Judgment :- "C.R" The Kerala High Court Advocates Association, hereinafter referred to as the Association, has filed the above writ petition for a direction to quash Ext.P10 order issued by the second respondent. The issue relates to the construction of a multi storied chamber complex in the old High Court campus. The respondents are State of Kerala and Secretary, Corporation of Cochin. During the pendency of the writ petition, four lawyers who are the members of the petitioner Association, filed individual applications for getting themselves impleaded in the writ petition. The said persons were impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 6. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The Government of Kerala by a Cabinet decision has corded permission to the petitioner Association to construct a multi storied chamber complex in the land in the premises of the High Court in occupation of the Association. Based on the cabinet decision, Government issued G.O.(Rt).No.2519/2006 dated 2.11.2006 marked as Ext.P1, whereby the Government accorded permission to construct the multi storied chamber complex in the premises of the compound wherein the old High Court building is located. The operative portion of Ext.P1 order reads thus: "Government are pleased to accord permission to the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association, Kochi to construct a multi storied Chamber Complex in the land in the premises of the High Court now in their possession." In paragraph 1 of Ext.P1 it is stated that the ownership of the land vests with the Government and the Registrar of High Court has issued a letter of consent and stated that the High Court has no objection in putting up the said construction on obtaining consent from the Government. The petitioner Association has also produced the letter of consent referred to in Ext.P1 and it is marked as Ext.P2. Paragraph 2 of Ext.P2 is extracted as follows: "Considering the need and desirability of putting up a Chamber Complex for the Advocates in the premises of the High Court, I am directed to issue this letter of consent and state that the High Court has no objection in putting up the above construction on obtaining sanction from the Government." Ext.P1 does not specify the footprint area of the multi storied Chamber Complex. Government accorded permission to the Association to construct a multi storied Chamber Complex in the land in the premises of the High Court now in their possession. It is already stated that the compound of the old High Court building is owned by the Government and it is in the possession and enjoyment of the High Court. Petitioner Association was occupying a building in the said compound for the purpose of use of its members. The words used in Ext.P1 order that "in the land in the premises of the High Court now in their possession" could only mean in their occupation or use and not possession, since no no other body other than the High Court can legally possess the above referred property. The occupation, enjoyment, or use of the above referred property by any other body can only be with the permission of the High Court and hence the letter of consent and no objection evidenced by Ext.P2. 3. The old High Court building (Ram Mohan Palace) was once the temporary abode of a Viceroi prior to the 2nd world war. During the 2nd world war, the said building was used as a hospital. When the Travancore-Cochin High Court was established at Cochin on 7.7.1949, the Association started permissive occupation of one building in the compound. There is a courtyard in front of the Association building. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the members of the Association are using the courtyard for different purposes including car parking. So it can be lawfully presumed that the Association was in occupation or in use, as the case may be, of the Association building and appurtenant land referred to above. Some other structures like bunks were also put up in the said compound in front of the Association building for catering the needs of the Association members. 4. On the basis of Ext.P1 order and Ext.P2 Letter of consent and no objection, the Association submitted requisite application and plan for issuance of a building permit before the 2nd respondent Corporation. Before issuance of the building permit and approved plan, the Senior Town Planner inspected the site mentioned in the application for permit and submitted report to the Corporation. On the basis of Ext.P1 order and Ext.P2 Letter of consent and no objection, the Association submitted requisite application and plan for issuance of a building permit before the 2nd respondent Corporation. Before issuance of the building permit and approved plan, the Senior Town Planner inspected the site mentioned in the application for permit and submitted report to the Corporation. The Association submitted the building plan with a footprint area of 31 cents with cellar parking facility and the open space surrounding the proposed building was also earmarked as open area for parking of cars. After perusing the application for building permit and other relevant details including the report from the Senior Town Planner and after considering the order of the Chief Town Planner which was based on the report of the Senior Town Planner, the 2nd respondent Corporation issued Ext.P3 building permit subject to conditions and also issued the approved plan. The building permit is dated 3.10.2008. The 4 conditions stated in Ext.P3 building permit are as follows: "1) All safety measures for the high rise building shall be provided at site. 2) Ownership hall be based on G.O.(Rt). 519/2006/Home dated 2.11.2006. 3) All solid and liquid waste generated shall be treated and disposed off with own costs arrangements. 4) Aviation clearance shall be produced before starting the 5th floor construction work." Condition No.2 is relevant for the purpose of deciding the dispute between the parties. Condition No.2 reads as follows: "2) Ownership shall be based on G.O.(Rt). 