Kerala High Court
V. M. Abdul Shukoor vs Corporation Of Cochin on 11 April, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
W.P.(C) Nos.23754 & 5712/23 -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA,
1946
WP(C) NO. 23754 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 V.M.ABDUL SHUKOOR
AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. V. M. MOOSA,
VADAKKEVEETIL HOUSE,
PALARIVATTOM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682025
2 A.V.VEEBOY
AGED 62 YEARS,S/O. VARATHAPPAN,
AYYAMKULANGARA HOUSE,
P.J. ANTONY ROAD,
PACHALAM, PIN - 682012
3 T.I.DIXON
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. IPPU,
THOLATH HOUSE,
PETER CORREYA ROAD, PACHALAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682012
4 ABDUL MAJEED
AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. K.V.KUNJIKOYA,
DALIN HOUSE,
LIBERTY LINE, KALOOR, PIN - 682018
5 BEENA P.K.,
AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. SHAJAN,
CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
PACHALAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682012
6 S.M.AKBAR
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. S.P.MUSTHAFA,
THATHANAT PARAMBIL HOUSE,
MARKET ROAD,
W.P.(C) Nos.23754 & 5712/23 -:2:-
TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682301
7 SHEENA MOHAN
AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. MOHAN C.I.,
CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
LALSALAM ROAD, PACHALAM P. O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682012
BY ADVS.
SRI.AJWIN P LALSON
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SRI.T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ
SMT.VAISAKHI V.
SRI.KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU
SMT.AYSHA E.M.
SMT.SHIFANA KAISE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695003
2 THE COMMITTEE (CONSTITUTED UNDER SEC.78-A OF
THE KERALA MUNICIPALITY ACT)
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DISTRICT, PIN - 695003
3 THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING,
SWARAJ BHAVAN, 2nd AND 3rd FLOOR,
NANTHANCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 695003
4 DIRECTOR GENERAL
FIRE AND SAFETY SERVICES,
W.P.(C) Nos.23754 & 5712/23 -:3:-
FIRE FORCE JUNCTION,
PULIMOODU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
5 DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KADAVANTHRA P.O,
KADAVANTHRA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682020
6 CORPORATION OF COCHIN
PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 682011
7 THE SECRETARY
CORPORATION OF COCHIN,
PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 682011
8 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KOCHI CORPORATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI, PIN - 682011
9 REETHAMMA
W/O. PAULOSE,
KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688528
10 EALIKUTTY
D/O. VARGHESE,
KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
11 JOSEPH KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE,
KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O.,
W.P.(C) Nos.23754 & 5712/23 -:4:-
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
12 ANTONY KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE,
KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
13 GEORGE KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE,
KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
14 SEBASTIAN KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE,
KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
15 DAVID P.V.
S/O. P.C.VARGHESE,
PANAKKAL HOUSE,
AYYAPANKAVU P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682018
*16 GRACE ANTONY,
AGED 67 YEARS, W/O ANTONY KOLUTHARA,
THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O., PIN - 685 558.
*[ADDL.R16 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
06.02.2024 IN I.A-1/2023 IN WP(C) 23754/2023]
BY ADVS.
SMT.PREETHA K.K., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SMT.DEEPA K.R., SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER,LSGD
SRI.D.G.VIPIN
SRI.K.P. SUDHEER
W.P.(C) Nos.23754 & 5712/23 -:5:-
SMT.SHERRY M.V.
SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.)
SRI.GEORGE G.POOTHICOTE
SMT.SMITHA S.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 18.03.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).5712/2023, THE
COURT ON 11.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.23754 & 5712/23 -:6:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA,
1946
WP(C) NO. 5712 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 V. M. ABDUL SHUKOOR
AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. V. M. MOOSA,
VADAKKEVEETIL HOUSE,
PALARIVATTOM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025
2 A. V. VEEBOY
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. VARATHAPPAN,
AYYAMKULANGARA HOUSE,
P.J.ANTONY ROAD,
PACHALAM, PIN - 682012
3 T.I.DIXON
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. IPPU,
THOLATH HOUSE,
PETER CORREYA ROAD, PACHALAM P. O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682012
4 M.U.BOBEN
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. UKKURU,
MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE,
PACHALAM P. O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682012
5 ABDUL MAJEED
AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. K. V. KUNJIKOYA,
DALIN HOUSE,
LIBERTY LINE, KALOOR, PIN - 682018
W.P.(C) Nos.23754 & 5712/23 -:7:-
6 BEENA P. K
AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. SHAJAN,
CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
PACHALAM P. O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682012
7 P.P.VARGHESE
AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. P.V.PAILY,
POONOLY HOUSE,
KANJOOR, KALADY P. O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574
8 S.M.AKBAR
AGED 60 YEARS,S/O.S.P. MUSTHAFA,
THATHANAT PARAMBIL HOUSE,
MARKET ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682301
9 SHEENA MOHAN
AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. MOHAN C.I.,
CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
LALSALAM ROAD, PACHALAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682012
BY ADVS.
