JUDGMENT : Petitioners who are joint owners of an extent of 8.9 Ares of land situate in Survey Nos.1866/10 and 11866/11 of Thrissur Village, Thrissur Taluk and District, applied for permission to construct an eight storeyed building with basement in the said property before the additional 4th respondent, Thrissur Municipal Corporation. Along with the application for building permit, Ext.P1 plan for securing an initial No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the 2nd respondent was also submitted, which was forwarded by the additional 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent after verifying and approving the plan, issued Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate. 2. On the basis of Exts.P1 and P2, additional 4th respondent issued Ext.P3 building permit to the petitioners for construction of the Apartment Complex, as per Ext.P1 approved building plan. Petitioners completed the construction of the building as per Ext.P3 permit during the year 2015 by employing a builder. The Apartment units were sold to several persons. After completion of the construction, petitioners applied for and obtained Ext.P4 permit from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. However, when applied for final no objection certificate from the 3rd respondent, petitioners were issued with Ext.P5 order, refusing to issue the final NOC, in effect stating that the fire escape staircase does not have two sides abutting external walls, as contemplated under Sections 39 and 42 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, and directed the petitioners to rectify this defect as a condition for issuing the final NOC. 3. According to the petitioners, as the building in question is having a height of more than 16 metres, it is a high rise building as contemplated under Rule 110 of the Building Rules, and therefore, the provisions contained under Chapter XVII are applicable to the petitioners' building. That apart, it is stated that, under Rule 114(3), read with Rule 111 of the Building Rules, only one side of the fire escape staircase need to have an external wall. It is also contended that, under identical circumstances, this Court had issued an interim order in W.P.(C) No. 19981 of 2016 dated 23.06.2016, and directed the 3rd respondent therein to issue a provisional NOC to the building, evident from Ext.P6. It is also contended that, under identical circumstances, this Court had issued an interim order in W.P.(C) No. 19981 of 2016 dated 23.06.2016, and directed the 3rd respondent therein to issue a provisional NOC to the building, evident from Ext.P6. Even though petitioners approached the 3rd respondent with a copy of the said order and requested him to issue an identical order in this case, it was turned down and directed the petitioner to secure independent order from this Court. These are the background facts projected by the petitioners to secure the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, viz., to quash Ext.P5 order and a further direction to the respondents to issue a final No Objection Certificate in respect of fire fighting system in the building covered by Exts.P2 and P5 orders. 4. Third respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. Apart from other contentions, it is stated, Chapter XVII of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules deals with safety rules with high rise buildings. Rule 112(1) of the Rules mandates that every high rise building shall have at least two staircases, and Rule 114(1) of the said Rules mandates that every high rise building shall be provided with the fire escape stair way. From a conjoint reading of the said Rules, it is clear that every high rise building shall have at least two staircases and one fire escape staircase. Apart from the same, it is also stated that as per Rule 39(2) of the Rules, the width of the main stair case should be 1.20 metres. Rule 114(4) mandates that the minimum width of fire escape staircase as 75 c.m. In the building of the writ petitioners, there are only two staircases having width of 1.20 metres. That apart, a fire escape staircase having a width of 75 c.m. is not provided. The Divisional Level Verification Committee headed by the 3rd respondent inspected the building of the petitioners and found the defects, and it was thereupon that a No Objection certificate could not be issued to the building of the petitioners. However, it is also stated, Rule 39 of the Rules mandates that every building having more than 4 floors should have minimum of two staircases. However, it is also stated, Rule 39 of the Rules mandates that every building having more than 4 floors should have minimum of two staircases. It is also mandated therein that one of the staircases could be an external stairway, and that if the second staircase was provided, there was no need of a fire escape staircase. Hence the shortage of the fire escape could be compensated if the second staircase is an external one. However, in the case of the building of the petitioners, the second staircase is abutting only one side of the external wall and therefore, the same cannot be treated as an external staircase. Therefore, a separate fire escape was mandatory for the building. 5. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners, controverting the contentions raised in the counter affidavit and reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Thrissur Corporation. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 7. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, an additional document is produced by the petitioners, which is a Government Order dated 10.11.2016. According to the petitioners, as per the said order, it is stipulated that, in accordance with the Rule 114, every high rise building should be provided with a fire escape stairway of not less than 75 c.m. width, which shall be directly connected with the public or common areas on all floors and shall lead directly to ground, and at least one side of the stairway shall be an external wall either with large openings or with break open glass to facilitate rescue operations. That apart, it is further provided that Rules 39 and 42 are applicable to any building in general. In the case of buildings with more than four floors, two staircases should be provided, one of which is an external stairway, and if the external stairway satisfies the provisions of a fire escape stairway, a separate fire escape stairway need not be provided. However, in the case of high rise buildings, as per Rule 112, at least two staircases need to be provided, but the number of staircases is not limited to two. Also, it is not mentioned that a separate fire escape stairway need to be provided in addition to the two staircases. 