K. Surendra Mohan, J.

1. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 proceedings issued by the third respondent revoking the building permit issued to the petitioners.

2. The petitioners had applied for the issue of a building permit for the construction of a multi storied commercial building. As per Ext.P1, the application of the petitioners was allowed and a building permit was issued to them. Later on, the petitioners submitted an application for a revised building permit and Ext.P2 revised building permit was also issued, subject to the conditions appended thereto. Ext.P3 shows that the petitioners had also remitted the requisite fee for grant of the building permit. Ext.P3 shows that the fee amounted to Rs. 44,59,562/-. On the basis of Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioners commenced construction of the building. As the construction was progressing, the petitioners were served with Ext.P4 directing them to show cause why action for revocation of the building permit should not be initiated against them. Ext.P4 has been issued on the basis of a report submitted by the Senior Town Planner (Vigilance) who appears to have conducted an inspection of various building sites within the limits of the second respondent Panchayat. It also appears that the Senior Town Planner (Vigilance) had detected certain violations, during his inspection. Though the petitioners responded to Ext.P4 by submitting their explanation, as per Ext.P5 order the building permit issued to the petitioners has been cancelled.

3. According to Shri. Joseph Kodianthara, senior counsel who appears for the petitioners, a perusal of Ext.P5 shows that it has been issued in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 16 of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999 (the 'Rules' for short). However, according to the counsel the impugned order Ext.P5 does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 16. The counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in Dharmadom Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithi v. Dharmadom Grama Panchayat {2010(2) KLT 194}. It is pointed out that a huge amount of nearly Rs. 45 lakhs had been paid as fees to the second respondent Panchayat and the petitioners had expended further amounts for carrying out their constructions. But the permit issued to them has been unceremoniously revoked, without considering any of the above facts. It is also contended that Ext.P5 has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore is liable to be set aside for the said reason alone.

4. This writ petition was admitted on 24-8-2007 and pursuant to the interim order issued by this Court, the petitioners have proceeded with their construction and a portion of the building comprising of ground floor and two floors is now complete, at a cost of Rs. 4 crores. While so, the validity of the permit expired on 31-1-2010. Though the petitioners submitted an application for renewal of the permit, the same was not even received by respondents 2 and 3 for the reason that this writ petition was pending. Consequently, the petitioners are now not in a position to complete their building though they have already expended huge amounts for the construction, which they have raised from various sources. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate orders setting aside Ext.P5.

5. No counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. According to the second respondent, Ext.P5 has been issued for the reason that the explanation submitted by the petitioners was not found to be satisfactory. It is stated in the counter affidavit that since the second respondent Panchayat is a fully developed one, it comes within the classification CRZ II. In view of the fact that the Maradu Panchayat is a fully developed area situate close to the rapidly developing Corporation of Cochin, it is contended that it comes within the meaning of 'developed area' as described in Category II of the Coastal Area