2519/2006/Home dated 2.11.2006." The reference is to Ext.P1 Government Order. For the purpose of issuing building permit and approved plan the Corporation accepted and acted upon Ext.P1 order and Ext.P2 NOC. No doubt, the said two orders are acted upon in order to satisfy itself that the permit applied is for the construction of the building in the land which admittedly, belongs to the Government. The Building Rules stipulate that the applicant shall submit the title deed. In this case, since the property belongs to the Government and the property is in the possession and enjoyment of the High Court of Kerala, the Corporation acted upon Ext.P1 order and Ext.P2 letter of consent and no objection. 5. Before going in to the detailed facts which I would like to mention later, the context and background under which the petitioner Association ventured to construct a multi storied Chamber Complex shall be examined. 5. Before going in to the detailed facts which I would like to mention later, the context and background under which the petitioner Association ventured to construct a multi storied Chamber Complex shall be examined. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that almost all the High Courts in the country are having lawyers chamber complex in their respective campuses. In all such campuses, the respective State Governments have constructed Chamber Complex in order to accommodate the members of such High Court Bar Associations on the basis of nominal licence fees or otherwise. There are two Chamber Complexes attached to the Apex Court. Those multi storied buildings are also constructed by the Government and the lawyers are permitted to occupy the rooms in the building at nominal rent. Perhaps this High Court is the only High Court where the High Court compound is left without a Chamber Complex for lawyers. In our country, various Districts Court centres have Chamber Complexes for lawyers. The District Court compound of Theez Hazaari, Delhi, consists of a Chamber Complex having 400 chambers. This Court can also take judicial notice that in every compound of High Courts there are many institutions which are indispensable for the functioning of the High Courts. I find Judicial Academy, Advocate General's Office, Bar Council Office, Mediation Centre, Office of the Ombudsman Deveswom Board, Office of the Legal Services Authority etc. in almost every High Court compound. Similar is the case of housing of Chambers for lawyers. The functioning of a Chamber Complex in the High Court compound will no doubt, improve the efficiency of the Bar. It is necessary because most of the lawyers are spending their day time in the High Court waiting for their cases to be taken up. The Chamber Complexes are also intended for the convenience of the lawyers who can during off hours carry on with their consultations, discussions, preparation of cases and reference in library etc. Thus, the construction of Chamber Complex in every High Court compound is intended to achieve the above purposes and such purposes are indeed part of administration of justice. 6. I have observed that the formation and functioning of Chamber Complexes in every High Court is of immense assistance for the effective functioning of the High Court. Thus, the construction of Chamber Complex in every High Court compound is intended to achieve the above purposes and such purposes are indeed part of administration of justice. 6. I have observed that the formation and functioning of Chamber Complexes in every High Court is of immense assistance for the effective functioning of the High Court. Such Complexes are not only of assistance for the members of the Association, but also the public at large who are directly benefited. Seat of the High Court which is centrally located in the State is in Ernakulam city. The strength of the petitioner Association exceeds 5000. Majority of the offices of the lawyers are scattered all over the city and many are located far away from the High Court compound. Only very few offices are housed in a few buildings in and around High Court. The services of this Court is extended to all people through out the country and especially, to the people of Kerala. The litigant public have to travel long distances in order to meet their lawyers for ventilating their causes. At present they meet their lawyers in their offices which are scattered all over the city. There are considerable difficulties faced by the litigant public due to the scattered locations of the lawyers offices. The Travancore Cochin High Court was formed in the year 1949, and the High Court of Kerala in the year 1956 which are events that happened about six decades back, still the compound is not having a Chamber Complex which will aid and assist the High Court in the administration of justice. 7. The legal profession is the bedrock of the judicial system. The advocacy is an institution created by the State for its own benefit as an integral part of the legal machinery to secure efficient administration of justice. It is also one of the social order aiding rule of law in the State. 8. The Bar is not a private guild, but is an institution committed to public justice and pro bono public service. The present system of judiciary consists of Courts, Judges and Advocates. It is well established that the democracy cannot function properly unless there is a strong and independent judiciary and there cannot be a proper and efficient judiciary unless there is a strong and competent Bar. The present system of judiciary consists of Courts, Judges and Advocates. It is well established that the democracy cannot function properly unless there is a strong and independent judiciary and there cannot be a proper and efficient judiciary unless there is a strong and competent Bar. I have stated facts in the preceding paragraphs only to remind the Government that it is the duty of the Government to provide a Chamber Complex in the compound of the High Court. It will help the High Court in extending effective justice to the litigant public of the State. It is a sorry state of affairs that the Government is not providing a Chamber Complex even after six decades. In the above circumstances, the Association had taken the initiative to construct a multi storied Chamber Complex in order to house and accommodate majority of lawyers. Ext.P3 building permit shows that they intend to construct a multi storied Chamber Complex having more than 520 Chambers, computerized library hall, conference hall, banking facility with ATM counters etc. Estimated cost of construction is between Rs.15 Crores to 18 Crores. They have voluntarily ventured to do so finding that the Government is not taking any steps to accommodate lawyers in a Chamber Complex. The Association thus took the initiative and decided to construct the multi storied Chamber Complex referred to above. It is said that the Government is unable to provide such a complex stating that they have dearth of funds. It is also submitted by the petitioner Association that their efforts made earlier requesting the Government to provide a Chamber complex could not be materialised the main reason being 'paucity of funds'. In such circumstances, the endeavour of the Association to have a Chamber Complex to accommodate its members on its own must be appreciated. 