J U D G M E N T

Petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order by which Ext.P1 letter of intent issued to the petitioner allotting LPG godown is canceled on the ground that petitioner could not get approval for the construction of godown or find out alternate land suitable for the godown even after the lapse of 24 months of issuance of LOI. Ext.P1 Letter of intent was issued on 30.07.2018. According to petitioner she had entered into a lease agreement for construction of the godown in that property, which is 400 meters away from the main road and took steps for getting permit for construction of the godown. It is stated that as per the official records the road to the leased property was having 7 meters' width from the starting point to end point. But she could not get approval from the town planner. As per Ext.P4 letter, the town planner rejected the application stating that sufficient width of 7 meter was not available on all portions of the road as required under Rule 61(4) of Kerala Panchayath Raj Building Rules 2011, under which 7 meters' motorable road is a prerequisite. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. (C).No.21066 of 2019 and this Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Panchayath with a request to survey and measure the road. The Grama Panchayath thereafter issued Ext.P6 letter informing her that the survey records are not available and therefore it was not possible to conduct the survey and to fix the width of the road. It is stated that though the petitioner had informed all those matters to respondents 1 and 2, Ext.P7 order was issued on 30.07.2018 cancelling the LOI with immediate effect. It was also stated that the location is advertised with effect from 16.07.2020.

2. The additional 4th respondent-Town Planner has filed a statement stating that under Rule 34(2) Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011 the LPG Cylinder Storage Godwon falls under the category Group-1: Hazardous Occupancy. As per Rule 61(4) the minimum clear width of access to a building as well as the width of street giving access to the plot from the main street shall be 7 meters and shall be motorable. It is stated that petitioner's application was rejected as per Ext.P6 letter after conducting site inspection when the width was found to be 5.8m, 6m, 6.4m and 6.6m respectively on certain points as permission could not be granted to the petitioner due to lack of 7 meter's width on all points. It is stated that the town planner does not have any authority to grant any relaxation.

3. Panchayath has also filed a counter affidavit stating that permit can be issued only on production of permit from the Regional Town Planner. It is stated that the construction falls under category of Group I buildings which is prone to danger and therefore permission from the Town Planner under 61(1) and No Objection Certificate from Fire and Rescue Department as per Rule 61 (7) Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011 are required.

4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit stating that petitioner had undertaken that the candidature can be rejected in the event of her inability to provide an all-weather motorable approach road in accordance with the condition fixed therein. It is stated that there should be unhindered movement of LPG Cylinder truck for running the business of LPG distributorship. It is for this purpose that approach road has been insisted for a godown. It is stated that the petitioner was already asked to provide approach road to the land for godown in accordance with eligibility requirement within a period of 4 months from the date of issuance of LOI, failing which it was informed that allotment would be cancelled along with forfeiture of 10% of the amount deposited for conducting the field verification of credentials in accordance with Ext.R1(b) brochure on unified selection guidelines and that Ext.P7 was issued since the petitioner failed to carry out the undertaking in Ext.R1(a). It i