JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who has constructed a five storied building, seeking to quash Ext. P6 order passed by the Secretary of the Kochi Corporation cancelling the permit granted to the petitioner for the construction of the building. 2. The subject issue has a chequered history. Anyway, consequent to the objections filed to Ext. P6, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 28267 of 2007 and on the basis of the directions issued, the subject matter was considered by the State Government and has passed Ext. P10 order dated 30.10.2009, by which it was found that there is lack of sufficient set back in contemplation of Rule 117 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 ('Rules, 1999’ for short) and also Rule 42(4) in respect of the Fire Escape Staircase and other consequential requirements. The order of the Government reads thus: “ORDER As per the Government order read 4th paper above permission was granted to construct a building (BF+GF+3) near Ernakulam Maharajas College ground in MG Road in Sy No. 685/15 exempting provisions of Rule 33(¢) 15(5) 17(1) (2) and 20 of KBR 1984. Later vide permit No. MOP1/207/05 permission was granted to construct 4,5,6, floors in addition to the existing one. Thus, when 3 more floors were added to the building it became a high-rise building. As the additional 3 floors violate rule provisions that have to be observed in the category of high rise building. Government vide paper 2nd read above directed the Secretary, Corporation of Kochi to revoke the permit issued to the said construction, and as per reference 3rd above, Secretary, Corporation of Kochi revoked the permit of the high-rise building. (2) Subsequently Sri. Muhammed Habeebulla the owner of the building filed WP(C) No 28267/07(M) before the High Court. The Hon'ble High Court in the judgment dated 11.2.09 in WP(C) 28267/07 had directed the Government, the 2nd respondent to consider the matter finally and to pass speaking orders considering Ext P6 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. (3) In compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court the petitioner was heard on 24.07.2009. Mr. C.J. Solaman, Assistant Manager, Habeeb Towers appeared for the hearing on behalf of Mr. Mohammed Habeebulla, the building owner. Building Inspector Mr. (3) In compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court the petitioner was heard on 24.07.2009. Mr. C.J. Solaman, Assistant Manager, Habeeb Towers appeared for the hearing on behalf of Mr. Mohammed Habeebulla, the building owner. Building Inspector Mr. R Prakasan from Corporation Office, Kochi, Smt. P.R Jayasree, District Town Planner, Ernakulam, Chief Town Planner and Senior Town Planner (Vigilance) also participated in the hearing. It was argued from the part of the petitioner that Permit was granted after completion of all official procedures and also after remitting the required fee. It was also argued that fire NOC was obtained and, in the issue of lack of sufficient parking space, an agreement has been signed between the neighbouring plot owner and the petitioner for providing sufficient space for car parking. But the District Town Planner and the Corporation Officials stated that violations in respect of Rule 117, 56(2), 42(4) were not yet rectified. Chief Town Planner and Senior Town Planner (Vigilance) were also of the view that without rectifying the above violations, it is against the rules to consider the issue. 4. In the Judgment, it is also observed that "Ext P6 is the letter from the Regional Joint Director of the Town Planning Department to the Director of Town Planning, Trivandrum..." But It is to be pointed out that the Regional Joint Director is not an official of the Town Planning Department. He is an official under the Director of Urban Affairs, and the letter was addressed to the Director of Urban Affairs. The contentions raised in-Ext P6 may also be considered to arrive at a final decision, as detailed by the Hon'ble High Court. 5. The lower five storeys (BF+GF+3floors) of the building were constructed with exemption from certain provisions of Kerala Building Rules, 1984. This will not come under the category of high rise building. When 3 more floors have been added to the building, it has become a high-rise building. 6. As per Chapter XV-rule 102(2) of KMBR-99, the extended portion of the building should satisfy KMBR. However, for calculating FAR, coverage and parking requirements the whole building should be taken into account. Chapter XVII of KMBR deals with safety provisions for high rise buildings. Rule 111 under this Chapter states that the provisions in these rules elsewhere shall apply subject to modification in this Chapter. However, for calculating FAR, coverage and parking requirements the whole building should be taken into account. Chapter XVII of KMBR deals with safety provisions for high rise buildings. Rule 111 under this Chapter states that the provisions in these rules elsewhere shall apply subject to modification in this Chapter. Further Rule 117 of this Chapter requires 5 M open space on any one side of the building contiguous to the road abutting it to facilitate fire fighting i.e., 5 m, open space shall be at ground level in contiguity with the road. 7. The extension/addition of 3 more floors arnourts to the violation of Rule 117(5 M wide fire fighting space) rule 56(Z) rear open space-in proportion with height); rule 42(4) (fire escape stair should lead directly to ground) and car parking requirements as per detailed Town Planning Scheme. (42 parking space required, but only a maximum of 30 is provided). (8) In Ext. P6, Regional Joint Director further points out that it is the duty of the officials to detect the violations during construction and that the owner is unable to find out rule violation. But as per rule 20 of KMBR the owner is also responsible for carrying out the work in accordance with the requirement of these rules. (9) The shortage in parking space can be sorted out since only the ground floor is put to retail business and other floors are commercial offices. The requirement of 5M wide open space as per rule 117 can be solved by adding 2m. space of the neighbouring plot to the existing 3m open space and making suitable for fire fighting. But a mere agreement with neighbouring plot owners in this regard seems not sufficient. The land should be purchased and added to the petitioner's plot. The fire escape stair should be suitably altered to lead directly to ground. 