SMT.P.LAKSHMI
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SMT.VAISAKHI V.
SRI.T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ
SRI.AJWIN P LALSON
SMT.AYSHA E.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 CORPORATION OF COCHIN
PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE,
KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682 011,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 THE SECRETARY
CORPORATION OF COCHIN,
PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE,
W.P.(C) Nos.23754 & 5712/23 -:8:-
KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682011
3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KOCHI CORPORATION,
KOCHI, PIN - 682011
4 REETHAMMA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
W/O. PAULOSE,
KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O., PIN - 685558
5 EALIKUTTY
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
D/O. VARGHESE,
KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O., PIN - 685558
6 JOSEPH KOLUTHARA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
S/O. VARGHESE,
KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O., PIN - 685558
7 ANTONY KOLUTHARA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
S/O. VARGHESE,
KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O., PIN - 685558
8 GEORGE KOLUTHARA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
S/O. VARGHESE,
KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O., PIN - 685558
W.P.(C) Nos.23754 & 5712/23 -:9:-
*9 DAVID P.V
S/O. P.C. VARGHESE,
RESIDING AT PANAKKAL HOUSE,
AYYAPPANKAVU P.O., KOCHI 682018
*10 KOLUTHARA BAZAR OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI - 682031
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
SAJEEV M.T,
S/O. M.THANKAPPAN
*(ADDL.R9 & R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 30.11.2023 IN I.A. NO.2/2023)
*11 GRACE ANTONY
AGED 68 YEARS,W/O. ANTONY KOULUTHARA ,
THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O., PIN 685558
*(ADDL.R11 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
06/02/2024 IN IA NO.4/2023)
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, SC, KOCHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GOVT. PLEADER
SMT.DEEPA K.R., SPL. GOVT. PLEADER, LSGD
SRI.D.G.VIPIN
SRI.RISHIKESH SHENOY M
SRI.K.P. SUDHEER
SRI.ANIL XAVIER (SR.)
SMT.ATHIRA LEKSHMI J.
SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.)
SRI.GEORGE G.POOTHICOTE
SMT.SMITHA S.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 18.03.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).23754/2023, THE
COURT ON 11.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.23754 & 5712/23 -:10:-
"C.R."
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 23754 & 5712 of 2023
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
Construction of buildings is regulated to strike a balance
between the built and the non-built environment. Planned
constructions are essential to ensure sustainable growth and
development of the country. However, human greed and utter
disregard for law have led to rampant illegal constructions. Official
nexus for such reprehensible activities has acted as a bridge for
aiding the violators. Illegalities often turn into fait accompli and
escape the clutches of law. Nevertheless, courts cannot turn a blind
eye when such instances are brought to its notice.
2. The above prelude indicates the nature of disputes raised in
these two writ petitions. Both writ petitions relate to the construction
of a building at Broadway - a commercial hotspot in Kochi. The first
writ petition challenged the building permits issued for the
construction of additional floors to an existing building, while the
second writ petition was filed subsequently after additional
information was obtained. Since the issues are connected, both writ
petitions are disposed of together.
3. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5712 of 2023 challenge a building
permit dated 25-05-2022 (Ext.P12) issued to respondents 9 to 15 and
also the building permit dated 26-07-2004 (Ext.P14). Petitioners in
W.P.(C) No.23754 of 2023 challenge an order of exemption issued
by the Government on 17-12-2002 (Ext.P11), allegedly granting
exemption from various mandatory provisions of the Kerala Building
Rules, 1984 (for short KBR), the decision dated 12-04-2018 (Ext.P14)
of the Special Committee constituted under Rule 15A of the Kerala
Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (for short KMBR 1999) and the
consequential building permit dated 25-05-2022 (Ext.P15). The
orders are challenged as being issued illegally, on extraneous and
irrelevant considerations and that too with malafides.
4. Petitioners are the owners of different shop rooms in a
building called "Koluthara Broadway Bazar." The building is
constructed on a total land area of about 51.373 cents in the centre of
Kochi city. The original owners of the land were Sebastian Varghese
and Grace Antony, who obtained a building permit on 24-11-1998 to
construct three floors - the basement, the ground floor, and the first
floor.
5. Petitioners had purchased undivided shares in the land
along with the right to construct the rooms forming part of the larger
three-storied building and thus became co-owners of the property. In
the meantime, all the rooms of the shopping complex were
constructed and completed in accordance with the building permit
and the shop rooms were even assessed to property tax after
allotting building numbers. Petitioners allege that though the
construction of the outer structure was complete, a portion of the
common facilities and amenities offered by the original owners had
not been completed. In the meantime, since the original owners had
incurred substantial liability with the Federal Bank, petitioners and
others pooled money and cleared the liability on the assurance that
two more floors would be constructed over the three-storied building
as consideration for the payment made by them. Subsequently, the
additional second and third floors were constructed. However, it was
found that the additional constructions were not in terms of the
approved plan since the building did not have clearance from the Fire
Department, the required parking facilities or even the provision for a
lift, apart from other required statutory clearances. The Corporation
thus refused to issue the Occupancy Certificate for the additional two
floors.
6. Petitioners alleged that the existing three floors have valid
occupancy while the additional two floors have no such certificate.
They allege that the initial three floors were constructed between the
years 1998 and 2000, and any further construction now would be
structurally unsafe and dangerous to its occupants, especially since
there are cracks in every floor of the building.
7. While so, recently, petitioners realised that certain persons,
including respondents 9 and 15, managed to obtain another building
permit on 25-05-2022 to construct additional floors to the said
building. On a perusal of the aforesaid permit, they realised that the
said permit was an extension of a building permit obtained on 26-07-
2004 to construct an additional four floors in the existing three-storied
structure. The two building permits dated 25-05-2022 and 26-07-2004
produced as Exhibit P12 and Exhibit P14. were immediately
challenged through WP(c) No. 5712/2023.
8. In the aforesaid writ petition, an impleading petition was filed
by the 15th respondent, alerting the Petitioners to the fact that the
permit dated 26-07-2004 was itself issued in violation of all laws, that
too, after exempting the building from various mandatory stipulations
of the KBR. Petitioners also realized that renewal of the validity of the
permit was extended beyond the permissible limit of 9 years, in
violation of the prevailing statutory provisions, by invoking the power
under Rue 15A of the KMBR 1999. After obtaining a copy of the
exemption order under the RTI Act, petitioners filed the subsequent
writ petition WP(c) No. 23754/2023, challenging the initial order dated
17.12.2002 granting exemption (Exhibit P.11), the order of the Rule
15A Committee (Exhibit P.14) as well as the permit dated 25-05-2022
(Exhibit P.15). In this context, it is noted that Exhibit P.14 in WP(c)
5712/2023 and Exhibit P.15 in WP(c) No. 23754/2023 are the same
permits. Since the subsequent writ petition contains all the
documents, including those produced in the initial writ petition, the
documents referred to hereafter in this judgment are those from
WP(c) No. 23754/2023.
9. In W.P.(C) No. 5712/2023, respondents 1 to 3 and the 11th
respondent filed separate counter affidavits, while in WP(c) No.
23754/2023, the third respondent, as well as the 15th and 16th
respondents, filed separate counter affidavits.
10. In the counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 23754/2023, the third
respondent pleaded that the application dated 13-10-2017 filed by
Sri.Davis P.V., under Rule 15A of KMBR was placed before the
Special Committee on 16-04-2015 and was deferred as the approved
site plan was not available. Later, the application was again taken up
on 27-04-2017, and deferred for making available the approved site
plan. The Committee once again considered the applications on 12-
04-2018 and, as directed by the Government, decided to grant an
extension for the building permit for a further period of three years,
subject to certain conditions.
11. The 15th and 16th respondents, in their separate counter
affidavits, pleaded that the writ petition is highly belated as the
challenge is against an order of exemption from building rules, issued
22 years ago. It is stated that out of 52.75 cents, an extent of 40.38
cents is set apart for construction, and the remaining area is set apart
for vehicular parking. After tracing the rights of the respective owners,
it was pleaded that though the building permit was issued on 26-7-
2004 pursuant to the order of exemption, the building could not be
completed. The structure, which was initially intended to be seven
floors, got stuck midway, and various common facilities, including a
fire escape, could be completed only after the entire building comes
into existence. According to the contesting respondents, the permit
was renewed up to 19-04-2025, pursuant to the order of the Rule 15A
Committee, which was issued after verifying all the related
documents and files. They also allege that the decision of the
Committee under Rule 15A is not justiciable, as a wide discretion has
been given, and the purpose of conferring such a power is to save
the interest of persons who have invested in various abandoned
projects
12. Sri.K.A.Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners,
contended that the order of exemption issued in 2002 was wholly
without authority and jurisdiction as it exempted the proposed
construction from the mandatory conditions of the KBR. While
granting an exemption to enable the construction of four additional
floors to the existing three-storied structure, none of the important
factors for consideration were borne in mind, and the Chief Town
Planner had not even recommended the grant of such an exemption.
According to the learned counsel, the safety and convenience of all
were ignored, and several mandatory conditions, like fire exits,
parking areas, etc, were all blatantly and illegally exempted. It was
also submitted that the order of exemption allowed construction of a
building of 66,000 sq.ft with just 25 car parking slots, that too without
even submitting a proper and complete plan of the proposed building.
