JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext. P10 provisional order passed by the Secretary of the Pala Municipality dated 24.05.2010 under Section 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 ('Act, 1994' for short) directing the petitioner to remove the illegal constructions as is specified thereunder, Ext. P14 final order passed by the Secretary dated 23.11.2010 conforming Ext. P10 provisional order passed under Section 406(3) of the Act, 1994 and Ext. P16 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No. 1080 of 2010, whereby the appeal filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed confirming Ext. P14 order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality under Section 406(3) of the Act, 1994. 2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner, owner of an extent of 4 cents of property situated in re-Survey No. 56/33/14 (Block No. 80/6253) of Lalam Village, has carried out construction of a building as per Ext. P1 permit dated 11.06.2007 and Ext. P2 approved plan issued by the Secretary of the Pala Municipality. Ext. P3 is the site plan approved by the Secretary of the Municipality. Based upon Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioner completed construction of 2 floors and submitted a completion certificate before the Secretary, who after conducting site inspection, issued occupancy certificate and assigned building numbers, XXIII/859(1) and XXIII/859(2), evident from Ext. P5 building tax receipt. Thereafter, the 4th respondent Secretary of the Municipality issued Ext. P6 provisional order notifying that the building was constructed in violation of the Building Rules and pointed out the defects specifically in the said order. Thereupon, the petitioner has submitted Ext. P7 objection. However, as per Ext.P8, a final order was passed confirming the provisional order. 3. Being aggrieved by Ext. P8 order dated 02.06.2009, Appeal No. 606 of 2009 was preferred before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The said appeal was allowed as per Ext. P9 setting aside Ext. P8 order dated 02.06.2009 and directed the Secretary to conduct local inspection and to verify whether there are unauthorised constructions in violation of the provisions of law. 4. The case projected by the petitioner is that without complying with the directions contained in Ext. P9 order of the Tribunal, Ext. P10 provisional order was passed and thereafter, without considering Ext. P8 order dated 02.06.2009 and directed the Secretary to conduct local inspection and to verify whether there are unauthorised constructions in violation of the provisions of law. 4. The case projected by the petitioner is that without complying with the directions contained in Ext. P9 order of the Tribunal, Ext. P10 provisional order was passed and thereafter, without considering Ext. P11 objection submitted by the petitioner, the 4th respondent has passed Ext.P14 order dated 23.11.2010 after conducting a personal hearing. 5. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal, as per Ext.P16 order, dismissed the appeal. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality and the Tribunal, the writ petition is preferred. 6. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioner is that Ext. P14 order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality is without taking into account Ext.P11 objection submitted by the petitioner in regard to the deficiencies pointed out in Ext.P10 provisional order and therefore, it is violative of the principles of natural justice and arbitrary and illegal. 7. That apart, it was contended that while passing Ext.P16 order, the Tribunal erroneously found that the petitioner has admitted before the 4th respondent about the alleged violation and according to the petitioner, he has never admitted so before the Secretary. 8. That apart, it is contended that Ext. P14 impugned order is nothing but a replica of Ext. P10 provisional order and the same was passed without assigning any reasons as to how the objections raised by the petitioner would not come into play refuting the defects noted by the Secretary. 9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submitted that in Ext.P10 provisional order dated 24.05.2010 passed under Section 406(1) of Act, 1994, the construction violative of the Rules are clearly mentioned with precise measurements and therefore, there was no scope for any further consideration, since the set back as provided under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 ('Rules, 1999" for short) were not provided by the petitioner on all sides. 10. 10. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality, as per the scheme of Section 406 of the Act, 1994, if the Secretary is not deviating from the findings rendered in Ext.P8, the Secretary need only affirm the provisional order as per the final order, and viewed in that manner, there is no illegality or violation of the principles of natural justice in the final order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality, especially due to the fact that the same was passed after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality also submitted that the Tribunal has passed Ext.P16 order after making a clear scrutiny of the files relating to the construction in question and found that the petitioner has violated the Building Rules in the matter of construction. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. P.C. Haridas, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Tek Chand and Sri. Sujith Mathew Jose for the Pala Municipality and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner and other respective counsel have advanced arguments as per the deliberation made above. The illegal construction carried out by the petitioner is noted in Ext.P10 provisional order passed under Section 406(1) of Act, 1994, which reads thus: 1. Since a verandah having a width of 93cm is constructed at the front side only 2.07M +2.17M open space is available at the front side and hence there is a violation of Rule 25(1) of KMBR. 2. At the rear side since a passage is constructed only 1.07 M + 1.57M open space is available and hence violation of Rule 24(4) of KMBR. 3. At the northern side instead of 1M open space required only 17cm is available and hence there is a violation of Rule 24(5) of KMBR. 4. At the southern side instead of 3M open space required, after leaving 1.8M road width only 1.2M open space is available. From that leaving shade width of 80cm only 40cm open space is available which violates Rule 25(1). 5. At the northern side without leaving 1M width as open space the building having height of more than 7M is constructed. Such a construction cannot be made even with the consent of the neighbouring owner and therefore, it violates Rule 24(5). 6. From that leaving shade width of 80cm only 40cm open space is available which violates Rule 25(1). 5. At the northern side without leaving 1M width as open space the building having height of more than 7M is constructed. Such a construction cannot be made even with the consent of the neighbouring owner and therefore, it violates Rule 24(5). 6. For the construction of the well 3M and 1.5M respectively are to be provided from the front and side boundaries. The said requirement is not satisfied and hence violation of Rule 26 of KMBR. 14. For a better understanding of the issue, based on law, the relevant portion of Section 406 is extracted hereunder: "406. 6. For the construction of the well 3M and 1.5M respectively are to be provided from the front and side boundaries. The said requirement is not satisfied and hence violation of Rule 26 of KMBR. 14. For a better understanding of the issue, based on law, the relevant portion of Section 406 is extracted hereunder: "406. Demolition or alteration of building work unlawfully commenced, carried on or completed.--(1) Where the Secretary is satisfied- (i) that the construction, reconstruction or alteration of any building or digging of any well- (a) has been commenced without obtaining the permission of the Secretary or in contravention of the decision of the Council; or (b) is being carried on, or has been completed otherwise than in accordance with the plans or specifications on which such permission or decision was based; or (c) is being carried on, or has been completed in breach of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule or bye-law or order made or issued thereunder or any direction or requisition lawfully given or made under this Act, such rule, bye-law or order; or (ii) that any alteration required by any notice issued under section 395 has not been duly made; or (iii) that any alteration of or addition to any building or any other work made or done for any purpose in or upon any building has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in contravention of the provisions of section 405, he may make a provisional order requiring the owner or the person for whom the work is done to demolish the work done, or so much of it as, in the opinion of the Secretary, has been unlawfully executed or to make such alterations as may, in the opinion of the Secretary, be necessary to bring the work in conformity with the provisions of this Act, bye-laws, rules, direction, order or requisition as aforesaid, or with the plans and specifications on which such permission or decision was based, and may also direct that until the said order is complied with, the owner or such person shall refrain from proceeding with the work. [Provided that the Secretary may, on realisation of a compounding fees as may be fixed by the Government, regularise any constructions, reconstruction or alteration of any building or digging of any well, commenced, carried on or completed without getting a plan approved by the Secretary or in deviation of the approved plan, if such construction, reconstruction or alteration of the building or digging of the well does not contravene any of the provisions and specifications mentioned in this Act or the Building Rules made thereunder.] (2) The Secretary shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-section (1) on the owner or the person for whom such work is done together with a notice requiring him to show cause within a reasonable time, to be specified in such notice why the order should not be confirmed. (3) Where the owner or the person for whom the work is done fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Secretary, the Secretary may confirm the order or modify the same to such extent as he may think fit to make, and such order shall then be binding on the owner or the person for whom the work is done and on the failure to comply with the order, the Secretary may himself cause the building or part thereof, demolished or the well dismantled, as the case may be and the expenses therefor shall be recoverable from the owner or such person.” 15. On a perusal of the defects noted in Ext.P10, it is clear that the Secretary of the Municipality has explicitly pointed out to the petitioner the illegal constructions carried out by him. It is true, to the same, the petitioner has submitted Ext. P11 objection. However, the Secretary, after verifying objections, has passed Ext. P14 order dated 23.11.2010 confirming the provisional order passed by the Secretary, in which also it is clearly noted the illegal construction carried out by the petitioner. Anyhow, the Tribunal, as per Ext. P16 order, has taken into account the entire contentions put forth by the petitioner and after verifying the original files of the Municipality, arrived at the following conclusions: “6. Anyhow, the Tribunal, as per Ext. P16 order, has taken into account the entire contentions put forth by the petitioner and after verifying the original files of the Municipality, arrived at the following conclusions: “6. Points (i) and (ii) The impunged order states that the appellant has violated Rules 25(1), 24(4), 24(5) and 26 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and therefore, those part of the constructions in violation of the Building Rules will have to be demolished. The same is an order under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act. 7. No doubt, the appellant has been granted permission to construct a three storied building. The building permit is annexure-2 to the Appeal. Page 251 of the current file produced by the Respondent is the copy of the said building permit. Pages 257 to 259 are the plans approved by the Municipality, Pages 1 to 9 of the note file form the application for building permit. The same will show the height of the building as 9.63 meters from the ground level without stair room and 12.03, meres with stair room. So the building put up by the Appellant is having a height of more than 7 meters. 