10. As per Rule 56(2) rear open space in the back should be 1.5m for building up to 10m height and there shall be an increase of rear open space at the rate of 0.5m per every 3 meter exceeding the initial 10 m height. 11. In the above circumstances, Government are to order that the Secretary, Corporation of Kochi will regularise the construction of the said building on condition that the above said violations are rectified. 12. 11. In the above circumstances, Government are to order that the Secretary, Corporation of Kochi will regularise the construction of the said building on condition that the above said violations are rectified. 12. The directions contained in the judgment dated 11.02.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 28267 of 2007(M) is thus complied with. By Order of the Governor, D.R. Geetha devi, Under Secretary, For Secretary to Government.” 3. A reading of Ext. P6 order passed by the Secretary and Ext. P10 order passed by the Government makes it clear that, after due inspection, it was found that there are violations of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules 1999 (Rules, 1999), although of trivial nature. The findings so rendered are surrounded by various factual aspects, which were applied to the provisions of the Rules, 1999 and have arrived at the conclusions therein. Apparently, as per Rule 56(2) of the Rules, 1999, there should be a set back of 1.5 meter for a building upto 10 meters height and there shall be an increase of rear open space at the rate of 0.5 meters per every 3 meter exceeding the initial 10 meters height. However, such extent of open space in the ownership of the petitioner is not available on ground to meet up with the requirements fully, and in order to tide over the situation, the petitioner has entered into a lease arrangement with the neighbouring property owner; but according to the Government, lease arrangement is not sufficient to satisfy the provisions of the Building Rules. 4. Anyhow, after assimilating the factual circumstances, the Government found that such a defect remaining can be rectified only by the petitioner purchasing the required portion of the property from the neighbour. According to the petitioner, he has entered into Ext. P11 arrangement with the neighbouring property owner so as to meet up with the requirement of Rules, 1999. However, the Government found in its order that mere arrangement with the neighbouring property owner to set apart a portion of the property to comply with the requirements of the Rules, 1999 would not be sufficient and in order to meet up with the requirements, the petitioner would have to purchase the property from the neighbour. 5. These are the basic background facts available before me in order to identify as to whether there is any illegality in Ext. P6 order passed by the Secretary or Ext. 5. These are the basic background facts available before me in order to identify as to whether there is any illegality in Ext. P6 order passed by the Secretary or Ext. P10 order passed by the State Government. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died and consequently his legal heirs are impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 6. Since the findings rendered by the Government are purely based on factual circumstances, interference with impugned order is bleak, especially due to the fact that the order was passed by the Government after providing fullest opportunity of participation and hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law and in terms of the Rules, 1999. 6. Be that as it may, when the matter came up before me and on due deliberation with the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kochi Corporation and the learned Senior Government Pleader, in view of certain discrepancies occurred in the matter of grant of permit and the consequential construction carried out, which are not very dangerous to the public, my endeavour was to find out whether the demolition can be averted by making suitable alternative legal methods and consequential directions, which was also sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Bearing in mind some of the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, I am of the view that the subject issue can be resolved by imposing appropriate fine in order to regularise the constructions. