Basheer, J.

The common appellant has filed these two writ appeals against the common judgment in two writ petitions; one filed by the appellant himself and the other by respondent No.1 herein.

(2) While the appellant in his writ petition had sought to quash the order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions confirming the cancellation of the building permit issued by the Corporation of Cochin in his favour, respondent No.1 in his writ petition had questioned the legality and propriety of the direction issued by the Tribunal to the Corporation to consider whether the alleged objectionable construction made by the appellant could be regularised, if such a request was made.

(3) Thelearned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and allowed the other filed by respondent No.1.

(4) Relevant facts may be briefly noticed.

(5) Theappellant, who admittedly owns 20 cents of land at Fort Kochi within the limits of Kochi Corporation, was granted a building permit to construct a four storied building. It appears that the appellant had carried out the construction violating several provisions in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (for short the Rules). On a complaint made by respondent No.1, the plan and licence issued in favour of the appellant were cancelled and he was directed to demolish the building. At that stage, the appellant approached the Government with a prayer to regularise the unauthorised construction. As could be seen from Ext.P4 order, respondent No.1 had reported before the Government that he had no serious objection about regularisation. Accordingly, the Government had issued orders (Ext.P4) regularising the construction so made by the appellant (ground floor + 3 storeys) on certain conditions enumerated in the said order.

(6) Thereafter the appellant had applied for yet another building permit to construct a three storied building in the remaining portion of the 20 cents of property belonging to him. Initially, the Corporation had issued Ext.P8 building permit dated February 10, 2003. Respondent No.1, who holds his residential property on the eastern side of the property of the appellant, raised objection yet again since, according to him, Ext.P8 building permit was in total violation of the Building Rules. It was pointed out by respondent No.1 that the building permit was obtained by the appellant suppressing the fact that the plot on which the proposed construction was to be made had been earmarked and set apart as the parking area for the four storied building.

(7) To make a long story short, the matter was ultimately considered by the Secretary of the Corporation at the intervention of this Court. The Corporation found that the objection raised by respondent No.1 was valid and sustainable. Resultantly, by order dated June 6, 2006 (Ext.P5 (a) in W.P.(C).No.1665/2003), the Corporation cancelled the building permit and licence issued in favour of the appellant and directed him to demolish the illegal and unauthorised construction made by him.

(8) Theabove order passed by the Corporation was challenged by the appellant before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Trivandrum. The Tribunal by its order dated September 16, 2006 affirmed the order passed by the Corporation cancelling the permit issued in favour of the appellant. However, the Tribunal directed the Corporation to consider the application that may be submitted by the appellant for regularisation of the illegal construction of the ground floor already completed by the appellant. It was further directed that the order of the Corporation cancelling the permit shall be brought into effect only after the Corporation passed orders on the application for regularisation after hearing the appellant and respondent No.1.

(9) As mentioned earlier, the appellant in his writ petition had challenged that portion of the order of the Tribunal by which the order of cancellation of the building permi