9. Acting on Ext.P1 Government Order and Ext.P2 letter of consent and no objection issued by the High Court, the request of the Association for permission to commence the construction at the proposed site was approved by the Full Court. The Association obtained Ext.P3 building permit and approved plan. The Association moved the High Court for permission for the construction. The request of the Association was referred to the High Court Building Committee for consideration. The Building Committee of the High Court consisting of judges held meeting with the President and other office bearers of the Association. The Association obtained Ext.P3 building permit and approved plan. The Association moved the High Court for permission for the construction. The request of the Association was referred to the High Court Building Committee for consideration. The Building Committee of the High Court consisting of judges held meeting with the President and other office bearers of the Association. PWD officials also attended the meeting. High Court Building Committee considered the request of the Association. The Committee took note of the parking area to be provided in the High Court compound as per the Building Rules, footprint and built up area for the Chamber Complex, perused the building permit, approved plan and decided to approve the building permit, approved plan, parking area earmarked for the built up area and further ordered demolition of some of the old buildings in the High Court compound which previously housed Advocate General's Office, Dispensary Building, typing pool, Advocate Association Building, Staff canteen, CMP Section, 2 court halls and judges chambers to provide a more spacious compound. The Committee also submitted their decision for approval by the Honourable Chief Justice. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the Honourable Chief Justice. The last paragraph of Ext.P4 reads thus: "Considering the fact that the Full Court has accorded permission to construct a Chamber Complex at the South-western corner of the High court compound, the Building Committee has resolved that construction of the Chamber Complex with a built up area as per the plan is possible satisfying the requirement pointed out by the Committee, which are enumerated above, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India accepting the invitation of the Chamber Committee and the Advocates' Association has graciously consented to inaugurate the construction of the Chamber Complex on 8th November 2008, the day on which the High Court intends to celebrate High Court Day, I find that sanction has to be accorded to the Chamber Committee to commence the construction of the Chamber Complex at the proposed site subject to the condition that the built up area of the building shall be limited to 31 cents and the rest of the vacant area in the High Court compound shall be preserved exclusively as the parking area of the High Court to satisfy the norms given by the Building Rules. The Chamber Committee shall see that the built up area in the Chamber building should provide for the parking area for that building satisfying the Building Rules." The extracted portion referred to above reiterates the necessity of the construction of a Chamber Complex in the high Court premises. The Honourable Chief Justice approved the decision of the High Court Building Committee and accorded sanction for construction of the Chamber Complex, limiting the footprint area to 31 cents at the proposed site approved by the Building Committee and Full Court, and for demolition of the old buildings in the High Court. Directions are issued to the PWD authorities to demolish the old buildings and to remove the debris from the site on or before 5.11.2008. Advocate General was addressed to hand over vacant possession of the site by shifting its office to the three storied building, the possession of which had already been handed over and further requested to demolish the old building at the earliest for providing more area as parking space. Honourable Chief Justice also approved the resolution passed by the High Court Building Committee to the effect that construction of Chamber Complex with the built up area as per the plan is possible. Ext.P4 order dated 30.10.2008 was passed according sanction to the Association to commence the construction of the Chamber Complex at the proposed site subject to the conditions stated therein. 10. All on a sudden i.e, within 5 days from the date of Ext.P4 order of the Honourable Chief Justice, the 2nd respondent Corporation issued a show cause notice addressed to the Secretary of the Association calling upon him to show cause within 14 days as to why permit shall not be cancelled. Ext.P5 is the notice issued by the Corporation and it is dated 5.11.2008. In Ext.P5 notice it is stated that there is violation of Rule 6(4) of the Kerala Municipal building Rules. It is seen that Ext.P5 notice was served on the same day, the Association submitted explanation to Ext.P5 show cause notice along with Ext.P4 order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The 2nd respondent after considering the explanation dated 6.11.2008 and the order passed by the Honourable Chief Justice communicated through Registrar, accepted the explanation and issued communication dated 6.11.2008. It is seen that Ext.P5 notice was served on the same day, the Association submitted explanation to Ext.P5 show cause notice along with Ext.P4 order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The 2nd respondent after considering the explanation dated 6.11.2008 and the order passed by the Honourable Chief Justice communicated through Registrar, accepted the