Antony Dominic, J. The appellants filed WP(C) No.14055/12 seeking a direction to the respondents to issue the licence sought for by them as recommended by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P7. Consequential directions were also sought for. The writ petition having been dismissed, this appeal is filed.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board.
3. Briefly stated, the case of the appellants is that first appellant submitted Ext.P1 application for building permit specifying it to be for industrial use for manufacturing steel furniture. Along with the application, he also enclosed the plan of the building. On that application, Ext.P2 permit was issued specifying that the building shall be for commercial occupancy. On the strength of the permit, the building was constructed and thereafter the second appellant applied for occupancy certificate for industrial purposes.
That was declined by the respondents stating that the permit having been given for commercial purposes, industrial occupancy cannot be allowed. Based on Ext.R7(a) report, it is also their case that the specifications of the building did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 59 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules to permit industrial occupancy. It was in these circumstances the writ petition was filed. The writ petition having been dismissed, this appeal is filed.
4. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the permit having been issued and the single window clearance board having resolved to grant licence, the appellants are entitled to get occupancy certificate for industrial purposes. Counsel also placed reliance on Sir William Wade on Administrative Law, Ninth Edition to contend that Ext.P2 building permit having been granted and building having been completed, the respondents are estopped from declining the occupancy certificate sought for. He also placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in Moumita Poddar v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and another [(2010) 9 SCC 291] to contend that a humane approach should be taken in the matter.
5. As we have already noticed, the permit was granted on Ext.P1 application and the plan enclosed thereto. Though it is stated in Ext.P1 that the building was to be constructed for industrial purpose, the plan produced by the appellant did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 59 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. It was considering the said application and the plan that Ext.P2 building permit was granted specifying that the same is for commercial occupancy alone.
6. Therefore, evidently, the building permit obtained by the appellants was for commercial purposes. If that be so, the occupancy cannot be granted for a different purpose. It was contended that when the appellants applied for permit, it was for industrial purposes, and that Ext.P2 building permit for commercial purpose was wrongly issued. To accept this contention and direct that occupancy be issued as applied for by the appellants, the building should satisfy the requirements of Rule 59 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. In this case, even the appellants do not have a case that the building satisfied the requirements of Rule 59. In such circumstances, the appellants cannot seek a direction from this Court requiring the respondents to issue occupancy certificate for industrial purposes.
7. In so far as the judgment relied on by the appellants is concerned, so long as the building does not satisfy the requirements of the rules, the principles laid down in the judgment or in the entry of Administrative Law by Sir William Wade relied on by the counsel for the appellants, in our view, can be of no assistance to the appellants.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgments of this Court in Parayil Granular Industries v. Kumaranalloor Grama Panchayat (2009 (2) KLT 1012), Boby Uthup v. State of Kerala (2014 (2) KLT 542) and Chettikulangara Grama Panchayat v. State of Kerala (2014 (3) KLT 105) and contended that in view of the provisions contained in Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999, since the Board has resolved to grant clearance, the Panchayat is bound to issue licence as applied for. In our view, even this contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the building in question admittedly did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 59 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, which is a condition precedent for availing of the benefit of the non obstante clause contained in the provisions of the Single Window Clearance Act relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants.
Appeal fails and is dismissed.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE