Point of Law: Non-arbitrariness is an essential facet of Article 14 pervading the entire realm of State action governed by Article 14. It has come to be established, as a further corollary, that the audi alteram partem facet of natural justice is also a requirement of Article 14, for natural justice is the antithesis of arbitrariness

JUDGMENT :

Above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the 3rd respondent Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, in Appeal No. 337 of 2015, whereby the order passed by the 2nd petitioner, cancelling Ext.P1 building permit issued in favour of the 1st respondent was set aside.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :

The 1st respondent filed an application before the 2nd petitioner for issuance of a building permit for construction of a vehicle service station and pursuant to the same Ext.P1 building permit was issued on 16.12.2014. On the strength of Ext.P1 building permit, 1st respondent undertook the construction work. While so, Ext.P2 notice dated 26.3.2015 was affixed by the petitioners at the construction site of the 1st respondent intimating that Ext.P1 building permit issued to the 1st respondent is cancelled and that no construction shall be undertaken at the site. After issuance of Ext.P2, a major portion of the building constructed by the 1st respondent was demolished by the petitioners. Challenging Ext.P2, the 1st respondent filed Ext.P3 appeal before the 3rd respondent, Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The petitioners herein filed a detailed written statement before the Tribunal mainly contending that it was by a mistake that Ext.P1 building permit was issued in favour of the 1st respondent for construction of a service station and that on 16.2.2015 Ext.P4 stop memo was issued by the 2nd respondent Village Officer and thereafter, on 18.2.2015 the 2nd petitioner also issued Ext.P5 stop memo directing the 1st respondent to stop all construction in the property. Thereafter, Ext.P7 notice was issued by the 2nd petitioner on 27.03.2015 directing to demolish the unauthorized construction within a period of 7 days failing which steps to demolish the unauthorised construction will be taken by the Panchayath. A further notice was issued on 28.03.2015 as Ext.P8 directing the 1st respondent to demolish the unauthorised construction within 24 hours and in the event of failure to do so, the Panchayath will take steps to demolish the same.

3. The 3rd respondent Tribunal after considering the rival contentions of the parties allowed the appeal as per Ext.P9 order dated 20.6.2016, whereby Ext.P2 notice dated 26.3.2015 issued by the 1st petitioner was set aside and the permit issued to the 1st respondent was restored, however making it clear that if the situation so requires, the 2nd petitioner, will be at liberty to initiate appropriate fresh proceedings as per law against the 1st respondent notwithstanding the issuance of Ext.P9 order. It is challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the 3rd respondent that the present writ petition is filed.

4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1st respondent mainly contending that no documents have been produced in the writ petition to rebut the factual findings of the Tribunal in Ext.P9 order. Ext.P1 building permit was issued after due inspection and verification of the documents and on the strength of the report by the overseer of the 1st petitioner panchayat and that there is no misrepresentation by the 1st respondent as alleged in Ext.P5 notice. Ext.P2 notice was not served on him in person, instead the same was affixed at the construction site, and therefore notice was not served as prescribed in Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Manner of Service of Notices) Rules, 1996. It was further contended that Ext.P1 permit was cancelled without issuing a show-cause notice and without affording an opportunity of being heard and therefore the same has been done in utter violation of Rule 18 of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011. Since the cancellation of the permit was not in accordance with the law, Ext.P9 order issued by the Tribunal interfering with the same, is perfectly legal and valid and therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

5. Heard Sri. Alexander George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners a