IMPORTANT POINTS
The 'guest rooms' in the second floor were also converted as Class Rooms-It is a clear case of change in occupancy for which the management should have obtained prior approval from the local authority concerned. In this regard reliance is placed on Rule 4 (2) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. But a perusal of the said provision it is evident that, the requirement for obtaining permission is needed only with respect to any reconstruction, addition or expansion or alteration of any existing building in a manner affecting its structure or in a manner increasing its plinth area-Only the internal walls were removed in order to convert certain rooms as class rooms. Therefore the requirement of obtaining approval for such alterations is not a statutorily required.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Rehim, J:

The above writ appeals are instituted against a common judgment of the Single Judge in W (C) No.23782/2019 and 23783/2019, dated 26th September, 2019. The University of Kerala and its officers, who are the respondents 3 to 5 in the writ petitions, are the appellants herein. The 1st respondent institution is the writ petitioner. The respondents 2 to 4 in both the appeals are the respondents 1, 2 & 6 in the writ petitions.

2. In W.P (C) No.23782/2019, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner sought for a mandamus against the university to issue affiliation for the additional intake of 60 students for the course, “Bachelor Hotel Management and Catering Technology (BHMCT)”. Similarly in W.P (C) No.23783/2019 the relief was to direct the university to grant affiliation for starting the course of “Bachelor of Vocation in Food Processing Course (B. Voc (Food Processing)”. In the said writ petition, relief was also sought to quash Ext.P4 communication issued by the Registrar of the university rejecting the affiliation for the B.Voc (Food Processing) course for the academic year 2018-2019

3. Brief history of the case is that, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) had granted approval for the institute to start BHMCT course for the academic year 20192010, with an intake of 180 students. On the basis of approval of the AICTE, the writ petitioner institution approached the appellant university seeking affiliation for the increased intake of 180 students for the said course. Through Ext.P7 proceedings issued by the university on 29-06-2019, conditional affiliation was granted for additional batch of only 60 students for the course of BHMCT, for the academic year 2019-2020. The university had declined affiliation for the total strength of intake approved by the AICTE. This resulted in the institution approaching this court in W.P (C) No.13004/2019. In the said writ petition this court directed an inspection to be conducted by the university with respect to the deficiencies pointed out in the letter given while declining the affiliation for the entire capacity of intake as approved by AICTE. Even after conducting such an inspection, the university pointed out certain deficiencies in the infrastructural facilities and not granted affiliation to the additional intake of 60 students. This was under challenge in W.P (C) 23782/2019.

4. With respect to B.Voc (Food Processing), initial approval was granted in the year 2018. But the approval of AICTE was obtained only for the academic year 2019-2020. But the university declined to grant affiliation for the B.Voc (Food Processing) course pointing out certain inadequacies of infrastructural facilities. One among the major objection raised by the university in both the above said cases is with respect to the structural stability of the building, after the alterations effected for creation of the new class rooms.

5. During pendency of the above writ petitions, WP (C) No.23782/2019 & 23783/2019, learned Single Judge on 02-09-2019 passed an order directing a competent Structural Engineer, approved under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, to conduct an inspection and to file a report before this court. Such inspection was directed to be conducted in the presence of the representatives of the university. Accordingly, one Sri. Anees Mohammed H., who is a qualified Structural Engineer having post graduate degree of M.Tech and who is a licenced 'A-Grade Engineer' having registration with the Department of Urban Affairs of the State Government, submitted a report regarding the structural stability of the building, based on the inspection conducted. He expressed the view that, the building in question is having structural stability. But the appellant/university raised objections to the said report by referring to a report submitted by one Sri. T.S. Remesh, Assistant Engineer (Civil), who is attached to the university, who was present at the time of the inspection. The main obj