The learned Counsel also submitted that permission was granted due
to extraneous considerations and against the object and purpose for
exercising the power of exemption as per the building rules without
there being any malafides. The learned counsel further submitted that
the Rule 15A Committee could not have granted sanction without any
approved site plan and the recommendation of the appropriate
authorities. The learned counsel also submitted that the Committee
could have granted extension only for bonafide constructions and has
indulged in a colourable exercise of power by permitting the
regularization of illegal constructions or omissions. It was pointed out
that the building could not obtain any clearance from the fire
department as the existing structure was touching the adjoining
building, and left no space at all in between. Reliance was placed
upon the decisions in V.M Kurian v. State of Kerala and Others
[(2001) 4 SCC 215], Consumer Action Group and Another v. State
of T.N and Others [(2000) 7 SCC 425] and John v. State (2004 (2)
KLT 88].
13. Sri. P.K.Suresh Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel
instructed by Sri. K.P.Sudheer, the counsel for the 15th respondent
and Sri. George G. Poothicote, learned counsel for the 16 th
respondent, contended that the writ petition lacks bonafides and
should be dismissed. It was submitted that the order of exemption
granted in 2004 could not be subject to challenge in 2023 and further
that the respective statutory authorities have considered all the
aspects in accordance with law. The learned counsels vehemently
argued that the facilities of the building and its availability could be
considered only after the building is complete and every provision
required under law will be provided. It was further submitted that at
the time of considering the grant of exemption to the building under
KBR, the Chief Town Planner was present at the meeting and
therefore absence of recommendation cannot vitiate the order of
exemption.
14. Smt. K.R.Deepa, the learned Government Pleader, and
Sri. D.G.Vipin, the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin
Corporation, were also heard.
15. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the following
questions arise for consideration: (i) Whether the exemption granted
under Rule 5 of KBR as per Ext.P11 dated 17-12-2002 is legally
sustainable? (ii) Whether the decision of the Committee dated
12-04-2018 under Rule 15A proviso of KMBR 1999 is legally valid?
(iii) Whether the permit dated 25-05-2022 issued pursuant to the
Special Committee's decision is valid? (iv) Is the delay in challenging
Ext.P11, the order of exemption granted by the Government dated
17-12-2002, is fatal? The aforesaid questions are considered below.
(i) Whether the exemption granted under Rule 5 of KBR as per
Ext.P11 dated 17-12-2002 is legally sustainable?
16. By the impugned order dated 17-12-2002, the Government
had granted sanction for the construction of four additional floors on
the existing three-storied structure, thereby permitting an increase in
the total number of floors from three to seven. The sanction was
granted after exempting the building from the provisions of Rule
33(c), 15(5), 17(1),17(2), 20, 24(2) and Rule 35(1) of the KBR. A
reading of the recital portion of the impugned order reveals that the
application for exemption to construct additional four floors was
submitted on 05-03-1999. The said application was not
recommended by the Chief Town Planner since there were violations
of the provisions of the KBR. On 30-10-1999, the said application for
exemption was rejected by the Government. The review petition of
the applicants was also rejected on 05-12-1999. Curiously, after
referring to the withdrawal of a stay in 2002 in O.P. No.16295/1999,
the applicants requested that their application be re-considered.
Without bearing in mind that KMBR 1999 had already come into
effect by that time, the application for exemption was re-considered
by the Government and by Ext.P11 order, exemption was granted
from various provisions of the KBR.
17. In this context, it is interesting to mention that OP No.
16295/1999 was a public interest litigation initiated by the High Court
on the basis of an anonymous letter which dealt with the power of the
Government to regularize unauthorised constructions made in
violation of the building rules. As per Ext.P12 judgment dated
22-03-2006, the Court permitted applications or review petitions
pending before the Government to be considered and to pass
speaking orders, bearing in mind that such orders of exemption shall
not affect public health, public safety and public convenience. It was
further stated that such orders shall be issued only for very valid
reasons.
18. The aforesaid original petition pending before this court
could not have been relied upon by the Government to issue Ext. P11
since the Government had already dismissed the review petition on
05-12-1999 itself. Since, the KMBR 1999 had come into effect, the
application if any, could have been considered only on the basis of
the law in force at the time of consideration. After the KMBR 1999
came into force, the Government egregiously erred in relying upon an
inapplicable law to grant exemption from the building Rules.
Reference to the decisions in Howrah Municipal Corporation and
Others v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. and Others [(2004) 1 SCC 663,
and in M/s. Asset Home (P) Ltd. and Another v. State of Kerala
and Another (2011 (2) KLT 1) are relevant in this context.
19. Notwithstanding the aforementioned legal defect in Ext.
P11, it is also evident that exemptions were granted from mandatory
provisions of the KBR. The following tabular column indicates the
Rules and the requirements thereunder, exempted under Ext. P11:
Rule Purpose
15(5) Minimum open space for a building above 10
metres
17(1), (2) Floor area ratio and coverage
20 Parking
24(2) Fire exits
35(1) Occupancy
20. The above statutory provisions are all mandatory
provisions and cannot be exempted even in exercise of Rule 5 of
KBR. Ironically, after exempting the requirement of fire exits, the
impugned order insisted that NOC from the fire department must be
obtained. The parking area provided for the entire construction is only
for 26 cars while the area permitted to be constructed is more than
66000 sq.ft. or 6600 sq.m. Further, the exemption was granted
without even perusing the building plan or sketch and the authority
has merely gone by what the applicant informed orally. The provision
for installing a lift was not available in the three-storied structure and
without having any such space, it fails all logic and reason how any
space could be given for such installation. There is absolutely no
reference to any plan attached either in the exemption order or even
in the building permit issued subsequent to the exemption.
21. Even if it is assumed that the Government could have
resorted to the power under Rule 5 of KBR, still, on a perusal of Ext.
P11 order, it is evident that there was a colourable exercise of the
power of exemption. Rule 5 of KBR reads as follows:
"5. Power of Government to exempt buildings:- The Government
may in consultation with the Chief Town Planner exempt any
building from the operation of all or any of the provisions of these
rules subject to conditions if any, to be stipulated in the order,
granting such exemptions;
Provided that such exemption shall be considered on individual
application forwarded to the Government through the authority and
the Chief Town Planner with their specific recommendations."
22. The above rule was considered elaborately by the
Supreme Court in V.M Kurian v. State of Kerala and Others [(2001)
4 SCC 215]. In the said decision it was held that mandatory
requirements of the building rules cannot be exempted and also that
the Chief Town Planner must recommend the application for
exemption. The following observations from the aforesaid judgment
are relevant:
"A perusal of Rule 5 shows that an application for exemption from
the provisions of the Rules is required to be processed through
GCDA and the Chief Town Planner. The Rule further requires
that the application is to be forwarded to the State Government
along with the specific recommendations of GCDA and the Chief
Town Planner. The question therefore that arises for
consideration is whether in the absence of any recommendation
by GCDA and the Chief Town Planner the State Government was
competent to grant exemption from the operation of the rules for
construction of a high-rise building. .....The rules with which we
are concerned here provide for regulation and construction of a
building in an urban area. The object behind the Rules is
maintenance of public safety and convenience. .................. We,
therefore, find that the recommendations by GCDA and the Chief
Town Planner are sine qua non for granting exemption from
operation of the Rules by the State Government. In the absence
of such recommendations, the State Government was not legally
justified in granting exemption from operation of the Rules for
construction of a high-rise building." (emphasis supplied)
23. As mentioned earlier, the recitals in Ext.P11 order
specifically mentions that the Chief Town Planner had not
recommended the application for exemption of the building since
mandatory and important provisions of KBR were violated.
24. In V.M. Kurians Case (supra), the Supreme Court further
observed that provisions relating to fire hazards and parking areas
are mandatory and must be complied with for the construction of a
high-rise building. Compliance with the building rules, especially
those relating to parking and fire exits, are for public safety and
convenience and are mandatory. Rules that are mandatory in nature
cannot be relaxed, especially with respect to high-rise buildings.
25. Though it was contended that the Chief Town Planner was
present in the meeting convened for considering the grant of
exemption, legally and practically the presence at the meeting cannot
be a substitute for the required recommendation in writing. The mere
presence of the Chief Town Planner in the meeting cannot constitute
a 'recommendation in writing' for the grant of exemption from the
Rules. Obviously, when the law requires a thing to be done in a
particular manner, it must be done in that manner and not in any
other fashion. In the decision in John v. State of Kerala (2004 (2)
KLT 88), a learned Single Judge of this Court had declined to accept
an identical contention. Hence the augment that the presence of the
Chief Town Planner at the meeting was sufficient compliance of Rule
5 of KBR - is rejected.
26. In fact, in John's case (supra), this Court had even
observed that successive Governments have recklessly granted
exemptions from the operation of rules concerning parking space for
shopping complexes, and the same has made the lives of the
residents of Kochi miserable. This Court fully endorses the aforesaid
observations.
27. Thus, in the light of the decision in V.M. Kurian's case, the
Government could not have granted an exemption to the building, not
only from the mandatory provisions but also without the
recommendation of the Chief Town Planner. Ext.P11 is hence a
colourable exercise of power, without jurisdiction and in excess of
authority.
28. In this context, it is worthwhile to mention that under Rule 34
of the KMBR 1999, a commercial occupancy building requires one
parking for every 100 Sq.m of carpet area apart from an additional
25% for parking scooters and cycles and a further 30 Sq.mts for
every 1000 Sq.mts of floor area exceeding the first 700 Sq.mts as
loading and unloading spaces. Under the KBR, also 100 sq.m of
carpet area is to be provided for parking spaces apart from 25%
additional parking area, 30 sq.m per 1000 sq.m for loading and
unloading activities and a further 25% additional parking for other
types of vehicles. Further, there is no space separating the adjoining
buildings and the fire exits are also not provided. Under no
circumstance could the Government have granted exemption from
the aforesaid requirements, whether it be under the KBR or under the
KMBR. The grant of exemption was thus arbitrary and perverse,
without regard to the actual facts and by an improper exercise of
discretion. Ext. P11 is thus legally unsustainable.
(ii) Whether the decision of the Committee dated 12-04-2018 under
Rule 15A proviso of KMBR 1999 is legally valid?
