1. These two cases are inter-connected and can, therefore, be advantageously disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The two cases typically indicate how a determined litigant can, by successful representations, without any basis in law, continue to flout the law by blatantly violating all building regulations in the State.

3. It is necessary to put on record the full facts of the sordid saga of this litigation to get a proper perspective.

4. In the State of Kerala, within the Corporation area of Thiruvananthapuram, the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") requires certain procedures to be followed and certain permissions to be obtained before anyone puts up a construction on a land falling within the Corporation area. The 4th respondent in O.P. No. 35689 of 2000 and the petitioner in O.P. No. 1563 of 2001, Sarveswaran Nair, made an application for demolishing building No. T.C. XXXVI/IIII situated within the area of Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation and for commencing construction of a residential building. Though exemption was granted conditionally by the District Collector from certain provisions of the Kerala Building Rules, without even complying with the imposed conditions and obtaining building permission, as required under S.382 read with S.387 of the Act, the 4th respondent started construction on the site on which the demolished building stood. This, notwithstanding the clear provision contained in R.6 of the Kerala Building Rules which provides that no person shall develop or re-develop any parcel of land without first obtaining a Development Permit for each such development or re-development from the concerned authority. The said rule further provides that no person shall erect, re-erect or make alterations or demolish any building/hut or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a building permit for each such building from the authority. Our repeated queries to the learned Counsel appearing for the said Nair as to whether there exists a building permit, has not met with a reply. He only submitted that the District Collector had granted exemption under the Kerala Building Rules.

5. When complaints were made about the construction made by the said Nair without obtaining a building permit, and in blatant violation of the Act, a provisional Order dated 16th April 1998 was issued to him under sub-ss. (1) and (2) of S.406 read with S.408 of the Act whereby he was called upon to show cause why the building which was being constructed without permission should not be demolished. After hearing the explanation of the said Nair, a final order of demolition was passed under sub-s. (3) of S.406 of the Act. Notwithstanding that order, the 4th respondent merrily continued with the construction of the building. He preferred an appeal under S.509(5) to the State Government and obtained an Order on 5th June 1998 to 'keep in abeyance' the demolition proceedings initiated against the residential building. Interestingly, this order further recites: "This stay should not be treated as a permission to proceed with the construction. The status quo should be maintained." This order was again conveniently ignored by Nair who continued with the construction. On 7th November 1998, the State Government vacated the stay granted for the specific reason that the said Nair had violated the conditions prescribed in its stay order. When the Corporation was about to take steps for demolition of the unauthorised construction, Nair rushed to the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and filed suit O.S. 2080 of 1998 and obtained an ad interim injunction against the Corporation from demolishing the building in question. We are not sure whether the ad interim order is confirmed, vacated or still continues. None of the Counsel appearing before us has any positive information on the issue. On 30th November 1998, the Corporation having been baulked in its attempt to demolish the building by the Order of t