explanation and issued communication dated 6.11.2008. Ext.P6 is the communication issued on the basis of the decision taken by the Corporation, addressed to the President of Association stating that as per the explanation and the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, construction of the Chamber complex in the 31 cents of land as per the Government Order is permissible. A few days later, again the Corporation issued another communication to the Association directing the Secretary of the Association to appear before the 2nd respondent on 26.11.2008 for a personal hearing. In the meanwhile, on 8.11.2008 in the function arranged by the Association, the Honourable Chief Justice of India inaugurated the construction of the Chamber Complex and accordingly they commenced the construction from 8.11.2008. The 2nd notice referred above is marked as Ext.P7. The petitioner Association requested the 2nd respondent to inform them in writing, the specific queries they are to answer in respect of construction of Chamber Complex. Ext.P8 is the said letter. There was no reply to Ext.P8 from the 2nd respondent. The Association thereafter submitted a detailed statement narrating in detail the orders passed by the Government, High Court Building Committee and the subsequent events leading to the passing of Ext.P5 show cause notice. In the statement, the Association requested the 2nd respondent to drop the proceedings, if any, initiated by the Corporation either to suspend or revoke the building permit as there was no grounds for suspension or revocation of the permit as envisaged in the Building Rules. Ext.P9 is the said statement. The proceedings passed by the various authorities were brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent including the resolution passed by the High Court Building Committee, the order passed by the Chief Justice and all other details necessary for requesting the Corporation to desist from continuing any action. The Association also made it clear that the owner of the land is the Government and the legal possession is with the High Court. The Association also made it clear that the owner of the land is the Government and the legal possession is with the High Court. It is stated in Ext.P9 that only in a case where permit was issued by mistake, that a patent error has crept in while issuing building permit or that the permit happened to be issued on misrepresentation and that if the construction if carried on would be a threat to life or property, can Rule 16 be invoked. It is stated that conditions stipulated in Rule 16 are absent in this case. From the facts and circumstances discussed above, I find that none of the contingencies enumerated in Rule 16 is attracted in this case. It cannot be said that the building permit was issued by mistake. The Association, along with the application for building permit, produced the Government Order and NOC issued by this Court. The Government is the paramount title holder and the campus is in possession and enjoyment of the High Court. Both authorities passed orders permitting the Association to construct the building, based on the orders the application for building permit was submitted. I do not find any reason for the 2nd respondent to initiate action stating that grant of permit is a mistake. The second limb of Rule 16 is that if a patent error has crept in the building permit the 2nd respondent Corporation has authority to cancel the permit. I do not find any patent error crept has in the building permit nor the Corporation has pointed out that there is any patent error in the building permit. Third limb is that the permit happened to be issued on misrepresentation of fact or law. This is the main reason stated by the Corporation in Ext.P10, which is under challenge, for cancelling the building permit. The Corporation contended that the applicant had obtained permit by misrepresentation of fact or law. Building permit was applied on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2. Subsequently, the High Court considered the issue on the basis of the permit. The matter was referred to the High Court Building Committee. The Committee passed a resolution stating that "a Chamber Complex with a built up area as per the plan is possible satisfying the requirements pointed out by the Committee'. Subsequently, the Honourable Chief Justice passed Ext.P4 order. Subsequently, the High Court considered the issue on the basis of the permit. The matter was referred to the High Court Building Committee. The Committee passed a resolution stating that "a Chamber Complex with a built up area as per the plan is possible satisfying the requirements pointed out by the Committee'. Subsequently, the Honourable Chief Justice passed Ext.P4 order. In Ext.P4 order sufficient and more open space was ordered to be provided as parking area which according to the Association is more than the open space required under the Kerala Building Rules. The third limb empower the Corporation to cancel the permit only if the Corporation is satisfied that there was misrepresentation. There is no materials before the Corporation to enter in to or arrive at a conclusion that there is misrepresentation of fact or law. Therefore the third limb is not attracted for passing orders. Instead, the materials produced by the applicant which was acted upon by the Corporation is a positive proof which will go to show that the building permit was obtained legally and on stating true facts. The last limb of Rule 16 is that the construction if carried on will be a threat to life and property. Admittedly, that limb is not applicable in this case. So, there is no difficulty in concluding that none of the conditions in Rule 16 exists in the instant case. I have already noted that the permit was issued after taking into consideration all the relevant documents and based on the inspection of the premises by the Senior Town Planner, and orders passed by the Chief Town Planner. Therefore there is every reason to believe that issuance of the show cause notice was malafide for reasons known to the 2nd respondent Corporation only. Secondly there are no justifiable reasons at all for invoking Rule 16 and consequently issuing Ext.P5 notice. 11. Another aspect which is very important in this case is that rightly or wrongly Corporation issued Ext.P5 show cause notice. Usually when notices are issued, it may take 3 to 5 days for service. It is not known why the notice prepared on 5.11.2008 was served on the same day to the applicant Association. Considering the urgency of the matter, Association submitted reply on 6.11.2008 along with Ext.P4 order passed by the Honourable Chief Justice. Usually when notices are issued, it may take 3 to 5 days for service. It is not known why the notice prepared on 5.11.2008 was served on the same day to the applicant Association. Considering the urgency of the matter, Association submitted reply on 6.11.2008 along with Ext.P4 order passed by the Honourable Chief Justice. Corporation again acted instantly, took a decision and communicated such decision vide Ext.P6 communication. It must be presumed that the explanation offered by the Association was accepted by the Corporation and the Corporation dropped further proceedings. That may be the reason why the Corporation directed the Association to carry on construction as per the Building Rules. If the matter is pending even after taking a decision on 6.11.2008, the Corporation has no authority to issue a communication like Ext.P6 authorising the applicant to continue the construction. Corporation cannot issue interim orders permitting the applicant to continue the construction after issuing show cause notice stating that there is violation of Rule 16. After issuing Ext.P5 notice and after receiving explanation offered by the applicant, the Corporation can either pass orders holding that there is violation or no violation. Ext.P6 communication would reveal that the matter was considered by the Corporation and the Corporation had taken a decision that there is no violation of Rule 16 and issued Ext.P6 communication stating that the Association can continue the construction as per the building permit and approved plan. If that be the case, it is not known why the Corporation again initiated action against the Association based on Ext.P5 show cause notice. Ext.P7 notice shows that the Corporation proposed to proceed with the question of violation of Rule 16 again. One of the questions to be answered is whether the Corporation has got authority to reopen the matter decided on 6.11.2008. Ext.P10 order was passed by the Corporation on 18.12.2008 by which the building permit issued to the petitioner Association was revoked. have in detail examined the legality of issuing Ext.P7 and subsequently Ext.P10. I have already found that issuance of Ext.P5 notice is a malafide action and was issued even when the 2nd respondent was fully aware that none of the reasons stated in Rule 16 is attracted in the instant case. have in detail examined the legality of issuing Ext.P7 and subsequently Ext.P10. I have already found that issuance of Ext.P5 notice is a malafide action and was issued even when the 2nd respondent was fully aware that none of the reasons stated in Rule 16 is attracted in the instant case. Therefore Ext.P5 show cause notice is bad in law, at the same time, they corrected the mistake and took a decision on 6.11.2008 accepting the explanation offered by the Association. It is difficult to understand what prompted the Corporation to again issue Ext.P7 and subsequently, Ext.P10 order revoking the permit. For the reasons stated above, I hold that Ext.P10 order is also tainted with malafides and is an order passed without jurisdiction. The Corporation has no authority or jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings and to pass Ext.P10 order. 12. I shall also examine the reasons stated in Ext.P10 for revoking the permit. It is stated in page 6 of the order that the property is a puramboke land. The basis for categorising the property of the High Court as puramboke land is a report from the office of the District Collector which was produced as Exts.R2 (a) attached to the counter filed by the Corporation. I have perused Ext.R2(a). The subject shown itself is misleading. The subject shown is 'construction of a building for Bar Council of Kerala'. The District Collector has no idea about the institutions functioning in the High Court compound. Bar Council of Kerala is a statutory body functioning under the provisions of the Advocates Act. The petitioner Association is a Society constituted under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The lawyers practising in the High Court are the members of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association. Petitioner Association have no case that they are in ownership and possession of any land in the High Court compound. Their case is that they have been in occupation or in use, as the case may be, some extent of land and the Association building for the last more than six decades. In Annexure R2(a) report, the advocates association building is described as Chief Medical Officer's bungalow. here is absolutely no reason for submitting such a report. The District Collector or the District Administration appears to be not in the know of things. In Annexure R2(a) report, the advocates association building is described as Chief Medical Officer's bungalow. here is absolutely no reason for submitting such a report. The District Collector or the District Administration appears to be not in the know of things. The District Collector should have known that the old building of the Advocates Association was housed in a building which was once upon a time the bungalow of the Chief Medical Officer and that the CMO ceases to occupy the building for more than 6 decades. In Annexure R2(a) report it is also stated that the petitioner has got lease over 32 cents of land. The petitioner Association has no case that they are in possession of any land by way of lease from the Government. All these facts would go to show that the District Collector's report relied on by the Corporation is incorrect in all respects and misleading. The District Collector and its administration is still submitting report after referring to some village records without noticing the true facts. The District Administration is still under the impression that the building occupied by the petitioner Association is in the possession and enjoyment of the Chief Medical officer. If the report goes like this, they may also report that the old High Court building where High Court functioned till 2006 is the residence of Viceroi, because several decades back the Viceroi occupied the old High Court building. 