29. Ext. P14 order was issued by the Committee under Rule
15A(4) proviso of KMBR 1999, granting an extension for the validity
of the permit issued in 2004. Rule 15A(4) of KMBR reads as follows:
"The Secretary may, if it deems fit, grant renewal for a period of
three years on application submitted after the expiry of the permit,
subject to the condition that the total period of validity of permit
from the date of issue of the original permit shall not exceed nine
years:
Provided that in case the permits need to be extended/renewed
beyond the period of nine years, the applicant shall submit an
application in writing to the committee constituted under Chapter
X-A of these Rules and the committee may, after having satisfied
with the genuineness of the application, recommend for extension
or renewal of the permit, as the case may be, with or without
conditions as it deems fit."
30. A reading of Ext.P14 reveals that the Committee had, on
16-04-2015, deferred the consideration of the application since the
approved site plan was not available. On 27-04-2017 also, the
application was deferred to make available the approved site plan.
Curiously thereafter, the Government is seen to have directed the
Committee to take a decision. Without even verifying the approved
site plan, the Special Committee accorded permission to renew the
expired building permit, for an additional three years. It is also
interesting to note that the Committee imposed certain conditions,
which included the installation of a modern solid and liquid waste
management system, arrangements for rainwater harvesting to be
made with a storage tank capacity of 165000 litres (as per Rule 107B
of KMBR 1999) and further directed to install a sewage treatment
plant. Other conditions, like obtaining a fire NOC and providing a lift,
were also imposed. The Committee never verified whether such
conditions themselves could be complied with on-site. In the absence
of a site plan and without reducing even the existing parking facilities,
it was impossible for the conditions to be complied with. Further, the
Committee did not even consider whether the application was
genuine, which, in fact, was the main criterion on which the
application could have been considered.
31. Though the Committee under Rule 15A(4) proviso of
KMBR 1999 is a Special Committee and is conferred with a
discretion, it is not authorised to ignore the statutory requirements
essential for a building. It is elementary that when a stature vests
discretion, there is an implicit requirement to exercise it in a
reasonable an rational manner, free from whims and fancies. While
the genuineness of the application gives the Committee the
jurisdiction to consider the request, the Committee was bound to
examine the ground realities and also whether the building can be
completed or constructed in compliance with the statutory
requirements. When such factors have not been taken into
consideration, the order so issued would be vitiated as the discretion
was exercised arbitrarily.
32. The exercise of power by the Rule 15A Committee in the
instant case is therefore contrary to the provisions of the statute and
in excess of jurisdiction. Hence Ext.P14 order is also legally
unsustainable.
(iii) Whether the permit dated 25-05-2022 issued pursuant to the
Special Committee's decision is valid?
33. The order granting extension of permission by the Special
Committee under Rule 15A(4) proviso was issued on 12-04-2018.
However, the renewed building permit was issued only on 25-05-
2022, i.e. after a period of four years. As per Rule 15A(9) of KMBR
1999, the validity of the extension of the permit can only be for three
years. The said requirement of three years cannot be made
dependent upon the date of the permit, but it has to be from the date
the Committee takes the decision. Otherwise, the decision of the
Committee will enable applicants to obtain permit at any time
thereafter - even after ten or even twenty years. Such a procedure
will be unfair. After the expiry of three years from the date of the
decision of Rule 15A Committee, even the Corporation could not
have issued Ext. P15 permit extending the time for construction of the
building from 24-02-2022 upto 24-05-2025. Therefore Ext.P15 permit
is also legally unsustainable.
(iv) Is the delay in challenging Ext.P11, the order of exemption
granted by the Government dated 17-12-2002, is fatal?
34. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no period of
limitation has been prescribed for filing a writ petition. However
absence of such a time limit does not mean that the writ petition
could be filed at any time. Courts have consistently held that writ
petitions should be filed within a reasonable time after the cause of
action arose. Delay and laches are adopted as modes of discretion to
decline the exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief. The nature of
exercise of the said discretion depends on facts and circumstances of
each case. Delay is thus not an absolute impediment but is a factor
which can be taken into reckoning by the Court. Factors like the
continuity of cause action, the impugned order shocking the judicial
conscience, manifest illegality are circumstances that can enable the
Court to exercise discretion in favour of the party seeking relief,
despite delay. Therefore, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to
when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction.
35. However, the discretion must be exercised judiciously and
reasonably. If the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable,
the delay need not necessarily deter the Court from issuing an
appropriate writ. In other words, where circumstances justify, a
manifest illegality cannot be permitted to be perpetrated on the sole
ground of delay and laches. When substantial justice and technical
considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial
justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to
have a vested right in the injustice being done because of a non-
deliberate delay. Reference in this context to the decision in
Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others v. Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation and Others [(2013) 1 SCC 353] is
relevant.
