JUDGMENT 1. This is a public interest litigation. Institute of Social Welfare, represented by its Secretary, Mahakavi Bharathiyar Road, Cochin - 682016 is the petitioner herein. It is a registered Society. It is stated that the petitioner is interested in the welfare of the general public of Kerala, especially Ernakulam District. He has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents J to 3 to take immediate measures for prohibiting all construction activities in the Cochin Marine Drive Area. He has also prayed for issue of a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to demolish the buildings which have been constructed in excess of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) prescribed by the Kerala Building Rules, 1984 in the Cochin Marine Drive Area. Other prayers relate to issue of directions to the authorities to prevent the harvesting of ground water and construction of mechanisms therefor within 200 metres of High Tide Line in the Cochin Marine Drive Area and to prevent from discharging the waste by respondents 4, 5, 6 and 9 into the backwaters. 2. The second respondent - Greater Cochin Development Authority (for short, 'GCDA') has reclaimed the southern portion of the existing Shanmugham Road in the city of Cochin and the same was brought under Cochin Marine Drive Scheme. Under S.3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Ministry of Environment and Forests (Department of Environment and Forests) issued a notification dated 19th February, 1991 imposing restrictions on construction of buildings, establishing industries, their operations and processes in the Coastal Regulation Zone (for short, 'CRZ'). Coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and back waters which are influenced by tidal action (in the landward side) upto 500 metres from the High Tide Line (HTL) and the land between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and the HTL are defined as Coastal Regulation Zone. The Marine Drive area of Cochin is classified as CRZ II. The petitioner's grievance is that in gross violation of the above notification, the GCDA and other private agencies have already constructed multi storied buildings in the Marine Drive Area. Several companies have purchased portions of this area and commenced construction of buildings. The Marine Drive area of Cochin is classified as CRZ II. The petitioner's grievance is that in gross violation of the above notification, the GCDA and other private agencies have already constructed multi storied buildings in the Marine Drive Area. Several companies have purchased portions of this area and commenced construction of buildings. As per the interim order dated 12-12-1994 in Writ Petition No. 664/93, the Supreme Court directed the State Government not to permit the setting up of any industry or the construction of any type in the area upto 500 meters from the sea water (Ext.P3). Inspite of such a direction by the Supreme Court, respondents 1 to 3 have allowed the other respondents to construct buildings and structures contrary to the notification. The buildings proposed to be constructed and those already constructed by respondents 4 to 9 are in violation of the FAR prescribed by the Kerala Buildings Rules, 1984. Respondents 3 and 4 have not taken any steps to prevent the disposal of wastes from the Cochin Marine Drive into the sea. Respondents 4 and 5 and others are allowed to draw ground water from the Cochin Marine Drive Area by installing machineries. There is no road on the western extremity of the Cochin Marine Drive Scheme adjacent to the sea wall, though there is only a walkway and a pedestrian foot overbridge. 3. Respondents 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 have filed counter affidavits. It is stated by all of them that there is a road of 12 meters in width in between the sea wall and constructions which are already there or proposed to be raised. All necessary measures have been taken for disposal of wastes in constructing sewage system. Buildings have been permitted to be constructed on the eastern side of the road, thus leaving the road portion running from north to south on the eastern side of the sea wall. Under the Coastal Regulation Zone notification, there is no prohibition in using the land as has been done in the Cochin Marine Drive. The State Government has power to exempt a builder from observing the Floor Area Ratio while constructing buildings there. The builders have constructed the structures after obtaining such exemptions whereever it was necessary. Hence, the allegations of the petitioner, that the buildings are being constructed in violation of the CRZ notification, is without any basis. 4. The State Government has power to exempt a builder from observing the Floor Area Ratio while constructing buildings there. The builders have constructed the structures after obtaining such exemptions whereever it was necessary. Hence, the allegations of the petitioner, that the buildings are being constructed in violation of the CRZ notification, is without any basis. 4. We heard counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the respondents. Elaborate arguments were addressed by counsel on both sides and the State has produced the Coastal Zone Management Plan of Kerala prepared by the Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram on behalf of the Government of Kerala. 5. We do not consider it appropriate, at this stage, to give any declaration or directions to respondents 1 to 3 to follow the law and rules. If, any law or rule has been violated by any of the respondents, namely respondents 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, the State Government shall be at liberty to take appropriate action according to law. 6. The only point for consideration in this case is whether respondents 1 to 3 have allowed the other respondents to construct buildings in violation of the restrictions imposed in the relevant notifications relating to the CRZ - II. 7. Under Annexure - I of Ext. P1 notification, CRZ - II has been defined as follows: "Category - II (CRZ - II): The areas that have already been developed upto or close to the shoreline. For this purpose, "Developed area" is referred to as that area within the municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which is already substantially built up and which has been provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructural facilities, such as water supply and sewerage mains." The set of "Norms for Regulation of Activities" so far as CRZ - II is concerned, is as follows: "(i) Buildings shall be permitted neither on the seaward side of the existing road (or roads proposed in the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of the area) nor on seaward side of existing authorised structures. Buildings permitted on the landward side of the existing and proposed roads/existing authorised structures shall be subject to the existing local Town and Country Planning Regulations including the existing norms or FSI/FAR. (ii) Reconstruction of the authorised buildings to be permitted subject with the existing FSI/FAR norms and without change in the existing use. Buildings permitted on the landward side of the existing and proposed roads/existing authorised structures shall be subject to the existing local Town and Country Planning Regulations including the existing norms or FSI/FAR. (ii) Reconstruction of the authorised buildings to be permitted subject with the existing FSI/FAR norms and without change in the existing use. (iii) The design and construction of buildings shall be consistent with the surrounding landscape and local architectural style." Some of the activities are declared as prohibited within the Coastal Regulation Zone. The relevant prohibited activities are as follows: "(i) setting up and expansion of units/ mechanisms for disposal of waste and effluents, except facilities required for discharging treated effluents, into the water course with approval under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and except for storm water drains; (ii) discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from industries, cities or towns and other human settlements Schemes shall be implemented by the concerned authorities for phasing out the existing practices, if any, within a reasonable time period not exceeding three years from the date of this Notification; (iii) dumping of city of town waste for the purpose of land filling or otherwise; the existing practice, if any, shall be phased out within a reasonable time not exceeding three years from the date of this Notification; (iv) harvesting of drawal of ground water and construction of mechanisms therefore within 200m of HTL in the 200m to 500m zone it shall be permitted only when done manually through ordinary well for drinking, horticulture, agriculture and fisheries; (v) any construction activity between the Low Tide Line and High Tide Line except facilities for carrying treated effluents and waste water discharges into the sea, facilities for carrying sea water for cooling purposes, oil, gas and similar pipelines and facilities essential for activities permitted under this Notification;" 8. It is admitted by the petitioner that there is a pathway in between the sea wall side and the area where constructions have been made or proposed to be made. But, it is contended by him that this is not a road in the true sense of the term and as such it should be deemed that the constructions are being put up on the sea water side without leaving any space between the water front and the buildings. But, it is contended by him that this is not a road in the true sense of the term and as such it should be deemed that the constructions are being put up on the sea water side without leaving any space between the water front and the buildings. But, it appears from the Coastal Zone Management Plan produced by the State Government and from the counter affidavits filed by respondents 1 to 3, that there is a road of 12 meters in width between the sea wall and the buildings. It is used as a public road, though for the sake of convenience of the general public vehicular traffic is forbidden on that road. The dispute with regard to the width of the road or pathway, whatever is called, cannot be enquired into in this proceeding. At any rate, the statements made by the State Government and the GCDA about the road cannot be rejected merely because the petitioner disputes with regard to the width of it. However, the fact remains that admittedly there is a road in between the sea and the buildings in the Cochin Marine Drive area. 9. R.17 of Chap.3 of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984 lays down the permissible maximum percentage coverage and floor area ratio. R.5 empowers the Government to exempt any building from the operation of all or any of the provisions of the Kerala Building Rules. 