HRISHIKESH ROY, J.

1. Heard Sri. Franklin Chellath, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents 1 to 3 are represented by the learned State Attorney Sri. K.V. Sohan. The Corporation of Cochin [4th respondent] is represented by Adv. Sri. Millu Dandapani. The Greater Cochin Development Authority [5th respondent] is represented by Adv. Sri. Paul Jacob.

2. This Public Interest Litigation is filed questioning the constitutional validity of the Ordinance No. 4/2016 relating to town and country planning affairs, promulgated by the State Governor on 9.1.2016 as also the legislative exercise through which the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as “the 2016 Act ”] was enacted. While the challenge to the promulgation of the Ordinance may have become redundant by virtue of the subsequent enactment, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defects noted by this Court in the Town Planning Act, 1939 [hereinafter referred to as “the 1939 Act ”] as also the Madras Town Planning Act, 1920 [hereinafter referred to as “the 1920 Act ”] in Shivaprasad vs. State of Kerala, 2011 (1) KLT 690 : 2011 (2) KLJ 1, continue to prevail in th