IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 32499 of 2003(R) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS : ----------------------- 1. C.V.JOSE, CHITTILAPILLY HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS, MUNDUPALAM, THRISSUR 680 001 2. ANNIE JOSE W/O. C.V.JOSE, CHITTILAPILLY HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS, MUNDUPALAM, THRISSUR-680 001 3. JINO JOSE S/O. C.V.JOSE, CHITTILAPILLY HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS, MUNDUPALM, THRISSUR 680 01 4. JINTO JOSE S/O. C.V.JOSE, CHITTILAPILLY HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS, MUNDUPALAM, THRISSUR 680 001 BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL SMT.SWAPNA HASSAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TRIVANDRUM 3. THRISSUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR 4. THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R4 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R4 SRI.K.A.SREEJITH FOR R4 SRI. I.V. PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32499 of 2003 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P. NO.19739/1998 DATED 30/9/1999. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(Rt) NO.909/2000/LSGD DATED 28/02/2000 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDR NO.G.O.(Rt)NO.2699/2000/LSGD DATED 5/07/2000 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3712/2000/LSGD DATED 28/9/2000. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.5640/M2/2001/LSGD DATED 30/6/2001 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (Rt) NO.953/01/LSGD DATED 14/03/2001 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.42039/M2/2001/LSGD DATED 5/7/2002 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF FIELD NO.927 OF CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.32499 of 2003 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge Exts.P5 & P8. 2. According to the petitioners, in their 28 cents of land in Thrissur town, they were desirous of constructing a multi storeyed building. Finally, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P3 exempting the construction from various constructions of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984. Accordingly, the building with ground floor and two upper floors were constructed by the petitioners. 3. Thereafter, they approached the 1st respondent again for getting permission to construct one more floor, granting the exemption as already given to them by Ext.P3. This was considered by the 1st respondent and by Ext.P5, the application was rejected for the reason that violations of the Kerala Building Rules are of serious nature. 4. Subsequently, mainly relying on Ext.P7, yet another order of exemption passed by the 1st respondent in respect of an WP(C) No.32499/2003 -2- adjoining property, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 seeking review of Ext.P5. That was rejected by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P8 for the reason mentioned in Ext.P5 itself. It is in this background, the writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P5 & P8, and also for a direction to the respondents to grant permission to the petitioners to construct one more floor to the existing building. 5. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Municipality objects to the prayer made. According to him, already the building has been constructed by availing of the benefit of exemption granted by the Government. It is pointed out that in several respects, the building does not comply with the provisions of the Building Rules. According to him, the Government has justified in the view it has taken in Ext.P5, which was reiterated in Ext.P8 also. 6. Admittedly, the building in question has been constructed in violation of the Municipality Building Rules, on the strength of an order of exemption granted in the petitioners' favour. While considering Ext.P6, the petition filed for review of Ext.P5, the Government passed Ext.P8 rejecting the same. Both Exts.P5 & P8 WP(C) No.32499/2003 -3- show that it was taking into account the gravity of the violation of Building Rules that the permission sought for by the petitioners was rejected. 7. True, the learned counsel for the petitioners complains that in identical situation, the adjoining owner has been granted exemption. The order of exemption already granted is one permitting the petitioners to construct building in violation of the Building Rules, and therefore, if the request of the petitioners for permission to construct one more floor was allowed, that will only be permitting the petitioners to perpetuate the illegality that was committed by granting exemption issued in favour of their neighbouring owners. Therefore, this Court will not be justified in directing the respondents to perpetuate any illegality. For that reason, the writ petition lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg