtain ex parte interim stays without the Authority being heard.
He said necessary orders would be passed at the earliest after giving the concerned parties an opportunity to respond. Where constructions are found to violate zoning regulations or building bye-laws, demolition would be undertaken if necessary, he added.
The court was hearing petitions filed by the Paying Guest Owners Association and some individual PG operators challenging notices issued to them by city corporations under the GBA.
In an order dated September 10, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said the large number of PG accommodations in Bengaluru and the number of people who could be affected by an untoward incident made strict implementation of safety guidelines necessary.
“Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter relating to paying guests, the number of paying guest accommodations in the city of Bangalore, and the number of persons who would be affected adversely if any untoward incident were to occur, this court is of the considered opinion that respondents would have to implement the guidelines strictly,” the court said.
The High Court issued comprehensive guidelines requiring authorities to ensure that PG accommodations operate from legally permitted premises and are maintained in a manner that protects the life, health, safety and dignity of occupants, as well as the interests of neighbouring residents and the wider public.
The court said authorities should adopt a continuing, risk-based system of identification, inspection, compliance and enforcement rather than treating licensing as a one-time exercise.
It also suggested creating a unified digital database of all PG accommodations in Bengaluru and called for coordination among the various departments responsible for regulating them.
The guidelines require authorities to identify all PG premises, including those that are licensed, unlicensed or operating with expired licences. Establishments functioning under names such as hostels, co-living facilities or service apartments must also be assessed based on the nature of their operations.
The court said the regulatory character of an establishment would be determined by its substance rather than its nomenclature.
Authorities have been directed to verify building and land-use compliance, including sanctioned plans, zoning regulations, unauthorised floors, terrace rooms, converted parking spaces and blocked staircases.
They must also verify the sanctioned and licensed capacity of each facility, along with the number of rooms, beds, actual occupants and the area available per occupant.
Fire safety has been identified as a primary life-safety requirement. Authorities have been directed to verify fire extinguishers, alarms, smoke detectors, emergency lighting, exits, evacuation routes, kitchen and LPG safety, and access for fire vehicles.
The court also emphasised the privacy and dignity of PG occupants. While safety regulations may require security measures, the court said they cannot be used to justify arbitrary intrusion.
CCTV cameras are prohibited in bedrooms, bathrooms, changing areas and other private spaces. PGs housing women and other vulnerable persons have also been directed to maintain security arrangements proportionate to the nature and occupancy of the establishment.
The court clarified that merely owning a building does not make a person liable for every operational violation committed by an independent PG operator. However, owners cannot knowingly permit unlawful construction, unsafe structural alterations or unlawful use where such responsibility is attributable to them under law.
The court further warned that officers could be held personally liable if violations by PG owners or operators are brought to their notice and no action is taken, and an untoward incident subsequently occurs.
The inspection drive began in Bengaluru East after the High Court directed authorities in February to inspect PG accommodations and verify compliance with the conditions imposed while granting trade licences. Following the court’s directions, the drive has now been extended to the remaining four corporations under the GBA.
The court adjourned the matter to September 28 and directed the GBA to file a status report detailing the number of PG accommodations identified, the violations found and the action initiated against them.
