JUDGMENT : 1. The issues arising for consideration in these matters are closely interlinked. The petitioner is also one and the same in both the matters. The writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. The parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.24986 of 2016. 2. The petitioner owns a multi-storied commercial building within the limits of Kochi Corporation (the Corporation). The building of the petitioner is one constructed on the strength of the building permits obtained by the predecessors of the petitioner. The predecessors of the petitioner initially obtained Ext.P1 building permit on 18/9/2007 under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (the Rules) for construction of a building consisting of three basement floors, ground floor and thirteen upper floors. Since the layout approval of the Chief Town Planner was required for the proposed building in terms of the Rules, Ext.P1 building permit was obtained on the basis of Ext.P2 layout approval. The building proposed being an assembly occupancy building consisting of cinema theaters, Ext.P2 layout approval was granted by the Chief Town Planner, among others, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall comply with the requirement contained in Rule 55(8a) of the Rules for constructing the building. Rule 55(8a) of the Rules provides that in the case of assembly occupancy buildings, irrespective of their number of floors, a certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force shall be obtained and produced for issuing building permit. It is stated by the petitioner that in the light of the said stipulation contained in Ext.P2 layout approval, the predecessors of the petitioner have obtained Ext.P3 certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force and Ext.P1 building permit was obtained on the strength of the said certificate. It is mentioned in Ext.P3 certificate of approval that a fresh No Objection Certificate (NOC) should be obtained from the Fire and Rescue Services Department for occupation of the building after the construction. It is seen that after about two years, the predecessors of the petitioner have decided to change the plan of the building and also the nature of occupation substantially and consequently applied for revision of the building permit. It is seen that after about two years, the predecessors of the petitioner have decided to change the plan of the building and also the nature of occupation substantially and consequently applied for revision of the building permit. The revised proposal was for construction of three basement floors, ground floor and eight upper floors, of which floors 6 to 8 were for housing a movie theater complex with multiple cinema screens (multiplex). The revised building permit applied for by the predecessors of the petitioner was granted by the Corporation on 28.11.2009. Ext.P4 is the revised building permit. It is stated that by April, 2013, when the petitioner completed the structure of the building and the interiors upto the fifth floor, they have applied for and obtained Ext.P5 final NOC from the Fire and Rescue Services Department for occupation of the building upto the fifth floor. On the strength of the said NOC, the petitioner has occupied the building upto the fifth floor. Later, during 2014, the petitioner completed the works of the multiplex and applied for final NOC in respect of floors 6 to 8 of the building for occupying the multiplex. On the said application, the petitioner was issued Ext.P9 communication by the first respondent stating that the building of the petitioner being one coming under mercantile-cum-assembly category, having a height of 40.6 metres, the final NOC sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in the light of the provisions contained in the National Building Code. It is stated in Ext.P9 that the maximum permissible height for assembly occupancy buildings in terms of the National Building Code is 30 metres. 3. The petitioner challenged Ext.P9 communication before this Court in W.P.(C) No.32491 of 2014. It is seen that on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the petitioner obtained occupancy certificate as also licence under the Cinematograph Act provisionally for operation of the multiplex and the multiplex is being operated accordingly. While so, in Dinesh Mani C.M. v. State of Kerala and Others [2015(3) KHC 957], a Division Bench of this Court held that the guidelines under the National Building Code is non-statutory in nature and the same would apply only if the provisions contained therein are incorporated in the respective Rules applicable in different States. While so, in Dinesh Mani C.M. v. State of Kerala and Others [2015(3) KHC 957], a Division Bench of this Court held that the guidelines under the National Building Code is non-statutory in nature and the same would apply only if the provisions contained therein are incorporated in the respective Rules applicable in different States. The specific case set up by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.32491 of 2014 was that the building is one constructed in accordance of the provisions of the Rules and therefore, the final NOC sought by the petitioner cannot be denied relying on the provisions contained in the National Building Code which do not have the force of law. In the light of the said case, this Court quashed Ext.P9 communication and directed the first respondent to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for final NOC afresh, having regard to the decision of this Court in Dinesh Mani (supra). Ext.P18 is the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.32491 of 2014. The application preferred by the petitioner for final NOC was though reconsidered by the first respondent thereafter, the request was rejected again as per Ext.P22 order holding that the building being one constructed without obtaining the certificate of approval in terms of Rule 55(8a) of the Rules and without compliance of the requirements in the National Building Code as regards fire protection applicable to assembly occupancy buildings, final NOC cannot be granted. Ext.P22 order is under challenge in W.P.(C).No.24986 of 2016. 4. W.P.(C).No.24986 of 2016 was admitted on 27.07.2016. An interim order was also passed by this Court in the said writ petition at the time of admission staying the further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P22 order. It is seen that the second respondent has, thereafter, addressed a letter to the District Collector, Ernakulam, who is also the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority, stating that the life of large number of people is in danger, if fire occurs in the building when the multiplex is functioning. Ext.P24 in W.P.(C) No.19309 of 2017 is the said communication addressed by the second respondent to the District Collector. As per Ext.P24, the second respondent requested the District Collector to take appropriate remedial measures to prevent danger to the life of the people. Ext.P24 in W.P.(C) No.19309 of 2017 is the said communication addressed by the second respondent to the District Collector. As per Ext.P24, the second respondent requested the District Collector to take appropriate remedial measures to prevent danger to the life of the people. On the said letter, the District Collector passed Ext.P30 order in his capacity as the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority directing the Secretary of the Corporation to stop the functioning of the multiplex in the building of the petitioner. Ext.P30 is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.19309 of 2017. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent in W.P.(C).No.24986 of 2016 on his behalf and also on behalf of the first respondent. It is stated by the second respondent in the counter affidavit that Ext.P4 building permit is not one obtained in accordance with the Rules and in compliance with the conditions imposed in Ext.P2 layout approval, for, the petitioner has not obtained certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force for obtaining the said building permit. It is also stated by the second respondent in the counter affidavit that all the requirements for fire protection as contained in the National Building Code in relation to the buildings intended for assembly occupancy have been adopted in the Rules in terms of Rule 55(9) of the Rules and as such, if assembly occupancy buildings are not conforming to the requirements in the National Building Code as regards fire protection, final NOC cannot be issued in respect of such buildings. 6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kochi Corporation. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that although the prescriptions in Rule 32 of the Rules as regards maximum height of the buildings are applicable to assembly occupancy buildings subject to the additional prescriptions contained in Rule 55, there were no height restrictions as regards such buildings in Rule 55 till the third proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 55 was amended by SRO.No.80/2013. It is contended that though a cap of 16 metres was introduced for raising the height of assembly occupancy buildings beyond 10 metres by virtue of the said amendment, the said cap does not apply to the building of the petitioner as the same was one constructed prior to the amendment made to the third proviso to Rule 55(2) of the Rules by virtue of SRO No.80/2013. In other words, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was that there was no height restrictions at all for assembly occupancy buildings at the time when Ext.P4 building permit was issued and therefore, the final NOC sought by the petitioner cannot be denied placing reliance on the height restrictions applicable to assembly occupancy buildings in terms of the National Building Code. The learned Senior Counsel has also made submissions as regards Ext.P30 order which is impugned in W.P.(C). No.19309 of 2017. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that in terms of Ext.P2 layout approval, and in so far as the building proposed was an assembly occupancy one, the predecessors of the petitioner ought to have obtained certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force as required by Rule 55(8a) for obtaining the building permit and in so far as Ext.P4 building permit was obtained without obtaining the certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force, the building cannot be said to be one constructed in accordance with the Rules. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the subject building, in the circumstances, can be regarded only as an unauthorised one. Relying on Rule 55(9) of the Rules, it was also contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the requirements in the National Building Code as regards fire protection are applicable to assembly occupancy buildings and therefore, final NOC can be claimed in respect of such buildings only if they conform to the provisions in the National Building Code as regards fire protection. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, while submitting his reply, did not dispute the fact that certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force as required by Rule 55(8a) of the Rules has not been obtained by the predecessors of the petitioner for obtaining Ext.P4 revised building permit. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, while submitting his reply, did not dispute the fact that certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force as required by Rule 55(8a) of the Rules has not been obtained by the predecessors of the petitioner for obtaining Ext.P4 revised building permit. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in so far as certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force had already been obtained for the building before obtaining Ext.P1 building permit, it was not necessary to obtain the certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force again for obtaining Ext.P4 revised building permit. It was also contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while submitting his reply that height restrictions imposed for assembly occupancy buildings in terms of the National Building Code have not been adopted in the Rules in terms of Rule 55(9) of the Rules. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that Rule 55(9) of the Rules, as it originally stood, contained the opening words 'All requirements' and the same was substituted by SRO No.170/2001 dated 22.2.2001 with the words 'All other requirements'. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the effect of the said amendment is that only the provisions in the National Building Code in relation to assembly occupancy buildings which are not otherwise dealt with in the Rules, have been adopted in the Rules. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel, therefore, is that in so far as provision has already been made in the Rules in relation to the height of the assembly occupancy buildings in terms of Rule 32 of the Rules as modified by Rule 55 of the Rules, it cannot be contended that the height restrictions imposed for such buildings in terms of the National Building Code have been adopted in the Rules. 10. I have anxiously considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. 11. It is beyond dispute that the building of the petitioner is a mercantile cum assembly occupancy building. Assembly occupancy buildings come under Group D and mercantile occupancy buildings come under Group F in terms of the Rules. Rule 55 of the Rules deals with buildings which come under Group D category. 11. It is beyond dispute that the building of the petitioner is a mercantile cum assembly occupancy building. Assembly occupancy buildings come under Group D and mercantile occupancy buildings come under Group F in terms of the Rules. Rule 55 of the Rules deals with buildings which come under Group D category. Sub rule (1) of Rule 55 provides that in case of Group D occupancy, approval of the Chief Town Planner shall be obtained for usage of plot and layout of building with floor area exceeding 1000 sq.metres. It is in the light of the aforesaid provision, the predecessors of the petitioner have applied for and obtained Ext.P2 layout approval from the Chief Town Planner. As noted above, the said layout approval was granted by the Chief Town Planner on condition that the applicant should comply with the provision contained in sub rule (8a) of Rule 55. Sub rule (8a) of Rule 55 reads thus: (8a) In the case of assembly occupancy buildings, irrespective of their number of floors, a certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force or an officer authorised by him in this behalf shall be obtained and produced for issuing building permit; The mandate of the extracted Rule is that in the case of assembly occupancy buildings, the competent authority is empowered to issue building permit only on production of certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force. In other words, in the light of the said Rule, the predecessors of the petitioner were not entitled to the building permit without producing a certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force. True, Ext.P3 certificate of approval was obtained by the predecessors of the petitioner from the Director of Fire Force for the building covered by Ext.P1 building permit. As noted above, the said building was one consisting of three basement floors, ground floor and 13 upper floors. But, later when they changed their plan and proposed to construct a building consisting of three basement floors, ground floor and 8 upper floors, a certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force was not obtained. True, had there not been any change at all in the occupancy of the building, the requirement contained in sub rule (8a) of Rule 55 would have been an empty formality. True, had there not been any change at all in the occupancy of the building, the requirement contained in sub rule (8a) of Rule 55 would have been an empty formality. But, as conceded by the petitioner, the occupancy of the building has also been changed in the revised plan. It is seen that floors 6, 7 and 8 were initially intended for residential occupancy, whereas in the revised proposal, the aforesaid floors were earmarked for housing a multiplex which comes under assembly occupancy. Since floors 6 to 8 of the proposed building in terms of the revised plan were intended for assembly occupancy, it was obligatory for the predecessors of the petitioner to obtain certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force for obtaining building permit. It is all the more so in the light of the specific stipulation to that effect contained in Ext.P2 layout approval. In so far as the predecessors of the petitioners have not obtained certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force, Ext.P4 building permit cannot be said to be one issued in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rules. If Ext.P4 building permit cannot be said to be one issued in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rules, it cannot be contended that the building is one constructed in accordance with the Rules. As noted above, one of the reasons stated by the first respondent in Ext.P22 order for declining the final NOC sought in respect of the building is that in the light of the provisions contained in the National Building Code, the predecessors of the petitioner were not entitled to certificate of approval from the Director Fire Force for the building covered by Ext P4 building permit. I shall consider the question whether the predecessors of the petitioner were entitled to certificate of approval for the building covered by Ext P4 building permit a little while later, but even assuming that they were entitled to certificate of approval for the building covered by Ext.P4 plan, still they having not obtained the certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force, according to me, respondents 1 and 2 are fully justified in declining the final NOC applied for, for occupying floors 6 to 8 of the building. 12. 12. In this context, it is necessary to observe that there were serious lapses on the part of the Corporation in issuing Ext.P4 building permit. If the owners of the property who are laymen were under the impression that in the light of Ext.P3 certificate of approval, a further certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force is not required for obtaining a revised building permit involving change of occupancy, it is understandable. But, one cannot believe that the officials of the Corporation who were responsible for issuing Ext.P4 building permit were not aware of this requirement contained in Rule 55(8a) of the Rules as also in Ext.P2 layout approval. Rule 55 (8a) being a provision intended for the safety of the people, it was obligatory for the officials concerned to take utmost care to ensure compliance of said provision in the interests of public safety. If the omission on the part of the officials of the Corporation in insisting the certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force before issuing Ext.P4 building permit was not deliberate for extraneous considerations, the same was certainly a reckless act unmindful of the disastrous consequences affecting the life of the people, which may result from such acts. 13. As noted above, the other reason stated in Ext.P22 order for declining the final NOC applied for by the petitioner is that the predecessors of the petitioner were not entitled to the certificate of approval in terms of Rule 55(8a) of the Rules, for, the building was not conforming to the requirements in the National Building Code. I shall now consider the correctness of the said reason which is seriously challenged by the petitioner in the writ petitions. In order to consider the correctness of the said reason, it is necessary to understand the extent of the requirements contained in the National Building Code as regards assembly occupancy buildings which have been adopted in the Rules. The requirements contained in the National Building Code as regards assembly occupancy buildings have been adopted in the Rules by virtue of sub rule (9) of Rule 55 of the Rules. The requirements contained in the National Building Code as regards assembly occupancy buildings have been adopted in the Rules by virtue of sub rule (9) of Rule 55 of the Rules. Sub rule (9) of Rule 55 reads thus: “(9)[All Other requirements] in respect of fire protection in assembly buildings shall conform to Part IV, Fire Protection of National Building Code of India, 1983 and Amendment No.3.” The above sub rule has been part of the Rules ever since the Rules were introduced during 1999. The only change brought about to the said sub rule was the change brought about by way of amendment in terms of SRO No.170 of 2001. As noted above, by virtue of the said amendment, the opening words of the sub rule 'All requirements' was substituted with the words 'All other requirements'. Going by the plain meaning of the words used in the said sub rule, it is clear that all requirements in the National Building Code in respect of assembly occupancy buildings as regards fire protection as contained in Part IV of the National Building Code other than the fire protection requirements contained in the Rules for such buildings, have been adopted in the Rules. The Rules do not prescribe the measures to be taken and the installations to be made for fire protection in different categories of buildings. As such, it is possible to contend that what was adopted by virtue of Rule 55(9) of the Rules was the requirements contained in Part IV of the National Building Code as applicable to assembly occupancy buildings other than the requirements contained in the Rules. In the absence of any provision in the Rules as regards the measures to be taken and the installations to be made for fire protection for such buildings, in whatever manner the Rule is understood, there cannot be any doubt to the fact that all the requirements in the National Building Code for fire protection applicable to assembly occupancy buildings have been adopted in the Rules. Part IV of the National Building Code which has been adopted by virtue of Rule 55 (9) of the Rules deals exclusively with fire and life safety. Height restriction imposed in Part IV of the National Building Code for assembly occupancy buildings can, therefore, be considered only as a measure for fire protection. Part IV of the National Building Code which has been adopted by virtue of Rule 55 (9) of the Rules deals exclusively with fire and life safety. Height restriction imposed in Part IV of the National Building Code for assembly occupancy buildings can, therefore, be considered only as a measure for fire protection. As such, by virtue of the provision contained in sub rule (9) of Rule 55, the height restrictions contained in Part IV of the National Building Code have also been adopted in the Rules. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that in the light of Rule 52 of the Rules, the provisions in Rule 55 of the Rules will prevail over the general provisions contained in Rule 32 of the Rules as regards the height of the building. The petitioner has also no case that what is adopted in the Rules by virtue of the provision contained in Rule 55(9) of the Rules is the provisions in Part IV of the National Building Code, 1983 and there is no height restriction in Part IV of the National Building Code, 1983 as contained in the National Building Code, 2005, which is in force now. Further, it is seen from the impugned order and also from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the Fire and Rescue Services Department of the State Government is following the various measures provided for in the National Building Code as guidelines for granting certificate of approval for construction of buildings as also for granting final clearance for occupation of buildings. No measures whatsoever is provided for in the National Building Code for fire protection for assembly occupancy buildings exceeding a height of 30 meters. The petitioner has also no case that the fire protection devices to be adopted in assembly occupancy buildings constructed at a height above 30 meters have been prescribed or available elsewhere for guidance. In the circumstances, the stand of the respondents that the predecessors of the petitioner were not entitled to certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force for the building covered by Ext.P4 building permit, is liable to be accepted as correct and is in accordance with law. 14. Rule 55 of the Rules does not deal with the height of the building. 14. Rule 55 of the Rules does not deal with the height of the building. Sub rule (2) of Rule 55 reads thus: (2) Every building upto 10 metres height under assembly occupancy shall have the minimum open yard (spaces) as shown below: Sl. No. Total floor area Minimum open space 1. Exceeding 300 sq. metres but not exceeding 500 sq. metres (i) Front yard - Average 6 metres with minimum 4.5 metres (ii) Side yards, (each side)- Average 2 metres with minimum 1.5 metres. (iii) Rear yard-Average 2 metres with minimum 1.5 metres 2. Exceeding 500 sq. metres but not exceeding 800 sq. metres (i) Front yard-Average 7.5 metres with minimum 5 metres (ii) Side yard (each side)-Average 4 metres with minimum 1.5 metres (iii) Rear yard - Average 3 metres with minimum 1.50 metres. 3. Exceeding 800 sq. metres (i) Front yard -Average 10.5 metres with minimum 6 metres(ii) Side Yard (each side)-Average 5 metres with minimum 1.5 metres (iii) Rear yard-Average 3 metres with minimum 1.5 metres 3. Exceeding 800 sq. metres (i) Front yard -Average 10.5 metres with minimum 6 metres(ii) Side Yard (each side)-Average 5 metres with minimum 1.5 metres (iii) Rear yard-Average 3 metres with minimum 1.5 metres Provided that in the case of buildings with total floor area up to 300 sq. metres used exclusively for worship it shall suffice if a minimum of 3 metres width open yard is maintained in the front and a minimum of 1.50 metres width of open yard is provided in other sides including rear of the building upto 10 metres height: Provided further that where more than one building is proposed to be constructed in a plot, it shall suffice if the open space under this sub rule are provided from the plot boundaries with open yards (spaces) in between the buildings not less than 1.5 metres upto 10 metres height buildings and 3 metres exceeding that height: Provided also that where the height of the building exceeds 10 metres, the open yard from the boundaries shall be increased proportionately at the rate of 50 cms. for every 3 metres increase in height subject to a maximum of 16 metres; A reading of sub rule (2) of Rule 55 indicates that the same is a provision dealing with the open space around the building. for every 3 metres increase in height subject to a maximum of 16 metres; A reading of sub rule (2) of Rule 55 indicates that the same is a provision dealing with the open space around the building. The third proviso to the said sub rule also does not impose any cap on the maximum height of assembly occupancy buildings. The third proviso to sub rule (2) of Rule 55 only prescribes a maximum width for the open yard around assembly occupancy buildings. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the height of assembly occupancy buildings is a matter in respect of which provision has already been made in Rule 55 of the Rules, and therefore, the requirements contained in National Building Code as regards the height of assembly occupancy buildings have not been adopted in the Rules, cannot be accepted. 15. Since it is found that the petitioner is not entitled to final NOC from the Fire and Rescue Services Department for running the multiplex in floors 6 to 8 of the building, the petitioner is not entitled to operate the multiplex in the building any more. Since it is found that the petitioner is not entitled to operate the multiplex in the building anymore, it is unnecessary to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner as regards the correctness of Ext.P30 order passed by the District Collector in his capacity as the Chairperson of the District Disaster Management Authority which is impugned in W.P. (C) No.19309 of 2017. The writ petitions, in the circumstances, are devoid of merits and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.