13. The Corporation also produced Annexure R2(b), a letter from the Superintending Engineer PWD(Judicial Buildings Circle, Ernakulam) to the Town Planning Officer. In the said letter, the Superintending Engineer pointed out that the proposed construction is in the Government land which is not yet assigned to anybody. This communication was dated 3.11.2008. I find that the two draw backs pointed out by the Superintending Engineer also are not correct. It is nobody's case that the land is not owned by the Government. It is nobody's case that it is assigned to the petitioner Association. The very same reasons were pointed out by the said PWD Engineer before the High Court Building Committee. The High Court Building Committee also considered the very same reasons reported earlier and passed a resolution which I have narrated in the preceding paragraphs. After considering the reasons pointed out by the Superintending Engineer, the High Court Building Committee had resolved that the present car parking area is sufficient. The High Court Building Committee also considered the very same reasons reported earlier and passed a resolution which I have narrated in the preceding paragraphs. After considering the reasons pointed out by the Superintending Engineer, the High Court Building Committee had resolved that the present car parking area is sufficient. The Honourable Chief Justice issued orders directing demolition of several old building in order to make up sufficient parking area, if not more. I may refer to Annexure R2(c) dated 11.12.2008 issued by the Senior Town Planner addressed to the 2nd respondent. In R2(c) also the facts stated are the same as stated in Annexure R2 (a). The Senior Town Planner had conducted site inspection, prepared mahazar and submitted report to the Corporation. It is reported that the plan is in conformity with the Building Rules and that open space as required under the Rules is provided. On the basis of such recommendation the matter was subsequently verified by the Chief Town Planner and the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P3 permit and approved plan. It is not known for what reason, another report was called for by the Corporation from the Senior Town Planner. In Annexure R2(c) it is stated that the title holder is not the applicant Association. The said fact is known to the Corporation at the time of filing of the application for building permit. Even the petitioner Association has no case that they are the title holders of the property. Therefore his report has no relevance at all in passing the order by the Corporation. Moreover it is important to note that Annexure R2(a) and (c) orders are called for, for passing Ext.P10 order. The facts reported by the District Collector and the Senior Town Planner in Annexure R2(a) and (c) are misleading, contrary to the facts and if relied on, will lead to absurd conclusions. These two reports are based on entries in village records pertaining to the period, during 1940's. The reason stated by the 2nd respondent for revoking the building permit cannot stand and the same was passed on the basis of additional materials namely, Exts.R2(a) and R2(c) etc., procured subsequent to the passing of Ext.P6 communication. The counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent contains facts which are misleading and contrary to truth. I find that the corporation has no authority or jurisdiction to invoke Rule 16 again and pass Ext.P10 order. 13. The counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent contains facts which are misleading and contrary to truth. I find that the corporation has no authority or jurisdiction to invoke Rule 16 again and pass Ext.P10 order. 13. Besides the original two respondents, four lawyers who are the members of the petitioner Association got themselves impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 6. Respondents 3 and 4 supported the stand taken by the Corporation and opposed the move of the petitioner Association in carrying on the construction of the Chamber Complex. Additional respondents 5 & 6, the other two members supported the petitioner Association. Both respondents 3 & 4 did not file counter affidavits denying the averments in the original petition. They submitted before the Court that the petitioner Association is unauthorisedly occupying a portion of the property in the old High Court compound and is carrying on the construction of a Chamber Complex in gross violation of the Building Rules. Learned counsel for the additional 4th respondent contended that the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, that the remedy open to the petitioner Association is to prefer a statutory appeal before the Local Self Government Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Writ petition is of the year 2008. After narrating the sequence of events that led to the passing of Ext.P10 order, the petitioner Association in paragraph 15 averred that the Association is highly aggrieved by Ext.P10 order and the manner in which the same was issued. It is submitted by the Association that the second respondent has passed Ext.P10 in such a manner with an intention to prevent the petitioner from seeking legal remedies in time and left with no other effective alternative remedy, the writ petition was preferred. In ground (G) of the writ petition it is stated that the action of the Corporation in waiting for a long time after the hearing and passing the order revoking the permit and not serving a copy of the order immediately on pronouncement of the same speaks of the dubious intention of the Corporation. Such a conduct is not expected from public authority and needless to say it is reprehensible. In ground (G) it is further pleaded that the conduct of the second respondent is liable to be scrutinized by this Court exercising its power of judicial review. Such a conduct is not expected from public authority and needless to say it is reprehensible. In ground (G) it is further pleaded that the conduct of the second respondent is liable to be scrutinized by this Court exercising its power of judicial review. Learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Union of India and others (2008 (3) KHC 345) which holds that it is a well settled principle of law that availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for granting relief in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Following the very same principle and applying the facts of the case which are peculiar and exceptional, the conduct of the Corporation cannot be countenanced at any rate. Going by the sequence of events and orders passed by the Corporation I have no doubt in my mind that the apprehension of the petitioner Association is correct and therefore the appropriate remedy in the given circumstances is the remedy provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. Adv.Mr.Rajasekharan Nair, Advocate, party in person and counsel for the 4th respondent referring to various provisions in the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules, submitted that it shall not be lawful for the petitioner Association to construct a building over any portion of the old High Court compound except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence issued by the Government or such office of the Government, as the case may be, empowered in this behalf. According to them the petitioner Association is a rank trespasser and therefore liable to be evicted under the said Act and Rules. Section 5 of the Land Conservancy Act and Rule 12 of the Rules are brought to the notice of this Court. I may say that the Land Conservancy Act was enacted in the year 1957 to check, preserve and protect the Government land from unauthorised occupation. I have discussed the issue in detail in preceding paragraphs. I find that the construction carried out in the old High Court campus is in the area which was under permissive occupation of the petitioner Association and that the construction is carried out in terms of the permission granted by the Government and this Court. I have discussed the issue in detail in preceding paragraphs. I find that the construction carried out in the old High Court campus is in the area which was under permissive occupation of the petitioner Association and that the construction is carried out in terms of the permission granted by the Government and this Court. Arguments of the aforesaid respondents even without filing a counter affidavit denying the averments in the original petition is without any legal force. Wanton and ruthless allegations and accusations are raised by the said respondents orally which are unfounded and without any basis. The party in person Adv.Mr.Rajasekharan Nair and 360 others moved a resolution on 1.2.2008 which is marked as Ext.P11. The resolution reads thus: "We the members of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association request all concerned to initiate urgent measures to commence construction of Advocates' Chambers with financial assistance of Government in the old High Court Campus taking the entire area of 97 cents in the possession of the Advocates' Association for calculating the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) so as to accommodate maximum number of lawyers." In the note attached to Ext.P11 resolution it is also stated that the petitioner Association is in possession of 97 cents in the old High Court campus, that the said land includes the old Association building, land appurtenant thereto including car parking area and that the State Government has already granted permission for lawyers chambers. The petitioner Association was in occupation of the building and car parking area from 1956 onwards. Ext.P11 also denotes that the allegations stated above, are wanton, ruthless and baseless. There is no bonafides in making submissions before the court which are quite contrary to their own stand taken earlier and which is in conflict with the present stand, without filing a counter affidavit and denying the averments in the original petition would go to show that their endeavour to resist the construction activities of the Association is not made in good faith. According to Adv.Mr.Rajasekharan Nair and additional 4th respondent, so long as the petitioner Association had not obtained assignment of the property, they have no right to build a multi storied Chamber Complex in the old High Court compound. According to Adv.Mr.Rajasekharan Nair and additional 4th respondent, so long as the petitioner Association had not obtained assignment of the property, they have no right to build a multi storied Chamber Complex in the old High Court compound. I have already explained the situation and hold the view that no inch of land lying within the campus of High Court can be assigned under the Land Assignment Act or any other enactments. The whole extent of land within the compound is necessary for the effective functioning of the High Court and therefore the question of assignment is out of question. All the institutions referred in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment are functioning on the basis of the permission granted by the Government and the High Court since these institutions are indispensable for the functioning of the High Court. The counsel for the 4th respondent and Adv.Mr.Rajasekharan Nair submitted that the petitioner Association is disqualified from applying for assignment. According to them the Land Assignment Act is not intended for assignment of Government land for the purpose of construction of a building by the petitioner Association. I have already observed that the assignment of land for the petitioner Association in the High Court compound is not possible and therefore the contention has no force. It is profitable to examine the relevant Rule in the Assignment of Land Within Municipal Corporation Area Rules, 1995. Under Rule 21 of the said Rule the Government may, if it considers necessary so, to do public in interest can assign land subject to terms and conditions, if any. Therefore the contention of the additional respondents 3 and 4 that the land can be assigned only under the Kerala Land Assignment Act cannot stand. Rule 1A of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules exempt land situated within the limits of Corporation or Municipality or Cantonment or such other area as the Government may specify from the operation by the Rules. Rule 1A(v) empowers the Government to transfer Government land to any third party under special agreement with the Government. The Rules relating to assignment of land within the Municipal or Corporation are governed by the Assignment of Land Within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995. Rule 1A(v) empowers the Government to transfer Government land to any third party under special agreement with the Government. The Rules relating to assignment of land within the Municipal or Corporation are governed by the Assignment of Land Within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995. I have already referred to Rule 21 of the above Rules, which empower the Government if they consider it necessary so to do in public interest, assign land subject to such terms and conditions, if any, as may be imposed. So, within the Corporation and Municipal area also assignment of land in public interest is possible. The said contention is also without any force and unsustainable in law. 15. Adv.Mr.Rajasekharan Nair, and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent pointed out that the petitioner Association is not carrying out the construction of the multi storied Chamber Complex, but, it is being carried out by a society by name, Kerala High Court Advocates' Association Chamber Society. Exts.P1 and P2 are the order and NOC respectively, issued by the authorities facilitating the petitioner Association to construct a multi storied Chamber Complex in the High Court premises. It is clear that it is for the petitioner Association to carry out the construction, make allotments, regulate and administer the functioning of the Chamber Complex in the years to come. If any society is constituted for the purpose of carrying out construction or for administration of the Chamber Complex, it can only be termed as a committee constituted under the control of the Association for the convenient management and administration. The role of the society or the committee, if any, as the case may be, is to act in accordance with the directions and decisions taken by the petitioner Association. Petitioner Association shall formulate Rules and Regulations for the effective and efficient functioning of the Chamber Complex and the use of the common facilities to be provided in the complex. The society or the committee, as the case may be, can only function under the instructions and directions of the petitioner Association. 16. To conclude, I may say that functioning of a Chamber Complex in the High Court compound is not only the concern of lawyer community alone but it is also the concern of the judiciary as well as the public at large. In fact, such facilities are intended for the public and the ultimate beneficiaries are the public. 16. To conclude, I may say that functioning of a Chamber Complex in the High Court compound is not only the concern of lawyer community alone but it is also the concern of the judiciary as well as the public at large. In fact, such facilities are intended for the public and the ultimate beneficiaries are the public. The public are enjoying such rights through the lawyer community. Lawyers as a class are redressing the grievances of the public in the courts established and they are rendering their services in the best interest of the State. That is why this Court observed that the Chamber Complex is not only an asset of the lawyer community but also an asset of the judiciary and general public. 17. It is submitted at the Bar that the entire structure work of the multi storied Chamber Complex has been completed. Respondents 3 and 4 expressed apprehension about the legality of the petitioner Association constructing the said complex in the High Court campus. In unmistakable terms I hold that the construction of the multi storied Chamber Complex is lawful and is in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in Extt.P1, P2, P3 and P4 orders. The contesting respondents 3 and 4 have also expressed concern over the non-issuance of a licence deed stipulating the terms and conditions for the functioning of the multi storied Chamber Complex. I make it clear that Ext.P1 Government Order read with Ext.P2 letter of consent and No Objection Certificate and Ext.P4 order passed by the Honourable Chief Justice amounts to licence for the functioning of the complex. At the same time it is desirable that there shall be a licence deed or agreement in writing incorporating the necessary terms including the period of licence or permission in the best interest of petitioner Association. Therefore there will be a direction to the Government to examine the grievances of the petitioner Association and its members, and shall issue a licence or permission order in writing stipulating the terms and conditions. This shall be done within a period of three months from today. 18. It is submitted at the Bar that Chamber complex costs Rs.15 Crores to 18 Crores. The said complex was built up with the contribution from members of the petitioner Association. This shall be done within a period of three months from today. 18. It is submitted at the Bar that Chamber complex costs Rs.15 Crores to 18 Crores. The said complex was built up with the contribution from members of the petitioner Association. I have already observed that in every States in the country Chamber Complexes are provided by the respective State Governments as part of aiding the administration of justice. Unfortunately, in our State the Government had not taken any initiative or steps for providing a Chamber Complex even at this distance of time. Therefore, the endeavour of the petitioner Association to have their own complex at their cost is most appreciated. It is the duty of the Government to provide financial assistance for the Chamber Complex. The Government shall think seriously for extending financial help to the petitioner Association for completion and onward functioning of the project. Since the 2nd respondent Corporation has not acted in good faith in passing orders with an intention to thwart the project, this writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be payable by the second respondent, Corporation. Since wanton and wild allegations are raised by additional respondents 3 and 4, which are found to be baseless and unfounded, it is further ordered that they shall pay Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three Thousand only) each to the petitioner Association as cost. Ext.P10 order is declared illegal and is hereby, quashed. Writ petition is allowed as above.