JUDGMENT : AMIT RAWAL, J. This order shall dispose of two writ appeals, WA Nos.1146/2023 and 237/2025. We shall first deal with W.A.No.1146 of 2023, preferred against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 23.05.2023 in W.P.(C)No.795 of 2021. 2. Respondent No.1 - writ petitioner in the aforementioned writ petition approached this Court claiming the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 2 nd respondent to ensure that Exhibit P3 is strictly implemented. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1 st and 2 nd respondent to complete the demolition as ordered in Exhibit P7 within a period of two months. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 5 th respondent to take urgent action on Exhibit P9 report.” 3. On perusal of the aforementioned, two-fold reliefs were sought; one for implementation of the order Ext.P3, dated 26.02.2020, which granted the appellant/third respondent 15 days time to submit a reply, failing which, an action under Sections 447 , 447A, 448, 507 and 508 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 shall be taken and the other, for implementation of Ext.P7 order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Secretary of the Municipality - second respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that thereafter another order dated 10.02.2021 has been issued by the Secretary of the Municipality, which is Ext.P8 in Writ Appeal No.237 of 2025 details of which will be given later, whereby demolition was ordered. Against the aforementioned order of demolition, the Educational and Charitable Trust preferred a statutory appeal bearing No.97 of 2021 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, under Section 509 (6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. 4. Against the aforementioned order of demolition, the Educational and Charitable Trust preferred a statutory appeal bearing No.97 of 2021 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, under Section 509 (6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. 4. After hearing the parties to the lis i.e., the Municipality and the Petitioner in W.P (C)No.795 of 2021, learned Tribunal vide order dated 09.11.2022 set aside the order dated 10.02.2021 of demolition and given an opportunity to the Municipality to hear all the parties and pass a considered final order afresh, expeditiously, after the disposal of Writ Appeal No.1252 of 2022; directed the first respondent Municipality to communicate the decision on the regularization applications to the second appellant in Writ Appeal No.1146 of 2023 i.e., the Trust before passing the final order under Section 406 (3) of the Municipality Act and also granted opportunity to all the aggrieved parties in the proceedings under Section 406 (3) and in the regularization application submitted by the Trust. Thereafter, the Senior Town Planner, vide order dated 28.10.2021 rejected the request of the Trust for regularization and issued order dated 24.04.2022, which was assailed before this Court in Writ Petition No.2992 of 2022. This Court vide judgment dated 13.06.2022 allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order aforementioned, which was assailed in Writ Appeal No.1252 of 2022. It is in that background the direction of the tribunal was issued as the matter with regard to the orders of the tribunal to be either upheld or otherwise was pending consideration before the Division Bench of this Court. 5. The aforementioned fact regarding the order of the tribunal was brought to the notice of the Single Bench. Therefore, on the first prayer as sought for by the writ petitioner i.e., the respondent No.1 - the complainant and Petitioner in Writ Petition (C)No.795 of 2021, with regard to the implementation of the notice dated 26.02.2020, learned Single Judge found that in case any commercial activity is being run by the Management/Trust/Educational Institution, the same shall not be permitted without issuance of the licence. The direction contained in paragraph No.10 of the judgment in the aforementioned writ petition reads as under: "10. There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate steps to see that no commercial activity requiring licences is carried out in the sports complex building without obtaining proper licence from the Municipality. The direction contained in paragraph No.10 of the judgment in the aforementioned writ petition reads as under: "10. There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate steps to see that no commercial activity requiring licences is carried out in the sports complex building without obtaining proper licence from the Municipality. Respondents 3 and 4 shall be free to move the Government for regularisation of the building and apply for licence in the premises. However, activities which require due licences shall not be permitted without obtaining such licences. " 6. The litigation has a checkered history. Appellants - Trust had been issued a building permit for four blocks A, B, C, D and E in respect of a particular area. However, they raised construction in excess of the permitted area and thereafter had submitted an application for regularization. Later on, in 2020, other than imparting engineering education, had also come up with the Maritime course in pursuance of the licence issued by the Ministry of Shipping. As per clause 2.14.4 of the prospectus issued therein, there will be the facility of swimming pool as the aspirants, who should undertake the maritime course, have to have the knowledge of the swimming and deep diving for the purpose of obtaining jobs in the Indian Navy. Without obtaining any permit, raised the construction of the building consisting of a swimming pool and a sports complex. Besides that there was already a ground meant for sports activity which was a turf none other than a badminton court. All these factors were noticed in the order of demolition dated 10.02.2021 which has already, as noticed above, been quashed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions vide order dated 09.11.2022. The Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.795 of 2021 and I.A.No.3 of 2024 in W.P. (C)No.33964 of 2023 i.e., the first respondent in both writ appeals, alleged to be a resident of the area living around 3 kilometers away from the educational institution of the appellant trust, had been making complaints to the authority of illegal activities. 