2001 (3) TMI 1091 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the exemption granted by the State Government from the Kerala Building Rules for the construction of an eight-storied building.
2. Compliance with Rule 5 of the Kerala Building Rules.
3. Recommendations from the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) and the Chief Town Planner.
4. Public safety and convenience concerns related to the construction of high-rise buildings.
5. Deviations from mandatory building regulations and their implications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Exemption Granted by the State Government:
The appellant challenged the legality of the State Government's orders dated 13.11.1990 and 22.11.1990, which granted exemptions from the Kerala Building Rules for constructing an eight-storied building. The Supreme Court found that the State Government's decision to grant exemptions without proper recommendations from the GCDA and the Chief Town Planner was legally infirm. The Court emphasized that recommendations from these authorities are essential for such exemptions, and their absence rendered the State Government's orders erroneous.

2. Compliance with Rule 5 of the Kerala Building Rules:
Rule 5 mandates that any application for exemption from the building rules must be processed through the GCDA and the Chief Town Planner and must include their specific recommendations. The Court noted that the 5th respondent's application was not processed in conformity with Rule 5, as it was sent directly to the State Government and lacked the required recommendations. The Court highlighted that the meaning of 'recommendation' implies a favorable report, which was absent in this case.

3. Recommendations from the GCDA and the Chief Town Planner:
The GCDA and the Chief Town Planner strongly objected to the construction of the eight-storied building, citing violations of town planning schemes and inadequate parking space. The Chief Town Planner's report recommended rejecting the application due to gross violations of the rules. The Court found that the State Government did not obtain any fresh report to contradict these objections. The mere presence of the Chief Town Planner in a meeting did not constitute a recommendation for granting the exemption.

4. Public Safety and Convenience Concerns:
The Court underscored the importance of public safety and convenience in the context of building regulations. The rules aim to maintain public safety and convenience, and the authorities like the Municipal Corporation, GCDA, and the Chief Town Planner have the technical knowledge to advise the government on these matters. The Court found that the deviations allowed by the State Government, such as reduced open spaces, inadequate parking, and non-compliance with fire protection requirements, compromised public safety and convenience.

5. Deviations from Mandatory Building Regulations:
The Court examined the specific deviations from the building rules allowed by the State Government, including reduced open spaces, inadequate parking, and non-compliance with fire protection and staircase width requirements. The Court emphasized that these rules are mandatory for public safety and cannot be relaxed, especially for high-rise buildings. The Court found that the deviations in this case were of high magnitude and contrary to public safety and convenience, rendering the State Government's order unsustainable in law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court and the State Government's orders granting exemptions. The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with mandatory building regulations for public safety and convenience and found that the exemptions granted in this case were legally infirm and contrary to the rules.