Judicial review of administrative decisions is limited when statutory remedies are available for aggrieved parties.

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to quash Exts.

P18 and P20 orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner is a Society, who has constructed a building as per Ext. P1 building permit. The respondents 4 and 5, who are on enimical terms with the petitioner, have filed complaints against the construction. To change the nature of the occupancy, the petitioner has preferred Ext. P9 request before the second respondent to use the assembly hall as a chapel. Thereafter, the third respondent issued Ext. P12 communication stating that the petitioner has unauthorisedly carried out additional constructions, which have to be regularised. The petitioner submitted Ext. P13 reply to Ext. P12 communication. After that, by Ext. P14 request, the petitioner had requested temporary permission to conduct their prayer meetings. Since the application was not considered, by Ext. P15 judgment, this Court had directed the respondents to take a decision in the matter. While so, by Ext. P18 decision, the second respondent has rejected the application. Based on Ext. P18 decision, the third respondent has issued Ext. P20 communication stating that the change of the occupation cannot be permitted. Exts. P18 and P20 are erroneous and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. In view of the judgment, I propose to pass, I dispense with the notice to the respondents 4 and 5.

4. Indisputably, Exts. P18 and P20 orders have been passed rejecting the petitioner's application for change of occupation. The said orders squarely fall in the purview of Rule 108 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 , which contemplates an alternative statutory remedy by preferring an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.