Kolkata’s SDF Building, a six-storey Webel-owned property in Salt Lake Sector V, has operated for 14 years without a fire department no-objection certificate and a lift safety clearance, even as around 150 IT and ITeS companies continue to work from the premises. The unresolved approvals expose a wider administrative problem: the presence of safety equipment does not by itself establish that a building has completed the statutory inspection and clearance process.
The building accommodates more than 1,000 people, according to a report by the Times of India. Its fire NOC has reportedly been pending since 2012, while the safety clearance for its four lifts from the PWD electrical authorities has also remained pending since the same year. The building management says departmental visits have taken place periodically and that recommendations made by officials have been complied with, but the formal clearances have not been issued.
That distinction is central to the SDF Building case. A fire hydrant network, sprinklers, fire detection equipment and alarm systems may reduce risk, but a clearance certificate records the outcome of an official process. It indicates that the relevant authority has assessed the premises against applicable requirements and completed the administrative action needed to certify compliance. Without that final step, occupants and businesses are left relying on an assurance that the process is under way rather than on a completed regulatory record.
The building management has said that the SDF Building has all the required firefighting arrangements and is protected from fire. An official told the Times of India that fire hydrants, sprinklers, fire detection and alarm systems had been installed and that the building had complied with fire safety norms. Another official said the lift safety certificate was also in process and was expected soon.
The account provided by building officials, however, leaves unanswered questions about the status of the recommendations issued after departmental visits, the specific reasons for the continued pendency and the authority responsible for closing the files. The report does not provide the text of the recommendations, the dates of the inspections or a formal explanation from the fire department or PWD electrical authorities for why the certificates have not been issued since 2012.
The institutional chain is also unclear. The property is owned by Webel, the state-backed organisation associated with the building, while the fire clearance involves the fire department and the lift certificate involves PWD electrical authorities. When a building is occupied by multiple private companies but owned by a public-sector entity, responsibility for maintenance, compliance, documentation and communication can become divided across institutions. The SDF Building’s prolonged wait shows how that division can leave a safety matter unresolved even when several parties are aware of it.
The state IT department has not publicly clarified the matter in the supplied report. State IT secretary Shubhanjan Das directed the newspaper to Webel. Webel managing director Nitu Shukla did not take calls or respond to a WhatsApp message, while state IT minister Kalyan Chakraborti also did not respond to calls or messages. As a result, the report records the position of building officials and occupants but not a formal response from the owner or the departments responsible for the clearances.
The history of the property makes the lapse more consequential. SDF Building was established in 1988 to promote electronics industries in West Bengal. As information technology overtook electronics, the building evolved into an incubation centre for technology companies. It is now occupied by approximately 150 IT and ITeS firms operating from rented or long-term leased premises.
This transition has changed the building’s functional importance without changing its basic physical identity. A property created more than three decades ago now supports a large concentration of technology businesses and workers. The building’s role as an employment and business location means that a regulatory delay is not limited to a private dispute between a landlord and government offices. It affects the continuity of operations for companies, employees, service providers and organisations that depend on those companies.
The reported 2019 fire provides the clearest evidence of why formal certification cannot be treated as a routine paperwork issue. A fire broke out on the second floor of the eastern wing, and the fire alarm reportedly failed to activate. Around 500 people working in the building at the time were evacuated hurriedly, although no one was injured. The incident does not establish that the current safety systems are inadequate, but it demonstrates that installed equipment and actual performance are not always the same thing.
The failed alarm is particularly important because detection and warning systems are intended to provide the first response during a fire. Evacuation depends not only on the existence of alarms and sprinklers but also on whether they function, whether people recognise the warning, whether escape routes remain usable and whether the building has an operational emergency plan. The supplied report does not establish the present condition of the alarm system or whether the 2019 failure led to any documented corrective action.
The building management’s claim that it has complied with departmental recommendations therefore needs to be understood alongside the unresolved certification and the earlier alarm failure. Compliance is not a single event. It involves inspection, rectification, testing, documentation and formal approval. A building can have visible safety installations and still require further work or verification before an authority issues a clearance.
The lift issue raises a parallel concern. Four lifts in the six-storey building are operating without a safety clearance certificate from PWD electrical authorities, according to the report. The number of lifts and the building’s six-storey configuration indicate that vertical movement is an essential part of daily operations. Yet the supplied material does not state whether the lifts have been inspected recently, what deficiencies, if any, remain, or whether temporary permissions govern their continued operation.
For employees and visitors, the practical problem is the absence of clear information. They may know that firefighting equipment has been installed, but they may not know whether the building has a current fire NOC, whether the lifts have passed the required safety checks or what emergency procedures are in place. Businesses leasing space also face operational uncertainty. One electronics hardware company owner told the Times of India that he had heard the building lacked a fire NOC, while acknowledging that management had installed sprinklers and other firefighting systems.
Another IT company owner said businesses would demand immediate compliance with all fire safety norms and the issuance of the fire NOC to protect business continuity. That concern reflects the building’s role as a shared workplace. A disruption would affect not only the firms physically located there but also the organisations for which those firms provide services. The report does not quantify the economic value of these operations, but it establishes that the building houses a substantial concentration of businesses and workers.
The SDF Building case also illustrates the difference between regulatory action and regulatory closure. Officials may visit, issue recommendations and receive assurances of compliance, but unless the process ends with a certificate or a documented decision, the public record remains incomplete. For occupants, the question is not merely whether instructions were issued. It is whether the authorities have verified the corrective work and accepted the building as compliant.
That gap is especially difficult to resolve in older urban buildings with multiple occupants and changing uses. SDF Building was established in 1988 for electronics industries and later became a technology incubation centre. The shift in use brought new companies and a larger workforce into a structure whose systems and approvals must continue to match present-day requirements. The report does not say that the building is structurally unsafe or that its current firefighting installations fail to meet standards. It does show that formal safety clearances have remained unresolved through a long period of changing occupancy and use.
The administrative question is therefore not whether one department or one building official is responsible in isolation. It is whether the ownership structure and approval system provide a clear route from inspection to compliance. Webel owns the building, the fire department handles the fire NOC and PWD electrical authorities handle the lift safety certificate. The state IT department is connected to the property’s institutional history, but its secretary directed questions back to Webel. The result, as reflected in the report, is a chain of responsibility without a publicly explained endpoint.
The available evidence confirms three facts: both clearances have reportedly been pending since 2012; the building continues to host around 150 companies and more than 1,000 workers; and a fire alarm failed during a 2019 fire before the building was evacuated without injuries. It also confirms that building officials say safety systems are installed and that the required processes are continuing. What remains unestablished is why the certificates have not been issued, whether all recommendations have been independently verified, and what corrective action followed the alarm failure.
Those unanswered questions should be resolved through a formal status update from Webel, the fire department and the PWD electrical authorities. The next meaningful milestone is not another assurance that the certificates are in process, but the completion of the inspections, publication or communication of the outstanding requirements, and issuance of the relevant clearances. Until then, the SDF Building will remain an example of how a busy urban workplace can continue functioning while essential safety approvals remain unfinished.