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, after due discussions with the additional petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are prepared to pay any reasonable amount towards fine in order to regularise the construction. Said so, the only alternative for the petitioner to save demolition of a part of the structure in the circumstances in question is to concede to such a method so attempted to be evolved, if possible under law. Said so, the only alternative for the petitioner to save demolition of a part of the structure in the circumstances in question is to concede to such a method so attempted to be evolved, if possible under law. The issue with respect to the regularisation of any illegal construction of trivial nature violative of the provisions of Building Rules was considered by the Apex Court in Corporation of Calcutta v. Mulchand Agarwala [ AIR 1956 SC 110 ], wherein considering Section 363 of Calcutta Municipality Act vis-a-vis violation of Building Rules, it was held that “it must be remembered that the Building Rules are enacted generally for the benefit of the public and where those Rules have been violated and proceedings are taken for an order for demolishing of the Building under Section 363, what has to be decided is whether the breaches are of a formal or a trivial character, in which case the imposition of a fine might meet the requirements of the case, or whether they are serious and likely to adversely affect the interest of the public, in which case it would be proper to pass an order or demolition. The findings rendered by this Court in this regard at paragraphs 13 and 14 are relevant and they read thus: “13. The courts below were also influenced by the fact that there was no complaint from the neighbours about the erection of the building. It must be remembered that the building rules are enacted generally for the benefit of the public, and where those rules have been violated and proceedings are taken for an order for demolition of the building under section 363, what has to be decided is whether the breaches are of a formal or trivial character, in which case the imposition of a fine might meet the requirements of the case, or whether they are serious and likely to affect adversely the interests of the public, in which case it would be proper to pass an order for demolition. Whether there has been a complaint from the public would not as such be material for deciding the question, though if there was one, it would be a piece of evidence in deciding whether the interests of the public have suffered by reason of the breaches. 14. Whether there has been a complaint from the public would not as such be material for deciding the question, though if there was one, it would be a piece of evidence in deciding whether the interests of the public have suffered by reason of the breaches. 14. The position, therefore, is that the orders of the courts below are based on mistakes and mis-directions, and cannot be supported. The conduct of the respondent in adopting a hide-and-seek attitude in completing the constructions in deliberate defiance of the law calls for severe action. It would be most unfortunate, and the interests of the public will greatly suffer, if the notion were to be encouraged that a person might with impunity break the building rules and put up a construction and get away with it on payment of fine. All this would be good justification for making an order for demolition. But then, it is now nearly five years since the building was completed, and though section 363(2) which directs that no application for demolition shall be instituted after a lapse of five years from the date of the work does not, in terms, apply as the proceedings have been started in time, we do not feel that after the lapse of all this time, an order for demolition is called for in the interests of the public. We also take into account the fact that the orders in question would not have come before us in the normal course by way of appeal, were it not that the appellant desired that the decision of this Court should be obtained on certain questions of importance, and that purpose has been achieved. On a consideration of all the circumstances, we do not think that this is a fit case in which we should pass an order for demolition. We should, however, add that we find no justification for the strictures passed on the appellant by the court below.” 8. A Division Bench of this Court in Narahari Rao v. State of Kerala and others [1999 KHC 36] considered a similar question taking into account Mulchand Agarwala (supra) and it is held as follows at paragraphs 22 to 28: 22. A Division Bench of this Court in Narahari Rao v. State of Kerala and others [1999 KHC 36] considered a similar question taking into account Mulchand Agarwala (supra) and it is held as follows at paragraphs 22 to 28: 22. In Corporation of Calcutta v. Mulchand Agrawala ( AIR 1956 SC 110 ), serious violations and constructions in excess of the sanctioned area had been made, but the High Court interfered with an order for demolition made by the Corporation. In an appeal by the Corporation the Supreme Court reversed the High Court decision. In para.13 of the judgment the Supreme Court stated thus: "It must be remembered that building rules are enacted generally for the benefit of public and where those Rules are violated and proceedings are taken for an order for demolishing the building under S.363, what has to be decided is whether the breaches are of a formal or trivial character, in which case the imposition of a fine might meet the requirements of the case, or whether they are serious and likely to affect adversely the interests of the public, in which case it would be proper to pass an order for demolition." M/s. Rajatha Enterprises v. S. K. Sharma ( AIR 1989 SC 86 ) is a case where construction in excess of permissible floor area ratio was in fact made by a builder. