V.M.KURIAN versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 27-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
V.M.KURIAN 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
MARCH 27, 2001 
[V.N. KHARE AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Building Laws : 
Kera/a Municipalties Act, 1960-Sec. 344 rlw 222-Kerala Municipal 
Corporation Act, 1961-Sec. 367 rlw 238-Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 
1968-Rules 5-Exemption from requirement-Grant of-Requirement of spe-
cific recommendation by GCDA and Chief Town Planner-Held, is a sine qua 
non-State Government is not competent to grant exemption in the absence of 
specific recommendation by them. 
Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1968--Grant of exemption in high rise 
buildings-No specific recommendation by Chief Town Planner-Mere pres-
ence in the meeting for considering grant of exemption-Held, would not 
constitute specific recommendation. 
Word< and Phrases-"recommendation"-Meaning of Rule 5-Kerala 
E 
Municipal Building Rules, 1968. 
F 
G 
The 5th Respondent submitted an application directly to the Gov-
ernment of Kerala seeking exemption from operation of certain provisions 
of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1968 for the proposed construc-
tion of a three storeyed godown-cum-office in bis plo~ of land The govern-
ment by a special order, granted exemption from the operation of Rules 
30(1), 30(5)(b), 31(0 and 38(4)(c) of the Rules, 1968 subject to certain 
conditions. 
In 1984, the Kerala Building Rules, 1964 framed under Section 344 
read with Section 222 of Kerala Municipalties Act, 1960 and Section 367 
read with Section 238 of Kerala Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 came 
into force. 
\. 
The 5th respondent then submitted another application to the Gov-
,f 
ernment seeking further exemption from the operation of the Rules, point-
H 
ing out the conditions imposed in the exemption order and modification 
818 
• 
V.M. KURIAN v. STATE 
819 
thereof. The State Government modified the earlier G.O. with the modi-
A 
4 
lied conditions. 
<i 
When the 5th respondent started construction over the said plot of 
~ 
land the appellant, a resident of adjacent plot of land, raised objections to 
the Corporation as well as to the Authority, and also filed a suit for 
B 
injunction. The 5th respondent sent another application seeking exemp-
tion from operation of provisions of the Rules to construct an eight 
storeyed building by adding five more floors to the three storeyed building 
already constructed. This application was sent directly to the State Gov-
ernment and was not processed, as required under proviso to Rule 5 of the 
Rules. After receipt of the said application the Government asked for the c 
comments from the Greater Cochin Development Authority, Cochin Mu-
nicipal Corporation, and the Town Planning Board. Subsequently in a 
meeting held by the Minister, the appellant, 5th respondent and the Chief 
Town Planner the matter regarding grant of exemption from operation of 
the rules for construction of an eight storeyed high rise building was 
D 
discussed. The State Government permitted the construction of an eight 
storeyed high rise building by granting exemption from operation of the 
Rules with certain conditions. 
The 5th respondent again applied for further exemrtion from opera-
)" 
tion of Rules by way of modification of the conditions imposed in the 
E 
Government Order. The Government, on the very next day, modified the 
conditions of exemption earlier granted. 
The appellant herein cliallenged the orders of exemption passed by 
the State Government in the High Court. The Higb Court dismissed the 
Writ Petition and held that since the Chief Town Planner who was present 
F 
in the meeting with the Minister had consented to the grant of exemption 
from the operation of the Rules and as such there was no infirmity in the 
order of the State Government in dispensing with the Rules for construe-
!ion of an eight storeyed building. 
The appellant contended that the application submitted by the 5th 
G 
respondent having been not processed in conformity with Rule 5 of the 
Rules, the said application could not have been entertained by the State 
~ 
Government, and that in absence of any recommendation by the GCDA 
and the Chief Town Planner, the State Government could not have granted 
exemption from operation of the Rules for construction of an eight stotried 
H 
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
building by the 5th respondent. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The 5th respondent contended that the meaning of the word 'recom-
mendation' necessarily does not mean "a no objection certific

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.