The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of recommendations by the Greater Cochin Development Authority and the Chief Town Planner for granting exemptions from the operation of the Kerala Building Rules, and the importance of complying with mandatory provisions of the Rules for public safety and convenience.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Kerala High Court dismissing the appellant's Writ Petition filed against the grant of exemptions from the provisions of the Kerala Building Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') for construction of an eight storeyed high rise building in the city of Cochin to the 5th respondent.

2. The 5th respondent herein, owns a plot of land measuring 9.5 cents (384.46 sq. mtrs) in survey No. 312/1, situated at I.S. Press Road in the city of Cochin. On 1.10.1982, the 5th respondent submitted an application directly to the Government of Kerala seeking exemptions from operation of certain provisions of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1968 for the proposed construction of a three storeyed godown¬cum-office on the said plot of land. The Government, by a special order dated 12.10.1983, granted exemption from the operation of the R.30(1), 30(5)(b), 31(f) and 38(4)(c) of the Rules, subject to the following conditions:

"(i) The front open space will be 3 metres.

(ii) The front bays in the ground floor will also be kept opened for car parking

(iii) Rear open space will be minimum 1.8 mtrs.

(iv) Side open space on the northern side will be 1.5 mtrs.

(v) Side open space on the southern side will be 1.5 mtrs."

3. On 15.5.1984, the Kerala Building Rules, 1964 framed under S.344 read with S.222 of Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 and S.367 read with S.238 of the Kerala Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 came into force.

4. After the new Rules came into force, 5th respondent submitted another application to the Government seeking further exemption from operation of the Rules. In the said application, the 5th respondent pointed out that front set back of 4.5 mtrs. may be accepted and the conditions imposed in the exemption order to increase the front set back to 6 mtrs. may be relaxed. The 5th respondent in his application further pointed out that since there was ample space on the existing road for car parking, therefore the conditions for providing space for car parking may be deleted. The State Government by an order dated 13.3.1986 modified the earlier G.O. with the following modified conditions:

"(i) Front open space shall be 6 mtrs. for the ground floor. Upper floors may project by 3 mtrs. into this open space.

(ii) Rear open space shall be 1.5 mtrs.

(iii) Northern side space shall be 1 mtrs.

(iv) Southern side space shall be 1.5 mtrs."

5. After the exemption was granted, the 5th respondent started construction over the said plot of land. It is at this stage the appellant who is residing adjacent to the said plot of land raised objections to the Corporation as well as to the Authority, and also filed a suit for injunction. It appears that immediately after the completion of the three storeyed building, the 5th respondent on 19.3.1990 sent another application seeking exemption from operation of provisions of the Rules to construct an eight storeyed building by adding five more floors to the three storeyed building already constructed. This application was sent directly to the State Government and was not processed through, as required under proviso to R.5 of the Rules. It further appears that after receipt of the said application the Government asked for the comments from the Greater Cochin Development Authority (in short'GCDA'), Cochin Municipal Corporation, and the Town Planning Board to the application of 5th respondent. The GCDA as well as the Chief Town Planner, strongly objected to the grant of exemption from operation of the rules for construction of an eight storeyed building by the 5th respondent. On 16.8.1990, the Minister for Local Administration held a meeting in his chamber for consideration of the application of the 5th respondent. In the said meeting, the appellant, 5th respondent, and the Chief Town Planner were also present. It appears that the question as to whether the 5th respondent be granted exemption from operation of the rules for construction of an eight storeyed high rise