7. The judgment of the Tribunal, according to the writ petitioner, was not implemented by the Municipality and a contempt petition was filed, i.e., Contempt Case (C)No.2352 of 2024. 7. The judgment of the Tribunal, according to the writ petitioner, was not implemented by the Municipality and a contempt petition was filed, i.e., Contempt Case (C)No.2352 of 2024. In response to the notice issued, the Secretary of the Kalamassery Municipality in paragraph No.6 of the affidavit dated 26.09.2024 stated that the Trust is not using the sports complex after the pronouncement of the impugned judgment, as also that they had given an undertaking before the Court that they would not conduct any commercial activity which require a licence, in the sports complex. The contempt petition was disposed of, but the Municipality passed an order dated 06.10.2023, sealing the building meant for swimming pool. It is in that circumstances, appellant Trust filed writ petition No.33964 of 2023. 8. In the aforesaid writ petition, the Single Bench of this Court passed interim order on 13.10.2023, the same reads as under: “The learned Standing Counsel take notice for respondents. 2. In the meantime, there will be an interim stay of operation of Ext.P11 order dated 06.10.2023, till the next posting.” 9. Noticing that a contempt petition was filed and there is an undertaking given by the party, the learned Single Bench modified the interim order vide order dated 17.07.2024, under challenge in writ appeal No.237 of 2025, with direction that the Municipality shall ensure that the direction in Ext.P10 judgment and Ext.R3(e) order wherein the undertaking taken by the party is recorded, are complied by the appellant Trust and no activity which require licence shall be permitted to be conducted pending the writ petition. It is in that background the aforementioned order has been challenged to contend that there was no direction issued in the judgment in W.P(C).No.795 of 2021 dated 23.05.2023 as it was only pertaining to commercial activity. 10. Mr.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel submitted that as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Rules, 2019, swimming pool has been omitted in the definition of the Building provided under Section 29 with effect from 01.10.2020 and therefore it does not require any licence. He further submitted that applications for regularization had already been submitted i.e., on 15.10.2020 and 08.02.2021. 10. Mr.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel submitted that as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Rules, 2019, swimming pool has been omitted in the definition of the Building provided under Section 29 with effect from 01.10.2020 and therefore it does not require any licence. He further submitted that applications for regularization had already been submitted i.e., on 15.10.2020 and 08.02.2021. In the meantime, writ appeal No.1252 of 2022 preferred by the Senior Town Planner against the judgment dated 13.06.2022 in Writ Petition No.2992 of 2020 came to be decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.02.2024 and by disposing of the aforementioned writ appeal, following directions have been issued: “…..14. Therefore, we set aside the judgment in W.P.(C).No.2992 of 2022 and dispose these cases with the following directions:- (i) The 1st respondent Trust in W.A.No.1252/2022 may approach the Government for modification/dispensation as provided under Annexure A1 Government Order & A2 circular. (ii) If an application for modification/ dispensation is received, competent authority of the Government shall consider the same and take decision in accordance with law after hearing the Trust, the Secretary of Kalamassery Municipality, the Chief Town Planner and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.2878/2023. (iii) A decision in the matter shall be taken and communicated to all parties mentioned above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of application for modification/dispensation in the office of the competent authority.” 11. In pursuance of the above, the appellant Trust had already submitted an application for regularization/ modification and dispensation on 27.11.2024 and the same is pending consideration, but during the course of hearing, had handed over a communication dated 20.06.2025 received by the institution/Trust from the Secretary, Kalamassery Municipality enclosing the decision of the Senior Town Planner that there are certain defects in the application which are required to be cured and the same can be cured in due course. 12. 