The court upheld municipal building permits, reaffirming the adherence to statutory time limits for appeals as vital for maintaining legal order.

1. These appeals are filed by the petitioners in WP (C) Nos. 7997 and 14455 of 2014 and the additional 3rd respondent in WP (C) No. 23236 of 2014 respectively against a common judgment, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed WP (C) Nos. 7997 and 14455 of 2014 and disposed of WP (C) No. 23236 of 2014 directing consideration of Ext. P5 therein. For convenience, we shall be referring to the facts and documents that are produced in WP (C) No. 7997 of 2014 against which WA No. 1013 of 2016 is filed.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality.

3. Insofar as WP (C) Nos. 7997 of 2014 is concerned, the challenge therein is basically against Ext. P8 building permit obtained by the second respondent from the Palakkad Municipality and Ext. P12 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government. Institutions dismissing the appeal filed against the building permit. In WP (C) No. 14455 of 2014, the challenge was mainly against Ext. P8, the building permit and Ext. P10, the recommendation of the Art and Heritage Commission. Insofar as WP (C) No. 23236 of 2014 is concerned, that writ petition was filed by the aforesaid second respondent seeking an order to the first respondent in WA No. 1025 of 2016, the Art and Heritage Commission, to consider Ext. P5, whereby a modification to an earlier recommendation made by them vide Ext. P10 was sought. As we have already stated, by the judgment under appeal, WP (C) Nos. 7997 and 14455 of 2014 were dismissed and WP (C) No. 23236 of 2014 was disposed of directing consideration of Ext. P5.

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the second respondent mentioned above is the 76 year old paternal uncle of the appellants in these appeals. It is stated that the second respondent owns a plot of land having an extent of 10 cents, in which a very old building is situated. In order to spend the rest of his life in his ancestral property, he wanted to repair, alter and maintain the said building. Therefore, he applied to the Municipality for a building permit as per Ext. P9 application, it appears that the area in question is a heritage area, which comes within the jurisdiction of Art and Heritage Commission, and in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, the sanction of the Commission was necessary to grant the building permit. It appears that the second respondent had made an application to the Commission, and on consideration of the application, the Commission recommended to the Municipality to grant the building permit vide Ext. P10 dated 17/07/2013. Accordingly, the Municipality considered the matter and issued Ext. P8 building permit on 23/08/2013. It was challenging this building permit, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal after having heard the parties and perusing the files of the Municipality, dismissed the appeal by Ext. P12, which was challenged in WP (C) No. 7997 of 2014, against which WA No. 1013 of 2016 is filed.

5. Insofar as WA No. 1017 of 2016 is concerned, challenging Ext. P8 building permit issued on 23/08/2013 and Ext. P10, the recommendation of the Art and Heritage Commission dated 17/07/2013, the appellant therein filed WP (C) No. 14455 of 2014 on 06/06/2014. According to us, that writ petition ought to have been dismissed at the threshold itself for the reason that if the appellant was aggrieved by the building permit, he had a remedy of appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. As per S.510 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, the time limit prescribed for filing an appeal is 30 days from the date of the order. The petitioner in this wri