Ext.P9 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions to the extent it directs the second respondent to re-consider the application for building permit submitted by the first petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The first petitioner is an infrastructural provider engaged in the business of providing telecommunication infrastructures including erection of telecommunication towers. The first respondent Panchayat issued Ext.P6 building permit to the first petitioner for constructing a telecommunication tower. The second petitioner is the contractor engaged by the first petitioner for construction of the telecommunication tower in accordance with Ext.P6 building permit. By Ext.P7, the secretary of the Panchayat W.P(C) No.23234 of 20110 2 cancelled the building permit issued to the first petitioner, invoking his power under Rule 16 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Ext.P7 decision of the Secretary was challenged by the petitioners before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Ext.P9 is the order passed by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the petitioners. In Ext.P9 order, the Tribunal found that Rule 16 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules could be invoked only to cancel a building permit issued by mistake or on account of a patent error or on account of misrepresentation of fact or law or on the ground that the construction, if carried on, will be a threat to life or property. The Tribunal also found that Ext.P7 order issued on the ground that the local public have complained against the activation of the telecommunication tower is unsustainable. Though the Tribunal found that the Secretary of the Panchayat could not have cancelled the building permit issued to the first petitioner, instead of ordering the restoration of the building permit, the Tribunal directed the Secretary to re-consider the application for building permit afresh. It is in the said circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court in this writ petition.
W.P(C) No.23234 of 20110 3
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in so far as the Tribunal found that the Secretary was incompetent to cancel the building permit issued to the first petitioner, the Tribunal ought to have ordered restoration of the building permit.
4. Though I am in full agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am unable to modify the order of the Tribunal accordingly, for, the validity of the permit issued to the first petitioner expired in the meanwhile on 5.11.2013.
5. This writ petition, in the circumstances, is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings to get the building permit renewed and restored.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE //true copy// P.A. To Judge smv