The death toll in Aliganj (Lucknow) on Monday was reported at 18. Apart from these, 7 dogs were also badly burnt.

After Hauz Rani, Aliganj fire incident. The number of fire incidents in Indian cities, especially in the business hubs of metropolitan cities, is continuously increasing. Along with such an increase in the number of such incidents, the number of human deaths is also a natural phenomenon. But has any lesson been learned from this phenomenon? 23 lives were lost in the Hauz Rani (South Delhi) fire incident. Now on Monday, the number of human lives in Aliganj (Lucknow) has been reported to be 18. Apart from these, 7 dogs also suffered severe burns.

The cause of most such fires is attributed to the same cause: short circuit. Electrical wires getting burnt due to overload and sparks. Seasonal heat is also often blamed for such incidents; forgetting the fact that the conditions that increase the heat are present inside the building itself. Direct violations of building construction, electrical fittings, power loading and building ventilation rules and regulations are often the cause of the above situation. The report of the Parliamentary Committee on Urban Affairs mentions the prevalence of the above violations in 80 percent of the markets and commercial buildings in the country.

The same report also emphasizes on the proper identification of violations and measures to remove them. It is a pity that if its status as a parliamentary report was not taken seriously by politicians and officials in the national capital Delhi itself, then one can easily guess what its fate would have been in the rest of the country. The Aliganj fire incident is a glaring example of such lack of seriousness. The fire incident in a commercial building in Aliganj (Lucknow) started around 2:30 pm. The blazing fire was first noticed by a woman cleaner. Within a few minutes of her raising the alarm, the entire building was engulfed in flames. The fire brigade did not take long to arrive. 15 fire engines were used to control the fire.

The work was completed within an hour. 22 people were also rescued and a parrot, 8 cats and 7 dogs were also rescued. Of the rescued people, 7 were more than burnt. Perhaps that is why three died. Contrary to such statistics, the building violations and legal irregularities in this incident are surprising. The building plot is in the name of Virendra Pratap Shukla. The plan for the construction of a one-storey residential building on it was passed in the names of Surendra and Dhirendra Shukla. Then four floors were built instead of one; that too not residential, but commercial. That is why there was also a gaming zone inside the building, a coaching centre, an animation training centre, a shop selling pets and birds and a warehouse of paints.

There were two or three other small shops. So many business establishments, but neither a certificate of the presence of fire safety arrangements nor a certificate of the correctness of the electrical fittings. The permitted load of electricity was 20 kW, the actual load was 36.5 kW. There was a large presence of flammable materials like plastic, paints and kerosene in the warehouse. It was natural for the flames to spread as soon as the spark was lit. The absence of an emergency exit made the situation even more complicated. 

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath is known for his administrative strictness. On his orders, the police have registered a criminal case against 6 accused and arrested four of them. Four government officials have also been suspended. Orders have also been issued to complete the investigation within a week and file the charge sheet after 10 days. But the question arises, why does the administration wake up after the disaster? Wasn't the Hauz Rani fire incident in Delhi a big warning to the city officials and politicians of the rest of the country that the commercial buildings of the cities are in a state like a powder keg? That is why measures to avert their explosive fate should be started immediately and actively. Is it not their administrative responsibility to initiate such a task? And if so, why the continuous neglect of responsibility?