Building Safety Checks Around Coaching Hubs and PGs: A Priority, Says Ashish Sood

When students flock to coaching hubs every morning, they often overlook the silent risk that lurks in the very walls around them. Ashish Sood, a senior official with the city’s building‑safety department, recently urged authorities to make safety inspections a non‑negotiable priority for both coaching institutes and the adjoining PG (paying‑guest) houses.

“It’s not just about fire exits or wiring,” Sood explained in a candid interview. “We’re talking about structural integrity, especially in buildings that were erected years ago without modern codes. A collapse can happen in a blink, and it’s our job to prevent that.”

His remarks come on the heels of a spate of incidents across Indian metros where overloaded student housing has suffered from fire or structural failures. In Delhi, for instance, a narrow lane packed with makeshift PGs near a popular coaching centre turned into a nightmare last year when a kitchen fire spread rapidly, trapping several occupants.

To tackle the problem, Sood outlined a three‑step plan: first, a comprehensive audit of all structures within a 500‑metre radius of major coaching hubs; second, mandatory retrofitting where deficiencies are found; and third, an ongoing monitoring mechanism that involves local ward officers and resident welfare associations. “We’re collaborating with fire services, engineers, and even the students themselves. If a PG manager knows there’s a crack in the ceiling, they should be able to report it without fear of penalty,” he added.

Critics, however, caution that implementation could hit snags. Many PG owners argue that retrofitting is costly, and some coaching centres claim that the added scrutiny might disrupt their schedules. Sood acknowledged these concerns but emphasized that safety cannot be a “nice‑to‑have” extra. “A single loss of life outweighs any inconvenience or expense,” he asserted.

Meanwhile, the city has already begun rolling out pilot inspections in three of the busiest coaching corridors. Early findings show that while most buildings meet basic fire‑safety norms, a sizable chunk fails to meet seismic standards. The department plans to publish a detailed report next month, hoping the data will spur faster action.

For students and parents, the message is clear: ask questions, demand certificates, and don’t assume that a bustling campus automatically means a safe one. As Sood put it, “Safety is a collective responsibility. When we all look out for each other, the chances of tragedy shrink dramatically.”