1. The contentions raised in both the above writ petitions are similar. In W.P.(C) No.17494/2017, the rejection of a consent by the Chief Town Planner, produced at Ext.P8, is impugned, while in W.P.(C) No.23944/2017, the rejection of a Fire NOC by the Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Palakkad, produced at Ext.P5, is impugned. Both the orders are on the ground that there is only an access of 5 metres width to the petitioner's property. The petitioner relies on Vidya Devi v. State of Kerala (W.P.(C) No.5866/2013) and Biji Francis v. State of Kerala (W.P.(C) No.20667/2016).

2. The brief facts to be noticed are that the petitioner's property lies abutting a Municipal road, which has only 5 metre width. The location sketch is produced at Ext.P2. The property of the petitioner is the one seen abutting the Municipal road, almost rectangular in shape. The petitioner has obtained easementary rights on an alleged pathway of 12 metres from the adjacent property owner, which, the petitioner claims, is the access to the property for satisfaction of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 59 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 ('Building Rules' for short). By Ext.P2, what is attempted to be demonstrated is that there is 12 metre pathway across the entire eastern and northern boundary of the petitioner's property. The Rule, hence, stands satisfied for Group-I(2) occupancy, is the contention raised.

3. Vidya Devi (supra) was a case in which the subject property had to be accessed from the Panchayat road by a street. The street had 7 metre width. However, the Panchayat road did not have that width. On a reading sub-rule (4) of Rule 61 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 (which is in para materia with the provision under the Building Rules); a learned Single Judge of this Court found that what is stipulated in the provision is the width of the street providing access to the plot from the main street and there is no specification of the width of the main street from which the access starts.

4. With all the respect at my command, I am unable to agree with the said proposition since the provision for 7 metre width for Group -I(2) occupancy is primarily for carrying out rescue operations in the event of a fire or other mishap; the possibility of which is more in the case of an hazardous activity. The petitioner intends to start an LPG godown in the property, which is prone to such mishaps. If there is no width for the main street, it is quite impossible for a fire engine to reach the property in which the hazardous occupancy is carried on. This would seriously hamper rescue operations and the chances of the fire spreading is also more. This Court, normally, would have referred the matter to a Division Bench, but the facts, as found in the aforesaid petition, does not commend such a reference.

5. As was indicated earlier, Ext.P2 produced in W.P.(C) No.17494/2017 shows the lie of the property and its access. The access is from the Municipal road and not from the 12 metre pathway provided on the northern and eastern boundary of the property. In fact, the access to both the alleged 12 metre pathway and the subject property is from the Municipal road, which only has a 5 metre width. It cannot be said that the 12 metre width pathway provides any sort of access to the subject property without it being accessed through the Municipal road. The petitioner, having purchased the right to use an extent of property on her two boundaries, cannot contend that it is the access to her property. The contention of easementary right having been purchased is also perilous in so far as the property of the petitioner having a clear access through the Municipal road.

6. The further reliance is placed on Biji Francis (supra), wherein there was a private street giving access to more than one plot having width of 3.5 to 3.9 metres. There, the petitioner's contention was that she had taken on lease a land, which has frontage all along the length of the path