IMPORTANT POINT
The Rules, 1999 are absolutely of technical nature in regard to building construction, and therefore until and otherwise it is established that any of the rule or rules has any sort of technical flaw, it will not be proper for a writ court to sit over the rules and hold it or them astray.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by a person said to be a social activist and former Vice Chairman of Nedumangad Municipality for 8 years and Acting Chairman for one year. He also claims to be the Secretary of the Madhya Nirodhana Samithi (Anti Liquor Society), Kerala State and Gandhiyan Vijana Vedhi, Nedumangad and seeks to quash Ext.P7 No Objection Certificate (final) issued by the Divisional Fire Officer, Thiruvananthapuram dated 30.10.2010, Ext.P8 order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Secretary of the first respondent, Ext.P9 occupancy certificate issued by the Secretary of the Nedumangad Municipality dated 12.01.2011 and Ext.P12 recommendation of the Government of India, Ministry of Tourism dated 23.07.2012 recommending Four Star Classification to Hotel Indraprastha, Nedumangad P.O. Thiruvananthapuram, apparently run by respondents 5 and 6 in a building owned by the 3rd respondent and further seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Secretary of the Nedumangad Municipality to comply with the directions of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment dated 08.12.2009 in W.P. (C) No. 18134 of 2009 and Ext.P3 Government Order dated 05.11.2007 insofar as it is applicable to Rule 3(c) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (‘Rules 1999’ for short) and for other related reliefs.

2. The public interest put forth by the petitioner is with regard to an unauthorised construction of a building at Nedumangad, wherein Hotel Indraprastha is functioning. The sum and substance of the contention advanced is that respondent No. 3, the owner of the building, and respondents 5 and 6 partners of the aforesaid hotel, have secured undue benefits exerting their undue influence, money power and corrupt practices and carried out unauthorised construction of the building and secured regularisation order and occupancy certificate from the Secretary of the Nedumangad Municipality. It is also the case of the petitioner that regularisation done and the occupancy certificate issued are in violation of Ext.P3 Government Order and the directions issued in Ext.P5 judgment rendered by this Court. It is also contended that the Secretary of the Municipality has abused the power vested in her by relying upon Ext.P7 Fire and Safety NOC issued by the 4th respondent containing falsehood as to the height of the building recorded as 14.93 meters against the actual 16.60 meters, which was found and reported by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court in a writ petition, who has carried out physical measurement of the height of the building in the presence of the Secretary of the Municipality, the Chief Town Planner and the owner of the building.

3. It is also contended that the violations committed by the Divisional Fire Officer and the Secretary of the Municipality are substantiated by the new incumbent in the office of the Fire Officer by declining to renew Ext.P7 No Objection Certificate, and in his letter issued to the partner of the hotel, he undoubtedly said that the building is a high rise building, which is an unauthorised one.

4. Other contentions are raised in regard to the enquiry conducted by the State Police Vigilance and the observation of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, and relying upon the same, it is also stated that prima facie findings in regard to the height of the building as alleged by the petitioner are found to be correct. It is also stated that against the directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment and Ext.P3 order of the Government, the category of the building was changed to mercantile against the category of restaurant, lodging rooms, commercial office and ancillary parking falling under the category of A1, A2 and D of Rule 16 of Kerala Building Rules, 1984 (‘Rules, 1984’ for short) and further that the Government as per Ext.P3 and this Court as per Ext.P5 judgmen