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal by the builder against an order for demolition made by the High Court in a public interest litigation, held as follows in para.20 of the judgment: "The permissible limit of compounding being 5 per cent of the permissible P.A.R., which works out to 1940 sq.ft. the actual area of deviation outside the permissible compounding limit seems to be not larger than 72 sq. ft. the actual area of deviation outside the permissible compounding limit seems to be not larger than 72 sq. ft. In the circumstances, in the light of what the commissioner says about the practice of the Corporation in regard to the commencement certificate and in the absence of any evidence of public safety being in any manner endangered or the public or a section of the public being in any manner inconvenienced by reason of the construction of the building, whatever may be the personal grievance of the 1st respondent, the High Court was not justified, at the instance of the 1st respondent claiming himself to be a champion of the public cause, in ordering the demolition of any part of the building, particularly when there is no evidence whatsoever of dishonestly or fraud or negligence on the part of the builder. See the principle stated by Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. in Ramsharan Autyanuparsi v. Union of India (1988) 2 Scale 1399 : AIR 1989 SC 549 ) and Khalid, J. in Sachidanand Pandey, AIR 1987 SC 1109 . Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court in so far as it permits or directs the demolition of the 6th floor and affirm in the above terms." Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the case, we have no hesitation in repelling the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing the impugned orders and other reliefs. Though there are certain deviations from the approved plan, we are satisfied, that such deviations are of a trivial nature having no baring on public safety whatsoever, in which case, the imposition of a fine might meet the requirements of law as has been observed by the Apex Court in the decision noted supra, viz. Corporation of Calcutta v. Mulchand Agrawala ( AIR 1956 SC 110 ). 23. Another contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel was that the vacant area set apart by the new construction encroaches into the vacant area set apart for "New Woodlands" hotel in the south. This was the view originally expressed by the Chief Town Planning Officer. However, the documents produced by the Chief Town Planning Officer and the Government make it clear that the "New Woodlands Hotel" had been exempted from the Set Back Rules on all sides by the then Government in 1966 and 1981. This was the view originally expressed by the Chief Town Planning Officer. However, the documents produced by the Chief Town Planning Officer and the Government make it clear that the "New Woodlands Hotel" had been exempted from the Set Back Rules on all sides by the then Government in 1966 and 1981. Learned Senior Counsel made a submission regarding construction of the plant room where the electrical generator and other equipments are installed and that he only seeks demolition of the plant building and the shifting of the generator and the other equipments to some other places. It was then pointed out by counsel for respondents 6 and 7 that the said building was constructed strictly in accordance with Ext. P7 order and Ext. P8 permit and that all statutory authorities including the officers of the Kerala State Electricity Board and the Cochin Corporation had after detailed inspection approved the constructions made. The generator had been sound proofed. It was also submitted that there was no other space available in the property to which the plant building and the equipments installed therein could be shifted. The Advocate Commissioner deputed by the court has also found that the generator and the location of the plant room would not cause any appreciable inconvenience or prejudice to the petitioner. Accordingly, we are of the view that no grounds have been made out for demolition of the building either on the ground that the construction is in violation of the Rules or the orders under challenge or on the ground that the same would affect the normal life of the petitioner who is residing in a house situated in the adjacent compound situated on the western side of the disputed building. 24. S.410 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 confers power on the Government to grant exemption from the provisions of the Act and the Rules. A similar power was conferred under R.5 of the Kerala Building Rules. The guidelines laid down in the judgment of this court in Raman v. State of Kerala ( 1994 (1) KLT 1029 ) shows that the statutory authority, while safeguarding the public interest should not interfere with the rights of the owners of properties to make constructions of their choice in their lands without jeopardizing public interest. The guidelines laid down in the judgment of this court in Raman v. State of Kerala ( 1994 (1) KLT 1029 ) shows that the statutory authority, while safeguarding the public interest should not interfere with the rights of the owners of properties to make constructions of their choice in their lands without jeopardizing public interest. The view taken in this case has now been adopted by the State in enacting S.410 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The public rights which require protection are where the construction may interfere with the rights or amenities to which the public are entitled. There is a general codification of the types of those rights as also of the rights of neighbours which require protection in the 3 provisos to S.410. Following R.15(3) of the Building Rules, R6 and R7 have provided a set back on the eastern side where the building adjoins the M. G. Road. The set back as per rules is provided on the north and west, on the south, a portion of the new building abuts the "New Woodlands Hotel". This is permissible under R.15(3)(c) of the Kerala Building Rules. The average vacant space on the south where the