Lucknow Fire Tragedy: Officials Reveal No Fire NOC Application Filed For 13 Years

Authorities in Uttar Pradesh have stated that the building involved in the Lucknow fire tragedy had not obtained a fire no-objection certificate (NOC) from the fire department for the past 13 years. The clarification comes amid growing scrutiny over possible lapses in safety compliance and enforcement following the incident, which has raised serious questions about regulatory oversight in the state capital.

Fire department officials said that under the National Building Code (NBC), 2016, certain residential and commercial buildings are exempt from mandatory fire NOC requirements based on their height and built-up area. According to officials, structures up to 15 metres in height and with a built-up area of up to 500 square metres do not require compulsory fire clearance unless they fall under specific high-risk categories or exceed prescribed limits.

In the case of the building where the fire broke out, officials noted that it is approximately 12 metres high with a built-up area of around 185 square metres. On this basis, they said the structure falls within the exemption threshold, meaning the fire department would not typically issue an NOC unless the owner voluntarily applies or the building exceeds the defined limits. Officials also pointed out that proposed revisions under NBC norms for 2026 are expected to increase the height limit for exemptions to 24 metres.

Also Read: Centre To Unveil Nationwide Drug Control Strategy As Amit Shah Chairs Key Meeting

The fire department further explained that fire safety audits and NOC issuance are generally initiated only when building owners approach the authorities or when a structure does not meet exemption criteria. This system, officials indicated, means that smaller buildings often remain outside routine inspection frameworks unless specific concerns are raised or regulatory triggers are met.

Meanwhile, the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) has stated that a demolition order had been issued against the building in 2016 due to regulatory violations. However, the order was later revoked, and no subsequent demolition action was carried out. The contrasting regulatory history has intensified questions over how the building remained operational despite earlier enforcement action.

As investigations continue, the incident has prompted renewed debate over fire safety standards, exemption thresholds, and the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms in urban areas. Authorities are expected to review existing compliance frameworks to assess whether current rules adequately address safety risks in densely populated and rapidly expanding cities.

Also Read: Trump Threatens To Block Iran Agreement Over Controversial Shipping Fees Clause