The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of balancing public health needs with environmental concerns and the discretion of the State Government in relaxing building rules.

The Thiruvananthapuram Specialists Hospital Private Limited, Pattom Palace (respondent No. 5 - hereinafter referred to as the Hospital in this judgement) was started at the initiative of medical specialists who were either working abroad or returned after years of experience abroad and in 1987 opened the hospital in Pattom Palace on the area under lease of 150 years on consideration of Rs. 65 lakhs. The land in question is on lease with the hospital. The hospital has multi specialties in Cardiology, Cardiac surgery, Opthalmology, lens implant and laser unit Nephrology with advanced dialysis unit. One by one thereafter the hospital started opening new specialities. The number of beds and increased specialities created need for the development and spread over to meet the demand for growing need of additional beds and specialities for extension of the existing construction. The application of the hospital to the State Government and grant of it in regard to exemption and relaxation of the relevant building rules is under challenge in this petition.

2. In the very Pattern palace compound, on the land, the Kerala State Housing Board constructed residential buildings and the petitioners, being the purchasers and therefore owners/ occupiers of the residential flats constructed by the Housing Board, have objected to the sanction order dated 30.11.1993 (Ext. P1) granting exemption, under section 5 of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984. The relevant text of the said order is reproduced as follows:

"Under rule 5 of Kerala Building Rules 1984, and in consultation with the Local Authority and Chief Town Planner, Government are pleased to exempt the construction of a six storeyed hospital building in Survey No. 1759 of Madathuvilakom Village by M/s. The Thiruvananthapuram Specialists Hospital (P) Ltd. from the rules 15(5) & 33(c),17(2), 20(2), 21(12), 3(3), 18(2) of the said rules as per the plan submitted by them and approved by the competent authority subject to the following conditions:-.

1. A minimum Rear open space of 6.5 m should be provided for the proposed extension.

2. An emergency staircase should be provided.

3. No objection Certificate of the Airport Authority should be produced.

4. The above construction is also exempted from the soning regulation of the sanctioned Master Plan for Thiruvananthapuram city.

5. The order is not a sanction to start work. Before starting construction, development permit from Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority and Building permit from Thiruvananthapuram Corporation should be obtained.

3. The objections spelt out in the petition are five-fold and are as hereunder:

1. In the Master Plan of Trivandrum city the area was declared as 'residential area' and the premises of the Palace building is declared as open space.

2. Some additions were made at the back of the building in the name of modification ignoring the protest of the neighbouring house owners by the 5th respondent.

3.The 5th respondent who has a vital role in maintaining health and hygene are creating an unhealthy and polluting the area. The waste materials from the hospital and the patients are being thrown in the open space just behind the houses constructed by the petitioners.

4. The bad odour emanated from the hospital is aggravated by the decaying and decomposed waste in addition to pollution.

5. More over the intolerable sound from the generator of the Hospital throughout the day and night has been created sound pollution"

The said objections are further spelt out in para 4 of the petition in the following manner:

1. The proposed construction of the 6th storeyed building has been approved in such a fashion that the back portion has been projected on the Partom Junction - Medical College Road side thereby the side wall practically beded the compound wall. The proposed construction and the functioning of the Hospital would create pollution and the approval of the plan itself is contrary to the scheme approved by the 2nd respondent. Theref