8. However, in the case of high rise buildings, as per Rule 112, at least two staircases need to be provided, but the number of staircases is not limited to two. Also, it is not mentioned that a separate fire escape stairway need to be provided in addition to the two staircases. 8. That apart, if one of the stairway in a high rise building satisfy the provisions of a fire escape stairway as in Rule 114, it is not mandatory to provide a separate fire escape stairway. Hence, it is understood that minimum two staircases should be provided in the case of high rise buildings, one of which is a fire escape stairway, which satisfies the provisions in Rule 114. Therefore, it is stipulated thereunder that the total number of staircases in a building should be dependent on criteria such as total area of the building, height of the building, total number of exit widths and travel distance to emergency exits. That apart, it is stipulated, since the Fire and Rescue Department carries out the rescue operations in case of emergencies and fire, they are the competent authority for recommending safety provisions. Based on the above mentioned criteria of the buildings, the Fire Department is given the liberty to suggest the changes required in the number of staircases or type of staircases in individual cases, at the time of issuing Fire NOC. 9. Petitioners also produced another document issued by the Divisional Fire Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Palakkad dated 08.12.2016, whereby it is stated that as per Rule 39(1) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, all buildings exceeding four floors should have at least two staircases, and out of which, if one is an external staircase, there need not be a separate staircase, and if two staircases are constructed, one shall be an external staircase. Other parameters are also provided thereunder. 10. During the pendency of the writ petition, a report was sought from the 3rd respondent in respect of the actual state of affairs of the building in question, and further to submit a report stating whether rescue operations can be carried out in the building as it stands now. Other parameters are also provided thereunder. 10. During the pendency of the writ petition, a report was sought from the 3rd respondent in respect of the actual state of affairs of the building in question, and further to submit a report stating whether rescue operations can be carried out in the building as it stands now. It is stated in the report that none of the staircases have its two sides abutting with external wall and is having openings on two walls, yet both staircases have one of its sides abutting with external wall and has one opening each. Hence, the building as such has two entry point from outside at two different locations. If building was constructed in strict adherence to the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, then there would have been only one entry point at one location. Hence, when fire safety point of view is considered, two entry points at two different locations is much better than one or two entry points at same location. Besides, in National Building Code, it is stipulated that every building shall have minimum two staircases and out of these two staircases, only one staircase need to have its one side abutting with external wall, and it is to be noted that no mention regarding opening is made as such. Even with regard to the fire safety aspects, Kerala Municipality Building Rules rely on National Building Code. Hence, in this context, it can be seen that the building as it now stands does not pose any sort of hindrance for carrying out rescue operations or any threat to the safety of the inmates. 11. Even though the possibility of providing a third staircase was also sought for by this Court, however, in the report, it is stated that if a third staircase is provided, it can only be at a very close position or in attachment to the already existing staircase, and by doing so, it will amount to compliance of the Rule only in its verbal aspects. Providing an extra staircase at the same location of an existing staircase is merely an empty formality, and constructing a third staircase into an already constructed building leads to large scale of demolishing work which serves no other purpose other than unnecessary hardship. Providing an extra staircase at the same location of an existing staircase is merely an empty formality, and constructing a third staircase into an already constructed building leads to large scale of demolishing work which serves no other purpose other than unnecessary hardship. It is also stated that, in case of practical difficulty, as per Part 4 of the National Building Code, in order to avoid unnecessary hardship, without sacrificing reasonable safety, the authority may grant exemptions from the Code. Therefore, it is summarized that when viewed from safety point of aspects, the building as it stands now does not pose any hindrance in carrying out Fire and Rescue operations and there is no question of sacrificing of reasonable safety. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality also submitted that the Municipal Corporation has no manner of objection in providing NOC by the 3rd respondent to the petitioners. 13. Taking note of the respective submissions and the report submitted by the 3rd respondent, and on perusal of the pleadings and the documents on record, I am satisfied that, even though there are certain shortcomings in the staircases constructed by the petitioners, in the fire safety point of view, the 3rd respondent, who is the authority has inspected the site and submitted a report before this Court, ensuring that in case of any calamity, the staircase as such is not posing any threat for rescue operations. That apart, it is also submitted in the report that there are two staircases to the building in accordance with Rule 39, even though with certain deficiencies as is contemplated under the Rules. Anyhow, since I am satisfied that the Fire Safety Authority is of the opinion that the building is in a safe condition, so far as the Fire and Rescue operations are concerned, it is only appropriate that a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioners, if all other parameters are satisfied by the petitioners. That apart, the 3rd respondent has also reported that Part 4 of the National Building Code permits relaxation, if substantial compliance of the Municipality Building Rules are adhered to by the builder. 14. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the 3rd respondent is directed to issue a Fire NOC to the petitioners, if all other parameters required for the same are satisfied by the petitioners. 14. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the 3rd respondent is directed to issue a Fire NOC to the petitioners, if all other parameters required for the same are satisfied by the petitioners. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.