The proprietor of a cinema house by name M/s. Rajendra Talkies filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, arraying the State of Kerala and the Chief Town Planner as the respondents, complaining of undue delay on the part of the 2nd respondent in the matter of approving the lay out plan submitted by her for the reconstruction of her cinema house building and in granting permit for reconstruction. On the petitioner filing an application for approval of the lay out plan, the Chief Town Planner (2nd respondent) vide Ext.P1 proceedings dated 30.9.2004 approved the same. In Ext.P1 two conditions were imposed. The first condition was that the petitioner shall remit compounding fee under the Rules and Regulations in terms of Rule 143 of Kerala Municipality Building Rules 1999. The second condition was that the petitioner has to obtain a fire NOC under Rule 55 (8a) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Contending that the fire NOC is not necessary for cinema house building, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent again. But the 2nd respondent turned down the petitioner's request for exemption from production of fire NOC and Ext.P2 is the order of the 2nd respondent in that regard. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the first respondent Government and the Government passed Ext.P3 order dated 6.1.2006 directing the 2nd respondent not to insist on production of fire NOC in respect of the construction of the cinema house building. Since it was noticed that there was delay in spite of Ext.P3 on the part of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation seeking passage of orders early urging that fire NOC is not necessary in the case of cinema theatres which are not air conditioned or multiple or multi-storeyed ones in view of the provisions of the Cinemas Regulations Rules 1988 and Rule 55 (1) of the KMBR. The petitioner therefore filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to pass orders exempting the production of the fire NOC as directed in Ext.P3 Government Order.

2. When the writ petition came up for admission, the Government Pleader took notice on behalf of the first respondent and urgent notice on admission was issued to the 2nd respondent. An interim order was passed directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 representation in the light of Ext.P3 Government Order at the earliest and at any rate within two weeks of receiving a copy of that order. Thereafter, producing Ext.P5 Government Order dated 22.11.2006 by which Ext.P3 earlier Government Order was cancelled and raising additional grounds of challenge against Ext.P5, the petitioner filed application for amendment of the writ petition which was allowed. As per the amended writ petition, the following are the additional reliefs sought for;

(i)(a). Writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P5.

(i)(b). A declaration that Rule 55 (8) (a) is not applicable to the case of the petitioner's theatre and fire NOC is not necessary in respect of the petitioner's theatre and direct the Respondents to issue appropriate orders in that behalf.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner died and thereupon her husband was allowed to get himself impleaded as an additional petitioner on the strength of a Will under which the theatre in question has been bequeathed in his favour.

4. Ext.P5 order was passed by the Government in cancellation of Ext.P3 earlier order on the basis of a letter issued by the 2nd respondent to the Government. The reasons stated in Ext.P5 for insistence of fire NOC is that it is provided by Section 382 of the Kerala Municipality Act 1994 that the provisions of that Act and Rules framed thereunder ought to be complied with while buildings are constructed or unreconstructed. In the writ petition, the petitioner points out Rules 55 (8a) and Rule 55 (10) of KMBR which are as follows:

"Rule 55 (8a): In the case of assembly occupancy buildings, irr