Exemptions from building rules must comply with procedural requirements; failure to provide natural justice in administrative decisions warrants judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

P.M.Manoj, J.

Originally, three writ petitions came up for consideration today, i.e., WP(C) No. 237/19, 2168/2019 and 33681 of 2019. The first writ petition among these was preferred, challenging an order of exemption granted under Rule 3C of the Kerala Building Rules, 1999 as per GO(Rt) No.1617/2018/LSGD dated 14.06.2018. Whereas the second writ petition challenges the same order and also the consequential building permit issued by the Kannur Municipal Corporation, and the report submitted by the Kannur Municipal Corporation before the Chief Town Planner for consideration of the exemption to be granted. On the other hand, the beneficiary of the above orders has preferred the third writ petition challenging the order of cancellation of occupancy certificate which was issued on completion of the construction pursuant to the exemption order and the building permit so issued.

2. Since the counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.237/2019 had relinquished the vakalath, and despite repeated postings there was no representation for the petitioner, the said writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Accordingly, only the remaining two writ petitions are required to be adjudicated.

3. It is the case of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2168 of 2019 that the exemption granted under Rule 3C of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (for short ‘KMBR,1999’) to respondents 4 to 8 as per Ext.P11 and the Building permit issued as per Ext.P12 on the basis of Ext.P10 recommendation by the Municipal Corporation to the Chief Town Planner are in violation of the relevant provisions KMBR, 1999.

4. The case projected by the petitioner is that an extent of 0.70 Ares (70 Mt. Squares) of property in Re-survey 66/4 of Edakkad Village and Kannur karar Desom along with a two-storied tiled building having building Nos.EP 10/238-243 was purchased by respondents 4 to 8 as per Ext.P1 sale deed from Kachayi Puthiya Purayil Beepathu. While the said property was in possession of the aforementioned Beepathu, a small extent was taken by the Government for widening of the road. The remaining property alone was sold to respondents 4 to 8. Thereafter, no portion was taken from respondents 4 to 8 for the purpose of widening of the road. It is further contended that the said building collapsed due to heavy rain while it was in their possession. Due to the specific nature of the property, it was not possible to reconstruct the building in compliance with the provisions of KMBR, 1999. However, without obtaining any permit from the 2^nd respondent Municipality, they started constructing the building on 18.06.2017. The petitioner challenged the same by instituting O.S. No.277/2017 before the Munsiff’s Court, Kannur, seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. An application for temporary injunction was also filed as I.A. No.1439/2017, which was allowed, restraining the respondents from proceeding with the construction.

5. The Corporation also filed a written statement admitting that the construction had been carried out by respondents 4 to 8 without any permit, and that upon noticing the same, a stop memo was issued. It was further stated that the Corporation could not grant a permit for the proposed construction with the existing specifications. Respondents 4 to 8 herein also preferred written statement contending that the property was taken over from them for widening of the road.

6. It is further contended that the said building was a commercial building. However, respondents 4 to 8 preferred an application before t