building does not abut the "New Woodlands" is about 3 metres. There is nothing to show that the new building violates the right of privacy or the right to light and air or any easement right of the petitioner or any of the other neighbours or of the public in general. Therefore, there is no material to enter a finding that any of the provisos to S.410 of the Kerala Municipality Act are violated either by the Government orders or by the actual constructions made. We are therefore of the view that there are no valid grounds to differ from or to invalidate the statutory occupancy certificate given by the Corporation of Cochin. Respondents 6 and 7 are therefore entitled to commence commercial occupation of the newly constructed building under the name and style of "Woody's Hotel". The statutory authorities would take expeditious steps to facilitate this having regard to the fact that the commencement of business has been delayed for an unreasonable time by the pendency of this original petition. C.M.P. No. 36673/93 seeking these reliefs is accordingly allowed. 25. The statutory authorities would take expeditious steps to facilitate this having regard to the fact that the commencement of business has been delayed for an unreasonable time by the pendency of this original petition. C.M.P. No. 36673/93 seeking these reliefs is accordingly allowed. 25. Yet another contention made was that there are some unauthorised constructions on the terrace such as a swimming pool (which according to the 6th respondent, is only a wading pool for guests who may spend evenings in the roof garden). We do not think that the objects on able construction providing facilities to the guests can be characterised as unauthorised construction in violation of the approved plan justifying judicial review. We are inclined to restrict the judicial review within the parameters explained in this judgment and also in the judgment of the Apex Court. 26. Thus, on a totality of the facts and circumstances brought to our notice, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to establish that the orders passed by the Government or the actual construction made would adversely affect public safety in any manner whatsoever. Nor is it established that any of the personal rights of the petitioner nor any amenities enjoyed by him or by any other neighbour would be adversely affected by the construction which has been completed. Nor could it be said that the original petition has been filed for protecting the public interest or for protecting the personal rights of the petitioner. It appears to us that the petitioner's real grievance is only on account of the proximity of the plant building where the generator and other electrical equipments have been housed. The Electrical Inspectors who had occasion to inspect the premises where the machineries were being installed have not found any grounds justifying the complaint of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the generator which may produce some noise has been completely sound proofed with modern equipment. This was pointed out to the Commissioner in the course of his inspection. The commissioner in his report pointed out that on inspection it is noticed that there are no significant deviations in regard to the construction of electrical and A.C. Rooms with Ext. P7 exemption order, Ext. P8 building permit and Exts. A4, B1 and B2 approved plans. This was pointed out to the Commissioner in the course of his inspection. The commissioner in his report pointed out that on inspection it is noticed that there are no significant deviations in regard to the construction of electrical and A.C. Rooms with Ext. P7 exemption order, Ext. P8 building permit and Exts. A4, B1 and B2 approved plans. It is also stated that no opening is provided in the plant and A.C. room in the western side wall on all the floors which is abutting to the western boundary. Going by the available materials placed before us in the form of various affidavits and counter affidavits, the clearance given by the Electricity Board and the report of the commissioner, we are of the view that the original petition has not been filed for redressing any personal injury or grievance. Viewed in this background this petition is liable to be dismissed. Even if the petition is viewed as a public interest litigation, it has to fail since it is not shown that public interest would be adversely affected by declining the prayer for demolition of the building which, according to the affidavits, has been constructed at a cost of Rs. 5 crores, a good portion of which has been raised as loans from public sector banks. We also take note of the fact that tourism industry being actively encouraged by the country as a part of the economic policy followed by the Government. In fact, Tourism industry has been notified as an "Industry" and considerable investment is made for development of infrastructure like suitable good hotels, roads of high standard, etc. In the absence of threat to public safety a direction to pull down the building would therefore only defeat the public interest. It would not even benefit the petitioner. The litigation appears to be part of a vendetta which the petitioner is carrying on against respondents 6 and 7. The preliminary steps for getting the permission from the Corporation and the required exemptions from the Government dragged on for about 4 years from 1988 to 1991. Ultimately the Government granted exemption under Ext. P2 fixing a set back of more area than as prescribed by the Rules. It was only on a further representation that the Government passed Ext. The preliminary steps for getting the permission from the Corporation and the required exemptions from the Government