10. The validity of this rule was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Raman v. State of Kerala ( 1994 (1) KLT 1029 ). It is held that the power to exempt is a part and parcel of the Building Rules and the same is valid. It is laid down as follows: "Rule 5 is fitted by the rule making authority into the integrated scheme of the Building Rules which specify all the details of the manner in which sites are to be used for building construction and as to how the buildings are to be constructed. It is laid down as follows: "Rule 5 is fitted by the rule making authority into the integrated scheme of the Building Rules which specify all the details of the manner in which sites are to be used for building construction and as to how the buildings are to be constructed. This view of the rule making authority is obviously based upon the realisation that in various congested cities or towns etc., while, no doubt, the buildings and sites are generally to conform to certain specification, it may be necessary in some genuine cases to permit construction of buildings even though the owner or builder is not able to fully conform to the specifications in the building Rules. As long as the owner or builder is not offending any known right to neighbours, is conforming to general requirements of public health and sanitation, and as long as the deviations inside the building or site are not likely to affect the general requirements of light and air for the inmates, there must be some method of putting best use of building site for residential, commercial or industrial or other lawful purposes. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx While regulation are restriction of land use is necessary in a Welfare State, it should be consistent with the right of the owners/building to put their property to the best use they can. The power to grant exemption as incorporated in R.5 is to be viewed as part and parcel of an integrated scheme of regulation and restrictions imposed on land owners/builders consistent with the latter's right to property. We do not find anything obnoxious if a Statute give sufficient guidance for the rule making authority to make a set of rules, say, building rules in order to provide for various detailed specifications for purposes of construction of buildings and if as a part and parcel of the said rules, the rule making authority makes a rule empowering the Government to grant exemptions subject to such conditions as the Government may deem fit. As long as there is enough guidance in the Act, the Building Rules which go into the minutes details regarding construction will be valid and if a power of relaxation is part of the said rules, the same will also be valid, for the legislature must be deemed to have noticed, that in Municipalities or Corporations today, it may be difficult to comply with every bit of the Building Rules, if the owner is to make best out of his property or provide for accommodation for others on rental basis. It is part of the policy on housing and accommodation that the power to exempt must be part and parcel of the scheme of the Building Rules. R.5 requires the Government to 'consult' the Chief Town Planner before granting exemption from main provisions of the Building Rules. It is also to be noticed that R.5 provides for the imposition of such 'conditions', if any which the government might stipulate for grant of the exemption. The first proviso requires that the application for exemption is not to be processed till the Chief Town Planner has given his recommendations. These considerations are also a check on arbitrariness on the part of the Government. R.5 of the Building Rules is perfectly valid and is not bad either on account on excessive delegation of legislative power or on the ground that it confers arbitrary or unguided power on the Government." 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that as per the notification, the FAR is distinct from town and country planning regulations and as such the provisions contained in the Kerala Building Rules, 1984 regarding the norms of FAR are not applicable to Environment Protection Act and Rules. It is, therefore, contended that the exemption, if any, given by the State Government under the Kerala Building Rules, 1984 is invalid. 12. This contention cannot be accepted. Except R.17 of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984 there is no other rule prescribing FAR in Kerala. The petitioner has failed to show as to whether in any town or country planning regulation meant for Kerala contains any norms of FAR other than those contained in the Kerala Building Rules. Neither the notification nor any rule under the Environment Protection Act, FSI/FAR has been prescribed. That matter is left to be governed by the Statutory rules of the States. Neither the notification nor any rule under the Environment Protection Act, FSI/FAR has been prescribed. That matter is left to be governed by the Statutory rules of the States. R.17 of the Kerala Building Rules being the only provision relating to this aspect of the matter, it cannot be said that the reference to FSI/FAR in the notification is independent of or separate from the building rules. Under R.5 of the Kerala Building Rules, the State Government has the power to exempt the buildings from the operation of this rule. It is presumed that the government would exercise such power by keeping in view the provisions of the Environment Protection Act and Rules and the notifications made thereunder. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this Original Petition. It is dismissed. No costs.