This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To call for the records leading to Ext.P7 resolution of the 2nd respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari;

ii. To call for the records leading to Ext.P6 notice of the 1st respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari;

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to issue building permit to the petitioner as per application dated 01.04.2015 as evidenced by Ext.P3(a) within a stipulated time; and

iv. To grant such other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Material facts for the disposal of the Writ Petition are as follows:

3. Petitioner applied for a building permit before the 1st respondent for starting an industrial unit. Petitioner had already obtained licence from Single Window Clearance Board for starting the unit. The application for building permit filed by the petitioner was not considered by the Panchayat for a pretty long time, and thereupon, petitioner has approached this Court and secured a judgment in W.P.(C) No.33937 of 2016, directing the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to take a decision in the application submitted by the petitioner, evident from Ext.P5 judgment. Thereupon, the application was considered by the Panchayat Committee as per Ext.P7 minutes dated 13.03.2017, which was communicated to the petitioner as per Ext.P6 order dated 21.03.2017 by the Secretary of the 1st respondent. It is thus challenging Exts.P6 and P7, this Writ Petition is filed.

4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2, justifying their stand adopted in Exts.P6 and P7. The paramount contention is that, the petitioner has got a remedy to challenge Exts.P6 and P7 by preferring appropriate proceedings before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. That apart, it is submitted that, the permit application was submitted by the petitioner to start a plastic re-processing unit. While so, objections were raised from various quarters against the grant of permit, stating that, establishment of the unit in a thickly populated area where they are living, would cause unbearable hardships to the people of the locality, evident from Ext.R1(a) complaint preferred before the District Collector.

5. The application submitted by the petitioner for establishment of the unit was considered by the Panchayat Committee in its meeting held on 20.11.2013. After considering the entire aspects on merit, it was decided not to grant licence to the unit. It was also decided to intimate the said decision to the General Manager, District Industries Centre. Other contentions are also raised justifying the action of the Panchayat Committee.

6. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner, reiterating the stand adopted in the Writ Petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

8. The controversy revolves around Exts.P7 and P6 decision of the 2nd respondent and the communication issued by the Secretary of the 1st respondent Panchayat, respectively. The paramount contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, so far as the building permit application is concerned, the same is to be considered by the Secretary of the Panchayat, who alone is vested with powers in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 (for short, ‘the Rules, 2011’). However, for reasons best known, the application for the building permit was considered by the 2nd respondent and there is no power vested with under the Building Rules, 2011, for the 2nd respondent to consider a building permit application. Even though petitioner has sought the permit to construct a building to start an industry, the Panchayat Committee is not at liberty to reject the building permit applicatio