JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. These intra-court appeals have been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing two writ petitions; W.P.(C) No. 16391 of 2023, wherein they had challenged the demolition notice dated 01.03.2023 (Ext.P4) issued by the Kochi Municipal Corporation and W.P.(C) No. 18036 of 2023, whereby challenge has been laid to the order dated 01.06.2023 (Ext.P6), by which their request for shifting the recreation centre to an alternative location was rejected. 2. For understanding the controversy in the issue, it would be in the fitness of things to narrate the matter in brief: Petitioner is a builder. Commenced construction with the building permit by the name ABM Towers at Kadavanthra. In the year 1998, another additional building permit was issued for certain additional construction, which was completed in 2004. The previous construction was based upon the earlier Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 1984, but in 2004, when an additional permit was issued, the new Act, i.e., the Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 1999, had come into force. The 2 nd permit envisaged the provision of a recreational area, whereas the first permit did not have any such condition. 3. There was a previous litigation in RFA Nos.86 and 211 of 2012 and W.P.(C) Nos.13106 and 14854 of 2010. The aforementioned matters were decided by the Single Bench of this Court vide common judgment dated 09.10.2019. It is pertinent to mention that the litigation in the aforementioned matters started only on account of the fact that the area designated for recreational use as per the subsequent building permit was sold by the builder to his son by sale deed dated 29.05.2003, after the new building rules came into force. 4. The aforementioned sale deed permitted the purchaser to use the recreational area for commercial purposes and certain structural constructions were also made by causing a private partition. 5. Noticing all these facts, the learned Single Bench modified the decree of the trial court, decreeing the counterclaimsset up by the flat owners and declaring the area earmarked in the Ext. B5 completion plan as a recreational area and car parking area, though the sale deed aforementioned was not held to be sham or void. 5. Noticing all these facts, the learned Single Bench modified the decree of the trial court, decreeing the counterclaimsset up by the flat owners and declaring the area earmarked in the Ext. B5 completion plan as a recreational area and car parking area, though the sale deed aforementioned was not held to be sham or void. Before parting with the judgment, the learned Single Bench gave liberty to the appellant-petitioner that in case any law in force permits providing a recreational area and parking area as mandatory under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 1999, even by adding a portion different from the one earmarked in the completion plan or seeking for regularization of the same, such action can be done with the notice of the owners' association. 6. The aforementioned judgment was assailed before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) Diary No.12828 of 2023. By order dated 12.05.2023, the aforementioned SLP was dismissed with a clarification that in case legal options are available to the builder in pursuance to the observation made in the judgment of the High Court under challenge, notwithstanding the dismissal of the special leave petition, such legal options can be explored by the builder in accordance with law, subject to the rider that in case the municipal corporation has already taken a decision on the representation already made by the petitioner in pursuance of the said judgment, they are not expected to pass a fresh decision in the matter, by clarifying that the aforementioned observation was not on the merit of the litigation. 7. Realizing that there was a provision in the erstwhile building rules, an application was submitted to the municipal corporation, for shifting of the recreational centre to the terrace of the building, which has been rejected by the order impugned in W.P.(C) No.18036 of 2023 and in the meantime, the partition for commercial activity set up by the purchaser of the building, none else the son of the appellant/petitioner, was also demolished by the municipal corporation and restored as a recreation area. It is that background, the demolition notice was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 16391 of 2023 8. Mr. Harikumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. It is that background, the demolition notice was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 16391 of 2023 8. Mr. Harikumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Nithin George, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the action of the municipal corporation in rejecting the request for shifting the recreation centre to the terrace of the building was wholly uncalled for, as the single bench of this court and the Supreme Court had saved such an option to be exercised if permissible in law, though the association of the owners did not consent to the same. A quietus can be brought in case a direction can be issued to the owners’ association to permit the builder to shift the recreation centre, as they would not be deprived from using the parking, which has been retained so that the recreational area can be used for commercial purposes in terms of the sale deed Ext. A4. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 4 th respondent Owners’ Association Sri.Sandeep Ankarath and Sri.C.N.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the municipal corporation, submitted that there is no provision in the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999, for shifting the recreation centre even if the parking is maintained as it is, much less that the owners association did not give any consent, which was a condition contained in the direction of the learned single bench. Even otherwise, when there is no provision in the law, the application could not have been submitted and rightly so, has been rejected. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was only in the context in case the law permitted such submission of the application; whereas there is no provision, and therefore, it will be prohibited in law, and urged this court for upholding the judgment under challenge. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books. 11. The Kerala Building Rules, 1999, do not envisage any provision for shifting of the recreation centre to any other place, as detailed in Ext.B5 plan approved while giving the additional permit to the builder. The order of the Municipal Corporation as well as the tribunal, challenged by the builder, in our considered view, is not in consonance with the provisions of the rules. Moreover, the observation of the Single Bench as well as the Supreme Court was only in case the law permits. 12. The order of the Municipal Corporation as well as the tribunal, challenged by the builder, in our considered view, is not in consonance with the provisions of the rules. Moreover, the observation of the Single Bench as well as the Supreme Court was only in case the law permits. 12. It would be apt to reproduce the last two paragraphs of the judgment of the Single Bench as well as the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The same reads as under: ''19. The petitioners had submitted Ext.P3 application dated 18.05.2023 along with revised drawings to the Secretary of Kochi Municipal Corporation. The Assistant Executive Engineer of the Municipal Corporation considered the application of the petitioners for shifting of recreational area and rejected the same as per Ext.P6 order dated 01.06.2023. The application was rejected for multiple reasons. An application for regularisation has to be made through IBPMS online software. The building AMB Towers has 60 occupiers/owners. To regularise the construction of the building changing recreational area, all the owners of the property/building have to apply or should give their consent. Had the petitioners submitted the application before the sale of apartment units, such application could have been considered at the instance of the petitioners alone. As undivided share in the property has been transferred to a number of purchasers, any application for revision of plan / shifting of recreational area has to come from all the owners of the property/building. 20. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P6 decision taken by the Assistant Executive Engineer. It cannot be said that Ext.P6 is vitiated by non- application of mind. The Assistant Executive Engineer has taken into account relevant factors while passing Ext.P6. For the afore reasons, W.P.(C) Nos.16391 and 18036 of 2023 are dismissed.'' Order of the Supreme Court Heard Mr. Indrajit Mahanty, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, who has entered appearance through Caveat. Considering the circumstances in the matters as also the delayed Special Leave Petition and taking note of the proceedings dated 09.12.2020 in SLP(C) Diary No. 8147 of 2020 and 20.02.2023 in SLP(C) No. 3166 of 2023, we see no reason to entertain the Special Leave Petitions and accordingly the same stand dismissed on the ground of delay as also on merits. If any legal options are available to the petitioner in pursuant to what was observed in the final passage of High Court’s order dated 09.10.2019, notwithstanding the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, such legal options can be explored by the petitioner in accordance with law, subject to the rider that if the Municipal Corporation has already taken a decision on the representation earlier made by the petitioner in pursuant to the High Court judgment, they are not expected to take a fresh decision in the matter(s). It is also made clear that we have not made any observation on the merit of the litigation. Pending application(s), including application for impleadment, shall stand closed.'' 13. On juxtaposing of the aforementioned observation, it is unambiguous that the application could be submitted by the appellant-builder only when the law permits. We have not been referred to any provisions of the law permitting the shifting of the recreation centre, much less it was done only unilaterally without seeking the consent of the owners' association which consists of almost sixty(60) occupiers. We are of the view that the finding of the fact and law arrived at by the learned Single Bench is based upon the appreciation of the provisions of law much less that in view of the fact that there was no such consent given by the aforementioned owners and occupiers. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment under challenge. No ground for interference is made out. Both writ appeals stand dismissed.