Malviya Nagar fire: Hotel owner told investigators ‘everything works in Delhi’, sent to 4-day police custody

The hotel was allegedly operating nearly four times beyond its permitted capacity, without any fire safety license.

Malviya Nagar fire: Hotel owner told investigators ‘everything works in Delhi’, sent to 4-day police custody

(Left) Police personnel secure the area after the deadly Malviya Nagar fire in New Delhi that claimed 21 lives. (Right) Delhi Police with Hotel Flourish Stays co-owner Lovkesh Bajaj after his arrest in connection with the incident. (Photos: ANI)

Lavkesh Bajaj, the arrested owner of the Malviya Nagar hotel in South Delhi where a blaze killed at least 21, including foreign nationals, has reportedly told the police that day-to-day operations of the property were being handled by “another person” and that he did not have time to personally manage or oversee the premises.

The hotel was allegedly operating nearly four times beyond its permitted capacity, without any fire safety license. Moreover, additional floors were added to the building without obtaining permission from authorities.

Advertisement

Police is probing whether this constituted to the higher number of casualties

Advertisement

During the initial interrogation, he reportedly preached rules to the police, saying that any residential building less than 15 metres high does not require a fire NOC under Rule 27 of the Delhi Fire Service Rules, 2010.

When asked about the structural changes to the hotel building, Bajaj allegedly told police that he was advised by an individual that such arrangements were “routine” and that “everything works in Delhi,” reported Times of India, citing sources.

Court holds arrest lawful, grants police four days’ custody

Meanwhile, a Delhi court today sent Bajaj to four days of police custody, holding that his arrest in connection with the deadly fire was lawful.

Bajaj’s lawyer argued in the court that his arrest was unlawful and claimed that the police didn’t inform him and his family about the grounds of his arrest.

However, the prosecution countered the claim, asserting that the accused’s wife had been informed about the arrest through written communication and that the grounds and reasons for arrest were also conveyed to the accused in writing.

The police submitted that the accused didn’t reveal all the details and had disclosed only two names during the primary interrogation.

The police argued that he could influence the staff members who were yet to be questioned.

Advertisement