1. This matter has a chequered history, so to speak. What was a legitimate activity at the beginning rendered itself illegitimate by the time it came to an end, owing to the events that followed subsequent to the commencement, but before completion, of the construction activity, which still remained fully complaint with the sanctioned plan, though. As a result, the Municipality has been caught between enforcing the law in its letter or in its spirit, so that the substantial cause of justice has been served, balancing the public interest in general and the individual interest of the petitioners in particular.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioners initially obtained Exhibit P1 building permit to construct a commercial building on an extent of 7.60 Ares. Though there has been certain disputes, which eventually stood resolved, concerning the transfer of land among the co-owners and also the transfer of building permit, it may not be germane for the adjudication of the present issue to have any detailed reference to that sequence of events.

3. While the construction was in progress on the strength of Exhibit P1 building permit dated 20.12.2010, the Government for the benefit of the respondent Municipality proposed to acquire certain land, including an extent of 1.82 Ares from and out of the petitioners’, ostensibly for the purpose of widening the road. It appears that the acquisition proceedings were completed, as could be seen from Exhibit P29, on 03.10.2012, by which time the petitioners constructed substantial part of the building. Having thus completed the building, when the petitioners applied through Exhibit P16 for the occupancy certificate and numbering of the building, the respondent Municipality did not act on their request.

4. Questioning the inaction of the respondent Municipality in considering the petitioners Exhibit P16 application for occupancy certificate and also assigning of the building number, the petitioners have filed W.P. (C) No. 17428/2014 and invited Exhibit P23 judgment. Taking into account the subsequent developments, a learned single Judge of this Court permitted the petitioners to submit an application for regularization of the construction already made and a consequential direction in positive terms to the respondent Municipality to regularize the said construction. The respondent Municipality, however, carried the matter in an intra-court appeal. Eventually, through Exhibit P4 judgment in W.A. No.1469/2014, a learned Division Bench of this Court interfered with Exhibit P23 judgment to the extent of the positive direction commanding regularization. The learned Division Bench has, nevertheless, left it open for the respondent Municipality to consider petitioners’ application for regularization in accordance with law.

5. Later, acting on Exhibit P24 judgment, the respondent Municipality has pointed out through Exhibit P25 certain deficiencies and required the petitioners to fulfill them. It appears that the petitioners, after obtaining the necessary consent from the other co-owners, as could be seen from Exhibit P26, submitted a reply reiterating their request for regularization and other consequential approvals, such as occupancy certificate and also numbering the building. The respondent Municipality has, however, issued Exhibit P27 objections essentially pointing out that there is noncompliance with Rules 34 (2), (3), (7) and (8) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (‘the Rules’ for brevity). In response to Ext.P27, the petitioners submitted Exhibit P28 explanation, elaborating on the acquisition, at the behest and for the benefit of the Municipality, pending construction and the resultant reduction in the parking area contrary to the norms fixed under Rule 34 of the Rules.

6. After Exhibit P31 reminder from the petitioners, eventually the respondent Municipality issued Exhibit P32 impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization and also grant of occupancy cer