36. To deny relief on the grounds of delay and laches, the
principle of acquiescence is also resorted to by courts. In exercising
their discretion, the courts would not ordinarily assist the tardy and
the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. However, since
there is no time limit for filing the writ petition, the court has to see
whether the delay and latches on the part of party is such as to
disentitle him for the relief claimed. One principle that emerges from
the various judgments of the Supreme Court is that the claimant must
be aware of the impugned order, and he must have slept over his
rights. Yet another principle that can be culled out is, if the party in
whose favour the impugned order has been issued had done
something that changed his position, then delay can defeat the claim.
37. Notwithstanding the above principles, a reasonable time is
available to challenge the order. What is reasonable depends upon
the facts and circumstances of each case. Courts have always
regarded the date of knowledge as the date when the period of
limitation starts to run. Otherwise, an order, if obtained behind the
back of a person, would work out injustice and prejudice to persons
affected by the said order. Thus, the term 'reasonable time' will take
colour from the contextual settings. When an order unknown to all
except a few, comes to the notice of a third party who is affected by
the order, the limitation should generally start from the date of
knowledge.
38. In the instant case, one of the impugned orders (Ext.P11) is
dated 17-12-2002. The petitioner asserts that they were unaware of
it, and there is nothing to indicate to the contrary. The order is
patently and manifestly illegal, as already held in the preceding
paragraphs of this judgment. The conditions stipulated in the order
have also not been complied with nor has the construction been
completed to give a vested right to the beneficiaries of the order. The
entire four floors permitted under the exemption have not been
constructed as well. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that there is
no delay in challenging Ext.P11, sufficient enough to refuse the
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
39. In the result, the order of exemption dated 17-12-2002,
produced as Ext.P11, the decision of the Special Committee under
Rule 15A, dated 12-04-2018, produced as Ext.P14 and the building
permit dated 25-05-2022 produced as Ext.P15, all in W.P.(C)
No.23754/2023 are set aside. Similarly, the building permit dated
26-07-2004 produced as Ext.P14 in W.P.(C) No.5712/2023, is also
set aside.
Both writ petitions are allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23754/2023
PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
DATED 24/11/1998 ISSUED BY THE 7TH
RESPONDENT FOR CONSTRUCTING THE
BASEMENT FLOOR AND THE GROUND FLOOR
OF THE SHOPPING COMPLEX, WHICH WAS
VALID FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS ENDING
ON 23/11/2001.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
DATED 22/12/1998 ISSUED BY THE 7TH
RESPONDENT FOR CONSTRUCTING THE 1ST
FLOOR OF THE SHOPPING COMPLEX, WHICH
WAS VALID FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS
ENDING ON 21/12/2001.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.3413/2000 DATED 18/07/2000
EXECUTED BY THE ORIGINAL LAND OWNER
IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
03/02/2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT CORPORATION EVIDENCING
PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX FOR ROOM
NO.67/5835 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.1799/2000 DATED 17/04/2000
EXECUTED BY THE ORIGINAL LAND OWNER
IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
07/02/2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT CORPORATION EVIDENCING
PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX FOR ROOM
NO.67/5841 IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
27/09/2022 ISSUED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT CORPORATION EVIDENCING
PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX FOR ROOM
NO.67/5847 IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P6 8. A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT
DATED 20/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT CORPORATION EVIDENCING
PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX FOR ROOM
NO.67/5829 IN THE NAME OF THE 4TH
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
09/02/2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT CORPORATION EVIDENCING
PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX FOR ROOM
NO.67/5886 IN THE NAME OF THE 5TH
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
30/01/2023 FOR ROOM NO. 67/5860 IN
THE NAME OF THE 6TH PETITIONER.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
09/02/2023 FOR ROOM NO. 67/5870 IN
THE NAME OF THE 7TH PETITIONER.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
DATED 26/07/2004 ISSUED BY THE 7TH
RESPONDENT, WHICH IS MENTIONED AND
SHOWN TO HAVE EXTENDED UP TO
19/04/2025.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO
(MS)NO.3527/02/LSD DATED 17.12.2002
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, GRANTING
EXEMPTION FROM VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF
KERALA BUILDING RULES, 1984 AND FROM
THE CONDITIONS UNDER APPROVED
STRUCTURAL PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 4
MORE FLOORS, ON THE EXISTING BUILDING
WITH BASEMENT, GROUND AND FIRST
FLOORS, TOTALING TO 7 FLOORS IN THE
PROPERTY IN SY. NO.775/1, 2 & 772/1,2
&3 OWNED BY THE PETITIONERS AND
OTHERS IN KOCHI CORPORATION AREA.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
22/03/2006 IN OP NO.16295/1999 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED
26/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE 8TH
RESPONDENT EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF
VALIDITY OF EXHIBIT P10 PERMIT DATED
26/07/2004 FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS
FROM 26/07/2010 TO 25/07/2013.
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES
/PROCEEDINGS DATED 12/04/2018 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT COMMITTEE EXTENDING
THE PERIOD OF EXHIBIT P10 PERMIT FOR
A FURTHER PERIOD OF 3 YEARS.
