Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 19th June, 2014 in Writ Petition No. 3391/2014 by which order the Writ Petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed. The appellants, who are the petitioners in the Writ Petition, have filed the Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:

i) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P4 order of the 1st respondent;

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or direction directing the 5th respondent to stop the 6th respondent from developing the site having area of 36.27 cents comprised in Re-Sy. No. 166/2 and 3 of Mulanthuruthy Village;

iii) Such other order or direction as this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue or pass in the interest of justice."

3. Ext. P4 which was sought to be quashed was the proceedings of the District collector dated 27th July 2013, by which in reference to the letter written by Grama Panchayath as well as the District Police Chief and the Revenue Divisional Officer, he accorded permission for reconstruction of the place of worship by name Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Orthodox Center. The said order was challenged in the Writ Petition.

4. The learned Single Judge, by a detailed order, after considering the submissions made by the parties, dismissed the Writ Petition. The submissions which were pressed before the learned Single Judge was that by construction of the Church normalcy which is prevailing in the locality will be disturbed, and the respondent No.1 has failed to assess the ground realities and the fractional disputes between two groups. It was contended that unless the permission is not revoked, there shall be every possibility of further disturbance in the area. The learned Single Judge examined the submission and after considering the relevant materials on the report recorded a finding that no materials have been produced to indicate that any communal issues may develop if the Church is constructed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised one submission in support of the Writ Appeal. It is submitted that the order Ext. P4 passed by the first respondent granting permission does not satisfy adherence to sub Rule 8 of Rule 7 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. It is contended that the said provision has neither been adverted to nor answered by the learned single Judge.

6. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Rule 7 Sub rule 8 of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant is to the following effect:-

"8) In the case of an application to construct or reconstruct a building or make alteration or addition or extension within any Security Zone, the Secretary shall consult the District Collector concerned before permission is granted. The District Collector, after getting the specific recommendations from the Director General of Police, shall furnish his reply. The objection if any raised and/or restriction and/or regulation if any suggested by the District Collector shall be complied by the Secretary while issuing the permit.

Provided, in the case of construction of new building or reconstruction or alteration or addition or extension of existing building for religious purpose or worship, prior approval or clearance or permission and concurrence as the case may be, of the District Collector concerned shall be obtained and the conditions stipulated in the 'Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony' which is in force have to be complied with. Applications for renovation without involving additional built-up area or structural alterations of existing buildings for religious purpose or places of worship can be considered by the Secretary after informing the District Collector in form in Appendix -N duly filled by the applicant and verified by the Secretary. T