Mandatory building exemption rules require specific planning authority recommendation before safety norms can be relaxed.

A building exemption under the mandatory urban construction rules could not be granted unless the competent planning authorities and the Chief Town Planner gave the specific recommendation required by Rule 5. A mere presence at a meeting did not satisfy that statutory precondition, and the record showed objections to the proposed high-rise on floor area ratio, open space, parking, height, fire protection, and other safety-related requirements. Because the rules were mandatory and designed to protect public safety and convenience, the Government could not relax them in a manner that nullified essential safeguards. The exemption orders were therefore invalid and unsustainable in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Government could validly grant exemption from mandatory building rules for an eight-storeyed building in the absence of specific recommendations from the statutory planning authorities and whether the relaxation of essential safety-related requirements was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 5 required that an exemption application be routed through the authority and the Chief Town Planner with their specific recommendations. The expression "recommendation" was construed in the context of the rule and its object of regulating urban construction in the interest of public safety and convenience. On that construction, a favourable report from the competent planning authorities was essential before the Government could act. Mere presence of the Chief Town Planner in a meeting, without a written recommendation, did not satisfy the statutory requirement. The record also showed that the planning bodies had objected to the proposed high-rise construction on grounds of floor area ratio, open space, parking, height, fire protection, and other mandatory requirements. Exemptions that effectively nullified such essential safeguards could not be sustained, because the rules were mandatory and framed to secure public safety and convenience.

Conclusion: The exemption orders were invalid and unsustainable in law; the challenge succeeded in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a building exemption rule makes specific recommendations of the competent planning authorities a precondition, the Government cannot grant exemption unless that statutory condition is satisfied, and mandatory safety-related building norms cannot be relaxed so as to defeat public safety and convenience.

---