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED
25/05/2022 ISSUED BY THE 8TH
RESPONDENT PURPORTING TO EXTEND THE
TERM OF EXHIBIT P10 BUILDING PERMIT
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE 7 STORIED
BUILDING UP TO 19/04/2025.
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS (3
NOS.) SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION AND
THE EXISTING BUILDING.
Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
14/09/2010 ISSUED TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER BY THE FEDERAL BANK
ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF THE
AMOUNT FROM HIM.
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
09/08/2010 ISSUED TO THE 4TH
PETITIONER BY THE FEDERAL BANK
ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF THE
AMOUNT FROM HIM.
RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R15 (a) A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRE NOC ISSUED ON
28.6.2004
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5712/2023
PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
DATED 24/11/1998 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT FOR CONSTRUCTING THE
BASEMENT FLOOR AND THE GROUND FLOOR
OF THE SHOPPING COMPLEX, WHICH WAS
VALID FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS ENDING
ON 23/11/2001
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
DATED 22/12/1998 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT FOR CONSTRUCTING THE 1ST
FLOOR OF THE SHOPPING COMPLEX, WHICH
WAS VALID FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS
ENDING ON 21/12/2001
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.3413/2000 DATED 18/07/2000
EXECUTED BY THE ORIGINAL LAND OWNER
IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
03/02/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF
PROPERTY TAX FOR ROOM NO.67/5835 IN
THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.1799/2000 DATED 17/04/2000
EXECUTED BY THE ORIGINAL LAND OWNER
IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P4(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
07/02/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF
PROPERTY TAX FOR ROOM NO.67/5841 IN
THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
27/09/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF
PROPERTY TAX FOR ROOM NO.67/5847 IN
THE NAME OF THE 3RD PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
07/02/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF
PROPERTY TAX FOR ROOM NO.67/5842 IN
THE NAME OF THE 4TH PETITIONER
Exhibit P7 7. A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT
DATED 20/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF
PROPERTY TAX FOR ROOM NO.67/5829 IN
THE NAME OF THE 5TH PETITIONER
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
09/02/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF
PROPERTY TAX FOR ROOM NO.67/5886 IN
THE NAME OF THE 6TH PETITIONER
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
13/01/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF
PROPERTY TAX FOR ROOM NO.67/5876 IN
THE NAME OF THE 7TH PETITIONER
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
30/01/2023 FOR ROOM NO. 67/5860 IN
THE NAME OF THE 8TH PETITIONER
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
09/02/2023 FOR ROOM NO. 67/5870 IN
THE NAME OF THE 9TH PETITIONER
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED
25/05/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT PURPORTING TO EXTEND THE
TERM OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING
UPTO 19/04/2025
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.
1176/1983 DATED 29/03/1983 OF SRO
ERNAKULAM EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENTS
4 TO 8 AND THE LAND OWNERS FROM WHOM
THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS PURCHASED
THE UNDIVIDED SHARE OF THE LAND AND
THEIR RESPECTIVE ROOMS
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
DATED 26/07/2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8, WHICH IS
MENTIONED AND SHOWN TO HAVE EXTENDED
UPTO 19/04/2025 IN EXHIBIT P12
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE SITE INSPECTION
REPORT DATED 02/01/2023 PREPARED BY
THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER INTER ALIA
REPORTING THAT, THE ADDITIONAL
CONSTRUCTION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING
IN QUESTION, WILL BE HIGHLY RISKY AND
DANGEROUS ALONG WITH THE SITE
INSPECTION REPORT
RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R9 (a) TRUE COPY OF PERMIT DT. 24.11.98
ISSUED BY CORPORATION OF COCHIN
EXHIBIT R9 (b) TRUE COPY OF PERMIT DT.22.12.98
ISSUED BY CORPORATION OF COCHIN.
EXHIBIT R9 (c) TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DATED
26.7.2004 ISSUED BY CORPORATION OF
COCHIN
EXHIBIT R9 (d) TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE SALE DEEDS
EXECUTED IN PETITIONER'S NAME (DOC.
NO. 2562/05 DATED 22.3.2005 OF
ERNAKULAM SRO).
EXHIBIT R9 (e) TRUE COPY OF DECISION TAKEN IN THE
MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED
UNDER CHAPTER XA AS PER RULE 15A OF
KMBR 1999 DATED 12.4.2018
EXHIBIT R9 (f) TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 26.7.2010
ISSUED BY CORPORATION OF COCHIN
EXHIBIT R9 (g) TRUE COPY OF STRUCTURAL STUDY REPORT
PERUSED BY THE CORPORATION BEFORE THE
GRANT OF EXT.P12.
EXHIBIT R9 (h) A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
GENERAL BODY MEETING ON 26.10.2022 OF
THE KOLUTHARA BAZAR OWNERS WELFARE
ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT R9 (i) A TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 2/2023 IN
O.S. NO. 170/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM
