V. K. JAYALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of 13 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 252/2/C and 252/2C/2 (R. S. 24) of Perumbavoor Village and she is living in the house situated in the aforesaid land with family. Just on the western side of this property is the property of the 5th respondent which is comprised in RS No. 27 in which the 5th respondent intends to construct a building. As per Ext. P2 letter of the first respondent issued to the 5th respondent he was informed that his request for exemption from the provisions of the Kerala Building Rules is declined since the proposed construction is in serious violation of the Rules. However, the first respondent as per Ext. P1 reconsidered the matter and exempted the construction of the three storied commercial building of the 5th respondent after demolition of the existing building from various provisions of the Building Rules as per the plan submitted by him subject to the following conditions:

(2.) WHEN the original petition came up for admission, Govt. Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 4 and notice by special messenger was ordered to respondents 2, 3 and 5. When the petition came up for further hearing today, the 5th respondent is represented by counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P1 order of exemption granted by the first respondent in favour of the 5th respondent cannot be sustained as according to him, going by the provisions of S.410 of the Kerala Municipality Act, no reasons are stated there in for granting exemption. Having bestowed my anxious consideration, I am satisfied that the above contention is devoid of merit. On a persual of Ext. P1, I am satisfied that it is a speaking order and there are sufficient reasons stated therein in support of the order granting exemption. Ext. P1 itself is hedged in by several conditions. That apart, it has to be noted that even assuming that Ext. P1 does not contain reasons as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that by itself is not a sufficient ground to invalidate Ext. P1. The power of exemption is conferred on no less an authority than the Government themselves and in such case this court will be loathe to interfere with the order of exemption exercised by the Government, unless it is shown that the power has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or with oblique motive. The exemption granting authority admittedly being the highest in the hierarchy of administrative authorities in the State, is presumed to deal with the question of exemption taking into account all the features presented before it. The authority is presumed to act reasonably and in public interest. There is no material on record to come to a conclusion that the first respondent while issuing Ext. P1 order of exemption, has acted contrary to public interest. In that view, Ext. P1 is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in the instant proceedings. That apart, the petitioner has already moved the civil court as OS No. 381/96 of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor for an injunction restraining the 5th respondent from trespassing into her property and effecting any construction. That suit is pending. The interim injunction prayed for in that suit (IA 2144/96) has also been dismissed as per order dated 4.10.1996. CMA preferred against the dismissal of the IA is pending. For all the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case which warrants interference by this court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. However, I make it clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not preclude the petitioner from raising all the contentions against Ext. P1 in appropriate proceedings. Original Petition is dismissed.