SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Ker) 896

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
M/s. Peevees Projects (P) Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Director General, Fire & Rescue Services Head Quarters & Others – Respondents
W.P.(C) Nos. 24986 (W) of 2016 & 19309 of 2017
Decided On : 21-08-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V.V. Asokan, Senior Advocate, Sunil Shanker, R. Jaikrishna, P. RahuL, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Renjith Thampan, Advocate, E.D. George, SC.

Compliance with building permit requirements under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and adherence to fire protection requirements in the National Building Code are essential for obtaining final NOC for assembly occupancy buildings.

Headnote:

Building Permit - Assembly Occupancy - Kerala Municipality Building Rules - Rule 55(8a) - National Building Code - Ext.P4 Building Permit - Final NOC - Height Restrictions - Fire Protection - Public Safety

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner owns a multi-storied commercial building and obtained building permits for construction. The building was initially intended for cinema theaters and later revised for a multiplex. The petitioner sought final NOC for the multiplex, but it was denied based on height restrictions in the National Building Code and non-compliance with fire protection requirements.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the building permit was not issued in accordance with the Rules as the certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force was not obtained for the revised building plan. The court also upheld the denial of final NOC based on the adopted requirements in the National Building Code for fire protection in assembly occupancy buildings.

Issues: Non-compliance with Rule 55(8a) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, denial of final NOC based on height restrictions in the National Building Code, and public safety concerns.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the building permit was not issued in accordance with the Rules and upheld the denial of final NOC based on the adopted requirements in the National Building Code for fire protection in assembly occupancy buildings.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed as devoid of merits.

JUDGMENT :

1. The issues arising for consideration in these matters are closely interlinked. The petitioner is also one and the same in both the matters. The writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. The parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.24986 of 2016.

2. The petitioner owns a multi-storied commercial building within the limits of Kochi Corporation (the Corporation). The building of the petitioner is one constructed on the strength of the building permits obtained by the predecessors of the petitioner. The predecessors of the petitioner initially obtained Ext.P1 building permit on 18/9/2007 under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (the Rules) for construction of a building consisting of three basement floors, ground floor and thirteen upper floors. Since the layout approval of the Chief Town Planner was required for the proposed building in terms of the Rules, Ext.P1 building permit was obtained on the basis of Ext.P2 layout approval. The building proposed being an assembly occupancy building consisting of cinema theaters, Ext.P2 layout approval was granted by the Chief Town Planner, among others, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall comply with the requirement contained in Rule 55(8a) of the Rules for constructing the building. Rule 55(8a) of the Rules provides that in the case of assembly occupancy buildings, irrespective of their number of floors, a certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force shall be obtained and produced for issuing building permit. It is stated by the petitioner that in the light of the said stipulation contained in Ext.P2 layout approval, the predecessors of the petitioner have obtained Ext.P3 certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force and Ext.P1 building permit was obtained on the strength of the said certificate. It is mentioned in Ext.P3 certificate of approval that a fresh No Objection Certificate (NOC) should be obtained from the Fire and Rescue Services Department for occupation of the building after the construction. It is seen that after about two years, the predecessors of the petitioner have decided to change the plan of the building and also the nature of occupation substantially and consequently applied for revision of the building permit. The revised proposal was for construction of three basement floors, ground floor and eight upper floors, of which floors 6 to 8 were for housing a movie theater complex with multiple cinema screens (multiplex). The revised building permit applied for by the predecessors of the petitioner was granted by the Corporation on 28.11.2009. Ext.P4 is the revised building permit. It is stated that by April, 2013, when the petitioner completed the structure of the building and the interiors upto the fifth floor, they have applied for and obtained Ext.P5 final NOC from the Fire and Rescue Services Department for occupation of the building upto the fifth floor. On the strength of the said NOC, the petitioner has occupied the building upto the fifth floor. Later, during 2014, the petitioner completed the works of the multiplex and applied for final NOC in respect of floors 6 to 8 of the building for occupying the multiplex. On the said application, the petitioner was issued Ext.P9 communication by the first respondent stating that the building of the petitioner being one coming under mercantile-cum-assembly category, having a height of 40.6 metres, the final NOC sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in the light of the provisions contained in the National Building Code. It is stated in Ext.P9 that the maximum permissible height for assembly occupancy buildings in terms of the National Building Code is 30 metres.

3. The petitioner challenged Ext.P9 communication before this Court in W.P.(C) No.32491 of 2014. It is se
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top