The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P21, an order passed by the Secretary of the respondent Corporation, canceling Ext.P1 building permit issued to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner company is engaged in real estate development and construction of multi storied apartments. The petitioner claims to have surrendered a portion of its land for road widening purposes and on that basis was granted the benefit of certain exemptions from the Kerala

Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Rules for short). It is stated that it was on that basis that an application was made and Ext.P1 building permit was granted. On the strength of Ext.P1 building permit, they have constructed a residential apartment complex having 14 floors including the basement and ground floor.

3. According to the petitioner, on completion of construction by April 2006, they had obtained Ext.P2 NOC from the Airports Authority of India and Ext.P2(a) from the Fire and Rescue Services Headquarters.

4. The petitioner contends that after they completed construction, completion report was also submitted to the respondent Corporation. Later final NOC was also issued by the Fire and Rescue Services Headquarters and the petitioner was awaiting to be issued an occupancy certificate in terms of Rule 22 of the Rules. The petitioner submits that in terms of the proviso to Rule 22(c) of the Rules, as the respondent did not issue the occupancy certificate within 15 days, they were entitled to proceed as if an occupancy certificate has been duly issued. On that basis, the flats were allotted to the purchasers who have occupied their respective flats.

5. Meanwhile, for obtaining water connection and power connection, petitioner needed an occupancy certificate and submitted Ext.P3 representation to the respondents on 18.2006 requesting them to issue the same. On receipt of Ext.P3, petitioner was issued Ext.P4 reply pointing out certain defects and seeking clarifications which was replied by Ext.P5 intimating that the defects mentioned in Ext.P4 were all rectified. Petitioner submits that even thereafter, there was no response to Ext.P3 application and therefore they submitted Ext.P6 reminder.

6. While matters stood thus, the respondents issued Ext.P7 notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why Ext.P1 building permit shall not be cancelled following the Government Order dated 112.2006. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 reply and on its receipt, by issuing Ext.P9 notice, they were required to appear for a personal hearing on 23.2007. Accordingly they had appeared for the hearing and submitted Ext.P10 representation against the proposal to cancel Ext.P1 building permit. Since final orders were not passed, the petitioner approached this court by filing WP(C) 12669/2007 in which an interim order was passed directing the Corporation to pass final orders pursuant to Ext.P7 show cause notice. In pursuance to the said interim direction of this Court, the Corporation passed Ext.P11 order canceling Ext.P1 building permit. It is submitted that on receipt of Ext.P11, incorporating a challenge to the said order, WP(C) 12669/07 was amended.

7. The writ petition was finally heard and was disposed of by Ext.P20 judgment dated 210.2007. In the aforesaid judgment this court held as follows:-

"I would think that Rule 16 vests a power with the statutory functionary namely the Secretary. It is the Secretary who has to take a decision independently by applying his mind to the facts of the case as to whether in the facts of the case cancellation of the permit is warranted for the reason that the Committee which gave the permit under Rule 85 of the Building Rules was bereft of power for the reason that there is no quorum within the meaning of Rule 85. As already noted, the entire construction was completed and according to the petitioners all the apartments were sold out to third parties and thus there is supervening equity also. At such stage o