12. It was further contended that as far as the construction of the building without permit, the matter is subjudice before the Court owing to the pendency of the application for regularization in terms of provisions of Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and rightly so, the learned Single Judge in the judgment under challenge in writ appeal No.1146 of 2023, did not interfere with the order Ext.P7 which had already been set aside by the Tribunal, but the fact remains the directions regarding commercial activity could not have been undertaken as the College is not permitting any commercial activity by allowing any outsider to use the swimming pool or the health club or the cafe and it is only being catered to the students who have taken the admission for Maritime course. Municipality will be at liberty to inspect the premises at any point of time to monitor the said activity. But the fact remains the order of sealing was inevitable owing to the pendency of the contempt petition. In fact in none of the orders issued by the municipality, there is reference of any commercial activity being undertaken by the trust and urged this Court for permitting the college to use the swimming pool which is part of one of the curriculum and course for the students, to be undertaken strictly as per the licence issued by the Director General of Shipping. 13. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel opposed the aforementioned prayer and submitted that in fact the appellant miserably failed to place on record any application purported to have been submitted for seeking regularization. The application filed in the year 2018 (30.10.2018) which has been forwarded to Senior Town Planner on 06.11.2019, has not seen in the light of the day nor copy thereof have been attached and there is no proof of submission of the letter/application dated 27.11.2024. However, as per the communication handed over to us, it was submitted that there cannot be any submission without obtaining any instruction from the client. The definition of ‘Building’ is including any structure which would also need a swimming pool and therefore the omission in 2020 would pale into insignificance. 14. There are two segments of misusing the building, firstly construction without permit and secondly, its usage without license. The definition of ‘Building’ is including any structure which would also need a swimming pool and therefore the omission in 2020 would pale into insignificance. 14. There are two segments of misusing the building, firstly construction without permit and secondly, its usage without license. No commercial activity can be undertaken without the issuance of the license under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act and Building Rules, 2019 and in support of the submissions, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another Vs. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others and Rajeev Gupta and Others Vs. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767) wherein by referring to the findings recorded in paragraph No.20, it was contended that there cannot be any deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and any construction without permission would be the violation of the local statutes and law, and delay in directing the rectification of illegalities and inaction on the part of the authorities will not come in favour of the persons as a shield to defend action against the illegal and unauthorized construction. Regularisation schemes should be brought out only in exceptional circumstances as a one time measure for residential houses after a detailed survey and considering the nature of the land, usage, impact on the environment, availability and distribution of resources, proximity to water bodies/rivers and larger public interest as unauthorized constructions caused a threat to the life of the occupants and the citizens living nearby and also having an effect on the resources like ground water, electricity, access to roads, which are primary designed to be made available in orderly development and authorized activities. Therefore, there should be no permission to conduct any business or trade given by the authorities including the local bodies of the States/Union Territories in any unauthorized building irrespective of residential or commercial. 15. Section 447 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 specifically ensures that the purpose of which the places cannot be used without licence and the industries, factories, enclosed structures would definitely fall within the mischief of aforementioned provisions and therefore the licence is a sine qua non for the purpose of providing the aforementioned swimming facilities to the students undergoing the maritime courses. No person can be permitted to raise the illegal construction, without seeking the permit. 16. No person can be permitted to raise the illegal construction, without seeking the permit. 16. Even from the perusal of the averments in the writ petition, the permission granted for four blocks was with respect to a particular area but concededly the Trust had exceeded and had submitted the application for regularization. Though the permit has been granted but the fact remains, other remaining construction of 1302 m2 and other area mentioned in the demolition notice dated 10.02.2021 was totally without any permission and therefore it’s usage without license was also unauthorized and rightly so, has been ordered to be demolished by the Municipality. Also submitted that the writ petition is pending and it is only against the interim order, the writ appeal has been filed. There is no illegality and perversity in the interim order, therefore, this Court should refrain from warranting interference under Section 5 of the High Court Rules in the pending writ appeal. 17. Sri.M.K.Aboobacker learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipality submitted that in none of the orders, while ordering the demolition and of sealing, it has been mentioned that the educational trust was using the swimming pool for commercial purposes as already undertaking has been given, of not using the sports complex. 18. Smt.Deepa K.R., learned Government Pleader submitted that the application for modification/ regularization and seeking the dispensation of the applicability of the Rules was those submitted by the educational trust but the same has been returned as per the communication, dated 20.06.2025, of the Senior Town Planner to the Municipality, which application has been forwarded by the Municipality to the Educational Trust earlier. 19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books. 20. As far as the judgment dated 23.05.2021 in Writ Petition(C) No.795 of 2021 challenged in Writ Appeal No.1146 of 2023, by looking at the prayers, no doubt, the two reliefs were sought by the respondent No.1; relief No.2 was with regard to order dated 12.10.2020 of the Municipality which was followed by demolition order dated 10.02.2021, quashed by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.11.2022 in Appeal No.97 of 2021. On perusal of the directions contained in the observations recorded in order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the Single Bench under challenge, it is evident that the application for regularizations were to be considered by the department only after the decision in pending writ appeal No.1252 of 2022, which was filed against the judgment dated 13.06.2022 in W.P. (C)No.2992 of 2022, wherein the appellant Trust had challenged the orders of the Municipality as well as the Senior Town Planner rejecting the permission for regularization. But the fact remains that a new application for regularization dated 27.11.2024 has been submitted as evident from the communication of the Senior Town Planner dated 20.06.2025. Thus, the argument of the respondent No.1 that there is no application for regularization does not merit acceptance. 21. We would be refraining from giving any adjudication/finding with regard to the construction as, concededly the request of the appellant educational trust is pending with the Government for seeking dispensation or modification as provided under Section 407 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. 22. As far as the order of sealing is concerned, it was passed only in terms of the directions contained in paragraph No.10 of the judgment under challenge in Writ Appeal No.1146 of 2023. On perusal of the operative part of the order extracted above, it is evident that direction was only to the effect that there shall be no commercial activity without the license. Question which has now arisen before us is, did any of the orders of the Municipality reflect any commercial activity being undertaken by the educational trust?, the answer is ‘No’. This fact has been admitted during the course of the argument by the counsel representing the writ petitioner/1st respondent. The order of sealing was passed only out of the fear to get rid of the contempt petition being faced by the officers of the Municipality in terms of the directions in judgment under challenge dated 23.05.2023 in Writ Petition (C)No.795 of 2021. 23. The order of sealing was passed only out of the fear to get rid of the contempt petition being faced by the officers of the Municipality in terms of the directions in judgment under challenge dated 23.05.2023 in Writ Petition (C)No.795 of 2021. 23. At this stage, Mr.Harish Vasudevan pointed out to the order dated 24.01.2025 in the pending writ petition No.33964 of 2023, whereby the learned counsel representing the trust had given an undertaking that they will not carry on any activity in the building, which reads as under: “Today when the matter came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they are not carrying out any activities in the building which remains unnumbered. Post on 18.02.2025.” 24. Mr.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel submitted that it was only meant to be for commercial activity, however, in the order it has come to be as a building unnumbered. But the fact remains that the application for regularization for seeking dispensation or exemption is pending adjudication. There would be no difficulty for the institution/educational trust to close down all the activities or remove the same in case the Government refuses to grant any regularization as usage of the swimming pool without license would also be unauthorised and illegal. 25. In our considered view, the students who are undertaking the maritime courses, 100 in number, are required to use the swimming pool for the purpose of completing their course. In this view of the matter, we uphold the order of the learned Single Bench dated 23.05.2023 in W.P(C) No.795 of 2021, noticing that there is no commercial activity. 26. As far as the interim order dated 17.07.2024 passed in Writ Petition (C)No.33964 of 2023 out of which W.A.237 of 2025 arises, we modify the interim order and permit the educational trust to use the swimming pool exclusively for the students undertaking the maritime course, which shall be periodically inspected by the concerned Senior Officer of the Municipality to see that there is no violation or any commercial activity be undertaken. Since the matter is pending adjudication before the Government for consideration of the application for regularization much less curing of the defect, we direct the appellant Trust to cure the defect within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order and thereafter the Government shall take a call in case the application received is complete in all respects, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the all the affected parties i.e., the appellant educational trust, the respondent No.1 and the Municipality within a period of three months thereafter. We are sanguine of the fact that the parties will take up all the pleas in the writ petition pending adjudication. W.A.No.237 of 2025 stands disposed of and W.A.No.1146 of 2023 stands dismissed.