MARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT Vs. IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents in the writ petition have come up in this proceedings seeking review of the judgment. The parties and documents are referred to in this order, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred an application for building permit before the first respondent Panchayat. The application was for a commercial building. In terms of Ext.P9 communication, the second respondent, the Secretary of the Panchayat has informed the petitioner that his request cannot be considered until the unauthorized building existing in the land where he proposes to put up the new commercial building is regularised. This court rejected the stand of the respondents in Ext.P9 communication, holding that Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 (the Rules) dealing with the grounds on which the applications for permission to construct buildings can be rejected, does not confer authority on the second respondent to refuse to consider an application for building permit on that ground. That apart, this Court also took note of the fact that Ext.P8 communication issued by the Panchayat to the petitioner to seek regularisation of the building referred to in Ext.P9 communication has been challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and further proceedings pursuant to the said communication has been stayed by the Tribunal. This Court, in the circumstances, allowed the writ petition, quashed Ext.P9 communication and directed the second respondent to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner afresh. The case set out by the respondents in the review petition is that in the light of the second proviso to sub rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, the second respondent was justified in refusing to consider the application preferred by the petitioner on the ground mentioned in Ext.P9 communication, and the judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered without taking note of the said provision of law.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners as also the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition.