Judges : M.JAGANNADHA RAO,K.SREEDHARAN
Raman - Appellant
Versus
Sate of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : O.P.No.11936 of 1991
Decided On : 01/21/1994
Advocates Appeared :
K. Ramakumar For Petitioner Advocate General (M.B. Kurup), K.P.G.Menon & P.K. Ibrahim For Respondents
exemption - construction of buildings - Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961, Kerala Building Rules, 1984 - S.367, S.238, S.344, S.222 - The court upheld the validity of Rule 5 of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984, which enables exemptions to be granted by the Government. The court found that the Act provided sufficient guidance for the rule-making authority to prepare an integrated set of building rules and that Rule 5, which grants power of exemption to the Government, is part of the scheme. The court also found that the exercise of power of exemption by the Government in granting the exemption orders was not arbitrary and was valid and did not suffer from any infirmity.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petition raised a question of law relating to the power of the Government to grant exemptions in the matter of construction of buildings under the provisions of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961, read with the Kerala Building Rules, 1984. The case related to a building in Kozhikode Corporation for which exemption was granted by the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the validity of Rule 5 of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984, and found that the exercise of power of exemption by the Government in granting the exemption orders was not arbitrary and was valid and did not suffer from any infirmity.
Issues: ['Validity of Rule 5 of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984', 'Validity of the exercise of powers under Rule 5 by the Government in issuing the exemption orders', 'Whether the respondents started construction before applying for exemptions']
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Act provided sufficient guidance for the rule-making authority to prepare an integrated set of building rules and that Rule 5, which grants power of exemption to the Government, is part of the scheme. The court also found that the exercise of power of exemption by the Government in granting the exemption orders was not arbitrary and was valid and did not suffer from any infirmity.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed by the court.
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.
This Writ Petition raises a question of law relating to the power of the Government to grant exemptions in the matter of construction of buildings under the provisions of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961, read with the Kerala Building Rules, 1984. This Writ Petition was heard along with O.P. No. 12929 of 1991, which related to a building in Ernakulam Corporation. The building in the present case with regard to which exemption was granted by the Government is located in Kozhikode Corporation. In this case, the Government passed various orders of exemption under Rule 5 of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984, which confers power on the Government to grant exemptions. The Kerala Buildings Rules, 1984 were issued in exercise of the powers conferred under S.367 read with S.238 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 and also in exercise of the powers conferred under S.344 read with S.222 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960. In the present case, we are concerned with the above said Building Rules, 1984, in so far as they are traceable to the powers under the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961.
2. In this O.P., which relates fo the building in 'Kozhikode Corporation, the petitioner is one V. Raman, who claims to be the Secretary of the Kozhikode District Committee of the Kerala Kshethra Samrakshna Samithi (Temple Protection Committee). The said Samithi is registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Samithi owns and is in possession of lands and temple situated in Nagaram amsom desom in Kozhikode Town. The property owned by the Samithi is located in the Kiliparamba Hindu Temple. Respondents 5 to 8, namely, Sri Kozhiparambathu Abubacker Haji and three others purchased the property on the front side of the temple from one Velayudhan between whom and the above said Samithi, there was considerable litigation which ended in favour of the Hindu Samithi in S.A. No. 284 of 1990. The purchase by respondents 5 to 8 from Velayudhan was in respect of 8 cents of land in R.S. No. 2087 5 of Kozhikode Nagaram amsom desom. The 8 cents was purchased on 24-8-1989. Ever before the construction was started respondents 5 to 8 submitted a representation to the Government seeking exemption from the various provisions of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984. This was submitted through the office of the Calicut Development Authority and the office of the Corporation of Calicut in regard to the construction of three storied 'shop-cum-lodge' building. On 23-1-1990, the Calicut Development Authority made its remarks on the proposal for construction of 'shop-cum-lodge' building in T.S.No. 243 in Ward No. 13 stating that the area is reserved for public and semi-public use as per the sanctioned detailed Town Planning Scheme for ward No. 13 of the Calicut corporation. On 5-3-1990 the Commissioner of the Corporation rejected the application of respondents 5 to 8, as the proposal as per the plan submitted by respondents 5 to 8 was in violation of various provisions of the Kerala Building Rules. - On 29-3-1990, the petition of respondents 5 to 8 for exemption above mentioned was referred to the Government, on 29-5-1990, the Chief Town Planner, Trivandrum, recommended exemption from the Zoning Regulations of the Master Plan and the relevant provisions of the Kerala Building Rules, subject to certain conditions vide reference No. D4-5883/90/K. Dis. dated 26-5-1990. The said recommendation was accepted by the government, which issued G.O. Rt. No. 2368/90/LAD dated 6-6-1990 granting exemption from the operation of Rules 15(7), 35(1), 22(6) (b), 17(2) and 20of the Kerala Building Rules, and also granting exemption from Zoning Regulations of sanctioned Master Plan.
3. Thereafter, respondents 5 to 8 did not start construction, but felt that some minor exemptions could also be got, so that the construction could be made within the area in their possession. They, therefore, made a further representation, which was . received
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.