The Prosecutor’s Office orders the imprisonment of the owner of the property “Burning Tower”



[ad_1]

11:09 pm

Tuesday 02 February 2021

Books – Tariq Samir:
The Prosecutor’s Office ordered the owner of the “Burning Tower” property tonight for 4 days, pending investigations.

The Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement that, “in addition to our previous statement, the Public Ministry received today, Tuesday, February 2 of this year, a report that seizes the imputed owner of the property, for which it questions him about what is attributed to him from your property residence without a license from the competent administrative authority and outside the limits of the authorized urban space. Executing the decision issued by said authority to remove the infringing works once the legally prescribed period has expired, and not taking – as an employer: the precautions and requirements necessary to prevent fire risks, and not providing the means of safety and health occupational hazard to ensure protection against physical hazards, resulting in the fire in the store in question. The incident, and its carelessness, lack of caution and non-compliance with the laws caused the start of this fire.

The accused admitted the investigations that he had bought the land on which the property was located when it was agricultural land outside the urban space – within 2013 – to build on it and establish a shoe store, knowing that it was not possible. to obtain a permit to build on it for its departure from the urban space, and then once it achieved its purpose and built the property and prepared the store, it carried on its activity in it without obtaining a license to do so, and did not take the necessary requirements to prevent fire hazards and prevent chemical and physical hazards in the store despite his knowledge of manufacturing shoes from naturally flammable chemicals and petroleum, and that his negligence caused the fire to break out on the property, adding that The reason for his occurrence is Short Circuit, and that he had previously submitted a request for reconciliation for the violations he committed, but his request was rejected and it afflicted him, and to date the grievance has not been resolved.

[ad_2]