Antony Dominic, J.

The unsuccessful petitioners whose writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 14th of December, 2010 have filed this appeal.

2. Briefly stated, the facts pleaded in the writ petition are that the first appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in construction activities and the second appellant is the owner of 70.23 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.T.S. 77 in Ward No.3, Block No.2 of Kannur Municipality. The appellants have entered into a joint venture agreement among themselves for developing the aforesaid land by constructing a commercial cum residential building comprising of basement floor, ground floor and 18 floors and head room. They submitted Ext.P1 application to the 2nd respondent for approval of the plan and for issuance of building permit. According to them, the plan was found to be complying with all rules and regulations including the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Building Rules’ for short).

3. Thereafter the 2nd respondent forwarded copies of the plans to the Fire and Rescue Department for issuing NOC and Ext.P4 NOC was issued on 18/2/2009. Similarly, the Army Station Headquarters also vide Ext.P5 dated 18/8/2008 granted NOC for the construction.

4. Ext.P6 dated 30/5/2008 is the letter of the 2nd respondent forwarding copies of the plan to the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority for their approval. Ext.P9 is the letter of the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, which shows that, in their meeting held on 16/10/2008, they considered the appellants’ plan and recommended the project to the Government of India. The recommendation is subject to 9 conditions, the first of which is that the construction may be undertaken as per the plans approved by the concerned local authorities in conformity with the existing local and central rules and regulations including the provisions of CRZ notification and as per Building Rules.

5. Subsequently, Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests issued Ext.P12 dated 22nd January 2010 stating that the Expert Appraisal Committee after due consideration of the relevant documents submitted by the appellants and additional clarifications furnished in response to its observations have recommended for the grant of CRZ clearance for the project. Accordingly the Ministry accorded necessary CRZ clearance for the project as per the provisions of the CRZ notification, 1991 and the subsequent amendments. The clearance granted is again subject to the conditions incorporated in Part A and B. It is relevant to note that the first condition in Part A is that all the conditions stipulated in Ext.P9 mentioned above shall be strictly complied with. According to the appellants, inspite of having obtained all the necessary clearances, 2nd respondent did not issue the building permit and on enquiry, they were informed that the refusal was for the reason that the Building Rules were amended by the 1st respondent by Ext.P14 dated 16/12/2009 and again by Ext.P15 dated 21/6/2010.

6. Appellants contended that Ext.P1 application was submitted in March 2008 and that the building plan was approved by the 2nd respondent before 13/6/2008 when the approved plans were forwarded to the Fire Force Headquarters for their NOC. Therefore, according to the appellants, amendment to the rule brought into effect in December, 2009 cannot have any bearing on Ext.P1 application. On this basis, the appellants filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue a building permit in terms of the approved plan. Appellants also sought a declaration that Ext.P14 amendment to the Rules having been brought into force only w.e.f. 16/12/09 and Ext.P15 only w.e.f. 21/6/2010 would have no bearing on the grant of building permit sought for by them.

7. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. According to the 2nd respondent, in terms of the provisions of the Building Rules, for the issuance of building perm