The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on the findings of the Fire Safety Authority and the possibility of relaxation under the National Building Code for substantial compliance with the building rules.

Petitioners who are joint owners of an extent of 8.9 Ares of land situate in Survey Nos.1866/10 and 11866/11 of Thrissur Village, Thrissur Taluk and District, applied for permission to construct an eight storeyed building with basement in the said property before the additional 4th respondent, Thrissur Municipal Corporation. Along with the application for building permit, Ext.P1 plan for securing an initial No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the 2nd respondent was also submitted, which was forwarded by the additional 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent after verifying and approving the plan, issued Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate.

2. On the basis of Exts.P1 and P2, additional 4th respondent issued Ext.P3 building permit to the petitioners for construction of the Apartment Complex, as per Ext.P1 approved building plan. Petitioners completed the construction of the building as per Ext.P3 permit during the year 2015 by employing a builder. The Apartment units were sold to several persons. After completion of the construction, petitioners applied for and obtained Ext.P4 permit from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. However, when applied for final no objection certificate from the 3rd respondent, petitioners were issued with Ext.P5 order, refusing to issue the final NOC, in effect stating that the fire escape staircase does not have two sides abutting external walls, as contemplated under Sections 39 and 42 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, and directed the petitioners to rectify this defect as a condition for issuing the final NOC.

3. According to the petitioners, as the building in question is having a height of more than 16 metres, it is a high rise building as contemplated under Rule 110 of the Building Rules, and therefore, the provisions contained under Chapter XVII are applicable to the petitioners' building. That apart, it is stated that, under Rule 114(3), read with Rule 111 of the Building Rules, only one side of the fire escape staircase need to have an external wall. It is also contended that, under identical circumstances, this Court had issued an interim order in W.P.(C) No. 19981 of 2016 dated 23.06.2016, and directed the 3rd respondent therein to issue a provisional NOC to the building, evident from Ext.P6. Even though petitioners approached the 3rd respondent with a copy of the said order and requested him to issue an identical order in this case, it was turned down and directed the petitioner to secure independent order from this Court. These are the background facts projected by the petitioners to secure the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, viz., to quash Ext.P5 order and a further direction to the respondents to issue a final No Objection Certificate in respect of fire fighting system in the building covered by Exts.P2 and P5 orders.

4. Third respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. Apart from other contentions, it is stated, Chapter XVII of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules deals with safety rules with high rise buildings. Rule 112(1) of the Rules mandates that every high rise building shall have at least two staircases, and Rule 114(1) of the said Rules mandates that every high rise building shall be provided with the fire escape stair way. From a conjoint reading of the said Rules, it is clear that every high rise building shall have at least two staircases and one fire escape staircase. Apart from the same, it is also stated that as per Rule 39(2) of the Rules, the width of the main stair case should be 1.20 metres. Rule 114(4) mandates that the minimum width of fire escape staircase as 75 c.m. In the building of the writ petitioners, there are only two staircases having width of 1.20 metres. That apart, a fire escape staircase having a width of 75 c.m. is not provided. The Divisional Level Verification Committee headed by the 3rd respondent inspected the building of the