8. According to the impugned order the open space available in front is only 2.07 metres on one side and 2.17 meters on the other side will whereas what is required is 3 meters under Rule 25(1) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules the minimum distance between a plot boundary abutting the street and the building shall be 3 metres. The plan referred to by me earlier would show the existence of a road on the northern side as Samooham Colony road. The width of the same shown in the plan is 4.25 metres. The Respondent would say that at the time of constructing the second floor a veranda was projected by 93 cms towards north with the result the open space is reduced from 3 meters. It is contended by the Appellant that the road on the north is having a length of 75 meters only and therefore the distance between the plot boundary and the building needed is only 1.50 meters. There is no data available that the length of this road is only 75 meters. It is contended by the Appellant that the road on the north is having a length of 75 meters only and therefore the distance between the plot boundary and the building needed is only 1.50 meters. There is no data available that the length of this road is only 75 meters. It is to be noted that in the plan approved by appellant has shown the distance to the building as 3 meters and therefore he cannot deviate from the approved plan. Hence, without doubt the violations stated by the respondent under Rule 25(1) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules is perfectly correct. 9. The respondent would contend that on the rear side a passage has been built up and thereafter the set back available is only 1.07 meters on one side and 1.52 meters on the other side. Under Rule 24(4) every building upto 10 meters in height shall have a minimum rear yard of 2 meters depth. I have already stated that this buildings if added with the stair room, according to the application of the appellant, will have a height of 12.03 meters. If this is the height to be taken there should be a minimum rear yard of 2 meters. If the stair room is excluded then the height would be below 10 meters. But, the building is above 7 meters and in that case also the rear yard should be 2 meters. The appellant would say that he had not put up any veranda. But the inspection report which is found on page 62 of the note file would show that what has been constructed is a pucca veranda and therefore, the contention of the appellant will not stand. Moreover, there is a report by the Town Planner which is found on pages 24 to 25 of the file which also would show what has been put up is a veranda and hence from this a minimum of 2 meters is required at the rear side. Since that much space is not available as rightly held by the respondent there is violation of Rule 24(4) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. 10. The respondent would further say that on the northern side of the appellant ought to have left a set back of 1 meter whereas he has left only 17 cms. Since that much space is not available as rightly held by the respondent there is violation of Rule 24(4) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. 10. The respondent would further say that on the northern side of the appellant ought to have left a set back of 1 meter whereas he has left only 17 cms. Under Rule 24(5) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules building upto 10 meters in height shall have a minimum side yard of 1.20 meters on one side and a minimum of 1 meter on the other side. I have already said this is a building upto 10 meters in height. The appellant would say that he has constructed the building in such a manner with the consent of the owner on the northern side. But it is to be noted the depth of side yard could be reduced if there is consent only for buildings having height upto 7 meters. Hence, even if there was consent since the building is more than 7 meters in height such a consent will not be of any benefit to the appellant. Needless to say that as rightly held there is further violation of Rule 24(5) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. 11. The next contention of the respondent is that on the southern side there is a road and therefore, 3 meters was required as open space in between the plot boundary and the building. The appellant would say that on the south there is only a narrow pathway of 3 feet. But the report I have already referred would show that it is a 2 meter wide road but its length is only less than 75 meters. If so the minimum set back required is 1.50 meters. The report would show that there is only 1.2 meters open space and to which there is a projection by 80 cms of a shade and therefore, practically very less set back alone is available. This report is acceptable and therefore, it could be found that there is violation of Rule 24(5) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. 12. It is the contention that the appellant has put up a new well in his property without showing the same in the plan. The non showing of a well in the plan is correct. This report is acceptable and therefore, it could be found that there is violation of Rule 24(5) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. 12. It is the contention that the appellant has put up a new well in his property without showing the same in the plan. The non showing of a well in the plan is correct. But the report I have already referred above of the Overseer and the Town Planner would give indication that such a well has been in existence on the property and the appellant has only renovated the same by putting rings into it. Hence the appellant cannot be found to have committed a violation of constructing a well deviating from the permit and contrary to the Building Rules. 13. In view of the above discussion it can be said that the appellant has committed violations mentioned as clause 1 to 3 in the final order whereas the appellant has not committed violation mentioned as clause 4 in the final order. It would then follow that the final order does not call for any interference by this Tribunal except in as far as clause 4 is concerned. The points are found so. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned final order except in as far as clause 4 of the same is concerned is confirmed.” 16. The sole question that emerges for consideration is whether any manner of interference is warranted to Exts. P14 and P16 impugned orders passed by the Secretary of the Municipality and the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions respectively. 17. Insofar as the contention raised by the petitioner in regard to the non consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner in Ext.P11 is concerned, I am of the clear opinion that the violation was clearly mentioned in Ext. P10 provisional order by showing the exact measurements of construction and also the nature of violation vis-a-vis the provisions of the Rules, 1999. Therefore, it is clear that the violations in the construction carried out are clearly narrated in the notice with precision and clarity, and it can only be legally presumed that the Secretary of the Municipality has carried out necessary enquiry and measurements so as to issue a provisional order as per Section 406(1) of Act, 1994. Therefore, it is clear that the violations in the construction carried out are clearly narrated in the notice with precision and clarity, and it can only be legally presumed that the Secretary of the Municipality has carried out necessary enquiry and measurements so as to issue a provisional order as per Section 406(1) of Act, 1994. The petitioner might have raised various contentions through Ext.P11 objections, but the Secretary of the Municipality need only to take into account the provisions of the Rules, vis-a-vis, the factual and realistic aspects on ground so as to arrive at the conclusions by carrying out necessary measurements in order to identify as to whether the set backs are provided in accordance with the Rules, 1999 and the Act, 1994. Going by the scheme of Section 406 of Act, 1994, what is required is consideration of objection on the basis of provisional order and either, confirm the provisional order, or pass appropriate orders in accordance with the objections raised by the petitioner by suitably modifying the same. 18. As I have pointed out above, the issue with respect to the illegal construction carried out by the petitioner is clearly mentioned by showing the exact measurements of illegal constructions carried out by the petitioner by correlating the same with the relevant Rules, 1999. Therefore, such technical aspects cannot be defeated by raising other contentions. This I say because, on a reading of Ext.P11 objection, the petitioner is justifying the constructions by saying various aspects. However, such aspects need not be looked into so as to overlook the specific rules contained in the Rules, 1999 and the Act 1994, which are mandatory in nature and liable to be followed by the Secretary. To put it otherwise, the Secretary need only look into whether such contentions raised are in accordance with the Rules and the provisions of the Act. Anyhow, in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Tribunal, conducted a deep seated survey by verifying the original files and found that the findings rendered by the Secretary in Ext. P10 provisional order and Ext. P14 final order passed under Section 406 of Act, 1994 was in accordance with law. Looking from that angle, it can be seen that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the order passed by the Secretary. 19. P10 provisional order and Ext. P14 final order passed under Section 406 of Act, 1994 was in accordance with law. Looking from that angle, it can be seen that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the order passed by the Secretary. 19. To put it otherwise, it was verifying the facts in respect to the construction carried out by the petitioner and applying the law in force, the Secretary of the Municipality has passed the provisional as well as the final order. Thus to say, the Tribunal has reaffirmed the findings of the Secretary by verifying the original files. 20. In my considered view, when two fact finding bodies have rendered their decisions taking into account the constructions carried out and the nature of violations, under normal and ordinary circumstances, the writ court would not be justified in interfering with the said factual findings. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Secretary of the Municipality as well as the Tribunal. 21. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to seek regularisation of the construction carried out. In that view of the matter, even though I decline the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, the petitioner is granted the liberty to approach the appropriate statutory authority seeking regularisation of the unauthorised constructions carried out, invoking the benefits conferred under Section 407 of the Act 1994 dealing with power to regularise the unauthorised construction r/w the rules framed thereunder and in force, and if any such application is filed along with all attendant documents, I have no reason to think that, the said authority would not consider the application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.