K.Balakrishnan Nair.

The petitioners challenge two orders of the Government, granting exemption from the operation of certain provisions of the Kerala Building Rules and also the building permit granted on the basis of those orders in favour of respondents 5 and 6. The brief facts of the case are the following:

2. The petitioners are the tenants of a building jointly owned by respondents 5 and 6. The said respondents have filed Rent Control Petitions against them and other tenants for eviction under S.11(4)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965. Ext. PI is the Rent Control Petition filed against the 1st petitioner, to which he has filed Ext. P2 objection. A Photostat copy of the building permit obtained by the landlords was produced a1ongwith the Rent Control Petition, as evident from the list of documents in Ext. P1. The petitioners submit, the copy of the permit was not served on them. When the case was listed for trial, the copy of the building permit was perused by the counsel for the petitioners and it was found that two Government orders were referred to in it. Ext. P3 is the copy of the building permit. On the advice of the counsel, the petitioners obtained copies of those orders in September, 2002. Those orders are Exts. P4 and P5. The petitioners found that Exts. P4 and P5 grant exemption from the operation of various mandatory provisions of the Building Rules and they were issued without following the mandatory statutory procedure. Therefore, they filed this Original Petition in October, 2002, challenging those orders and the building permit issued based on them.

3. The petitioner submit, Exts. P4 and P5 exemption orders were issued without consulting the Development Authority and the Chief Town Planner and without their favourable recommendations. It is also contended that the mandatory stipulations contained in S.410 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 were also ignored while issuing them. Therefore, those orders are invalid and Ext.P3 permit issued relying on those orders is also invalid. It is also submitted that the Government have no power of review and Ext. P5 order, issued purportedly reviewing Ext.P4, is ab initio void.

4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, resisting the prayers in the Original Petition. It is submitted that the petitioner have no locus standi to challenge Exts. P3 to P5 orders. They came to know about the building permit at last when Ext. PI and similar petitions were served on them in 1998-99. They have chosen to challenge the orders relied on in the building permit only in 2002 and so, this O.P. is liable to dismissed on the ground of delay and laches from their part. It is also submitted that the impugned exemption orders were passed after consulting the Development Authority and the Chief Town Planner and taking into account their views. Since Ext.P4 was issued overlooking certain relevant materials, on the motion made by respondents 5 and 6, Ext.P5 was issued validly, it is submitted.

5. Heard the learned counsel Shri George Poonthottam for the petitioners, the learned Govt. Pleader Shri M. A.Thomaskutty for respondents 1 and 2, Shri C. Varghese Kuriakose for respondents 5 and 6. The respective learned standing counsel for respondents 3 and 4 were also heard.

6. Exts. P4 and P5 orders were passed by the Government under S.410 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, r/w R.5 of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984. Section 410 has been omitted from the Act with effect from 24.3.1999. But, it remained in force while the above orders were passed. S.410 reads as follows:

"410. Power of Government to grant exemption: - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Government may, by order, for reasons to be stated therein, exempt the construction of any building from all or any of the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder subject to such conditions or restrictions as may be specified in such o