The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9597 of 2017 is an entrepreneur who has been consistently before the Panchayat and this Court and various other authorities for establishment of a M-Sand and Hollow-brick unit. The same is opposed by respondents 3 and 4. Respondent No.4 along with another have filed W.P.(C) No.4576 of 2017 seeking a direction to consider the representation against the establishment of the said unit. The parties are referred to from their status in W.P.(C) No.9597 of 2017.

2. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the documents from Exhibits P1 to P26 need not be referred to at this point, since the entire controversy has been settled by Exhibit P27 judgment. Exhibit P27 considered a series of Writ Appeals filed against the common judgment in Writ Petitions by both the petitioner and the party respondents. The issue was insofar as a Consent to Establish haying been granted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board [for brevity “PCB”] for establishing a Hollow-brick and M-Sand unit. The contention was with respect to the unit being within the prohibited distance as measured; with reference to the capacity of the motor used within the unit. By Exhibit P27 judgment, this Court found that the Consent to Establish as issued by the PCB, is proper and there would be no interference made to the same. In the course of the judgment, the Civil Suit which was filed by the party respondents, was also referred to. Similar contentions raised before the Civil Court was rejected and the suit stood dismissed.

3. The Consent to Establish has the approval of the Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner, armed with Exhibit P27, and a building permit issued by the local authority; constructed the building and approached the local authority for numbering of the building. The local authority issued Exhibit P29, which, according to the learned Standing Counsel, is only a direction to cure the defects and not one rejecting the application as such. The objectors, who appear through learned Counsel in both the Writ Petitions, submit that the petitioner has not, till date, obtained a permission to establish under S.233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [for brevity “KPR Act”]. It is submitted that the said application has not even been made till date and the application was only for the construction of a building. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, would refer to Exhibit P33 to contend that the Council had permitted the establishment.

4. Exhibit P33 is a decision taken by the Council, allowing the building permit. It indicates that the application made was also for the purpose of a permit for building a Hollow-brick unit. On the basis of Exhibit P33 decision, the Secretary also has issued a building permit; based on which the construction has been proceeded with and completed. Looking at the decision at Exhibit P23, it cannot be said to be a decision taken under S.233 of the KPR Act. The issuance of building permit is within the exclusive premise of the Secretary of the local authority and it need not have been referred to the Council. The Panchayat committed a mistake insofar as referring it to the Council and the Secretary issuing a permit on the basis of the decision taken by the Council. Having issued the permit, at this stage this Court need not further look into whether the building permit was issued properly or not.

5. Building permit has been issued by the Panchayat and based on which construction has also been carried out. The mistake is insofar as the petitioner having not applied for a permission to establish, as provided under S.233 of the KPR Act; after which alone building permit could be applied for and then a D&O Licence sought as provided under S.232 of the KPR Act. The petitioner also cannot take a contention that since the building permit has been granted, there can be no further refusal of a permission to establish. The permission to establ