Shaffique, J

Respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.C.No.29402 of 2013 are the appellants, who challenge the judgment dated 14/2/2014, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein and directed the appellant Municipality to take appropriate decision on the application for building permit afresh.

2. The short facts involved in the writ petition are as follows:

Petitioners submitted an application for construction of a building in an extent of 12.786 Ares of property in R.Sy.No. 559/1 and 559/2 of Kannur 2 village. The said application was rejected by Ext.P2 order dated 09/10/2013 on the ground that as per the master plan published by the Municipality, there is a proposal to widen the road by 21 meters and therefore building could be constructed only after leaving a distance of 13.5 m from the central line of the road. In the plan submitted by the petitioner, the distance from the central line of the road is only 6.5 m, and hence violates Rule 25 (2) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'KMBR'). Petitioners contended that the reasons stated for rejecting the application for building permit was absolutely baseless on account of the decision of this court in Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465] and the Supreme Court judgment in Raju.S.Jethmalani & ors. v. State of Maharashtra and ors. [(2005) 11 SCC 222]. The learned Single Judge, placing reliance upon the judgments cited by the petitioners quashed Ext.P2 and issued the directions as stated above.

3. Impugning the above judgment, the appellant contends that the reason given by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the right of the Municipality to reject an application for building permit taking into consideration public interest. It is argued that a new Town Planning scheme (for short 'Master plan') for Kannur Municipality is prepared and is pending approval before the competent authority and as per the said scheme, the proposal is to have a 21 meter road and unless sufficient open-space is available, it may not be possible for the Municipality to utilise the open-space for widening of the road. The appellants also produced certain documents along with I.A.No.121/2015 as Annexure R1, which is a letter dated 08/11/2013 issued by the Chief Town Planner to the Municipality indicating that the modified draft plan with the remarks of Chief Town Planner is forwarded for Council's final approval and for taking further action to sanction the plan. The Municipality was requested to forward the plan to the Government for sanctioning through District Planning Committee taking into account the provisions of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Ordinance, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance 51 of 2013). It is contended that the Municipality has suggested certain changes to be incorporated by the Chief Town Planner and accordingly by letter dated 21/02/2014, the Municipality has forwarded to the Chief Town Planner the suggestions for amendment. Certain clarification is sought by the Chief Town Planner by letter dated 15/03/2014 to which a reply dated 30/04/2014 has been sent and the matter is still pending with the Chief Town Planner. It is argued that since the Master plan is being prepared in terms with the present Ordinance, the Master plan published under Section 29 (4) of the Ordinance 51 of 2013 shall continue to be in operation until the plan is finally sanctioned.

4. It is also argued by Sri K.K.Chandran Pillai, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the judgments relied upon by the learned Single Judge have no application to the factual situation as a new Master plan is under preparation, and is awaiting publication. He specifically relied upon Section 29(11) of the Ordinance 51 of 2013 to contend that even though the time limit specified for publication and sanctioning of the master plan is not adhered to, the provisions of the master plan published under sub S