dragged on for about 4 years from 1988 to 1991. Ultimately the Government granted exemption under Ext. P2 fixing a set back of more area than as prescribed by the Rules. It was only on a further representation that the Government passed Ext. P3 whereby the set back on north was reduced to 3 meters from 4 meters and the set back on the east from 8 meters to 6 meters. The statutory requirement was only 5.5 meters on the eastern side. The front set back was reduced to 5 from 8 meters only on the basis of certain facts which were pointed out by the 6th respondent viz. (i) the buildings on the western side of M. G. Road between the Jose Junction and Hospital Junction (in between which the new building has been put up) has a vacant space or setback of only 3 meters or less. No useful purpose would be served by insisting as a set back of 8 meters for one building alone; (ii) by providing 8 meters for this building alone, not even a single additional car parking space would be obtained. Similarly, no additional car can be parked on the north by insisting 4 meters vacant area instead of the statutory requirement of 3 meters.” Therefore, it can be seen that the builder was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards fine. 9. Similarly, while setting aside the findings of a DB judgment of this Court in DLF Universal Ltd. v. Antony [ 2017 (1) KLT 438 ], the Apex Court in Secretary, Kerala State Coastal Management Authority v. DLF Universal Limited [ (2018) 2 SCC 203 ] though identified that there was violation of securing CRZ clearance, the fine of Rs. 1 crore imposed by the DB of this Court in DLF Universal Ltd. (supra) was sustained with the direction for strict adherence in future and avoidance of such contradictions by the authority. It was also held that it is appropriate that in view of the professed policy to have more single window clearance, the methodology of such processing of such applications should be endeavoured to be simplified, so that there is less uncertainty and better enforcement. 10. It was also held that it is appropriate that in view of the professed policy to have more single window clearance, the methodology of such processing of such applications should be endeavoured to be simplified, so that there is less uncertainty and better enforcement. 10. Therefore, keeping in mind the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court as above, and taking into account the fact that the lack of sufficient parking space ought to have been provided under the Rules, is of trivial in nature in the case at hand; the fact that the petitioner has already entered into an arrangement with the neighbouring property owner to satisfy the requirement of the Rules, 1999; the other environmental issues that can occur, if demolition takes place; and to protect the interest of the purchasers/occupants of the building, I am of the view, suitable fine can be imposed to square up the issue. Moreover, this is a case where the constructions were carried out after securing permit and approved plan from the Corporation of Kochi above the existing building having cellar plus four floors, however, later found that since the building is coming under high rise building, the Rules contained under Rule 117 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules had to be followed and it was thus directed the petitioner to show cause as to why the permit granted shall not be cancelled. 11. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the permit dated 3.02.2006, the construction was completed and it seems the Corporation has initiated action on the basis of a direction issued by the State Government. Anyhow, from the materials available on record, it is clear that the building is situated in the heart of the city at M.G Road, which is a vantage point of commercial and other activities. I also find that as per Section 407 of the Act, 1994, the State Government is vested with powers to regularise any construction carried out in consultation with the Municipality on realisation of compounding fee as prescribed under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and the notification issued consequent to the same, which is prevalent and in force due to the timely extension of the time period prescribed as per the notification, and may be true which cannot be done overlooking public interest. So also, the Secretary of the Municipality is vested with powers to regularise any construction by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 r/w Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 provided it is not violative of the Rules. 12. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) is imposed as fine and additional petitioners 2 to 6 are directed to pay the amount to the Balanidhi fund (www.balanidhi.kerala.gov.in) or in the Account No:57044156669, IFSC:SBIN0070032, created under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On production of sufficient evidence for payment/ acknowledgement in respect of the payment and on being satisfied with the same, the Secretary of the Corporation is directed to regularise the construction resorting to the suitable provisions of law and pass appropriate orders at the earliest and, at any rate, within two months thereafter, failing which the Corporation is at liberty to proceed against the illegal construction in accordance with law. 13. However, it is made clear that it is taking into account the peculiar facts and features of this case the directions are issued and it would not have any general application and I further direct the Secretary of the Corporation of Kochi to be careful hereafter, while granting permits and approving the plans. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as above.