The Thripunithura Municipality challenges Ext.P6 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions allowing an appeal filed by the 1st respondent-builder against the Municipality’s order declining building permit for the construction of an additional floor over a four storied building already permitted to be constructed under Ext.P2 dated 27.6.2007. Ext.P1 is true copy of the certificate from the Fire Department issued in favour of the 1st respondent in respect of the four storied building permitted under Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is copy of the revised plan submitted by the 1st respondent to the Municipality proposing to add one more floor to the building under construction on the strength of Ext.P2. The Municipality points out that the building is proposed to be constructed by the 1st respondent on a plot has got access from public road through a 5.5 meter wide road and that the building does not abut any public road. That being the position, the Municipality could not have granted permission for construction of additional floor since such permission would violate Rules 117 and 50 of the KMBR, 1999. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order declining permit was issued. Against Ext.P4 the builder field W.P.C>No.36901/06 before this court. In that writ Petition Ext.P5 counter affidavit was filed by the Municipality. During the course of the arguments, the 1st respondent opted for filing appeal before the 2nd respondent- Tribunal against Ext.P4 and it is accordingly that the 1st respondent approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal on considering the appeal has passed the impugned order Ext.P6 finding inter alia that the proposed building with the additional floor sought to be constructed will not be a high rise building as defined under Rule 110 of the KMBR and that the requirement of open space for fire fighting under Rule 117 cannot be insisted upon. As regards Rule 50 of the KMBR relating to recreation space, the petitioner-Municipality is directed to reconsider the issue and pass fresh orders. Impugning Ext.P6 on various grounds the Municipality prays that Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal be quashed and a declaration that the ground floor of the petitioner’s building proposed to be constructed as per Ext.P3 plan is also a floor and hence the proposed building will be a high rise building as defined under Rule 110 of the KMBR, 1999. It is also prayed that a general declaration be issued that any building having more than four floors and also any building having more than 15 meters of height are high rise buildings for the purpose of Rule 110 of the KMBR, 1999 requiring compliance of Rule 117.

2. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, Adv. M/s. Joseph & Kurian took notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. The writ petition was admitted and I have heard the submissions of Mr. V.M. Kurian, learned counsel for the petitioner-Municipality and those of Mr. Joseph Markose, Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent.

.3. Mr. V.M. Kurian, learned counsel for the petitioner-Municipality submitted that the short point which arises for decision in this case is whether the building which is proposed to be constructed by the petitioner by adding one more floor to the four floors already permitted will be a high rise building as defined under Rule 110 of the KMBR. The learned counsel referred to the definitions given to the terms ‘basement floor’. ‘storey’, ‘floor’, ‘ground floor’, ‘height of building’, ‘high rise building’ and ‘open space for fire fighting’ under Rule 2 dealing with definitions and Rule 110 which defines the term ‘high rise’ building. Mr.Kurian also referred to Rule 117 of the KMBR which insists on open space for fire fighting for every high rise building. Mr.Kurian argued that the view of the Tribunal that for counting the number of floors for the purpose of determining whether the building is a high rise building or not, the ground floor is to be excluded, is erroneous. The provisions of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act h