A building permit can only be denied for specific reasons under applicable regulations, and parties must be given an opportunity for hearing prior to refusal.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction or order quashing Exhibit P9, being illegal, arbitrary and violative fundamental right of the petitioners, in the interest of justice;

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider the Ext P2 application as per the provisions of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Kerala Panchayat Building Rules ,2019, in the interest of justice;

iii. to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents;

iv. to pass any such or further orders as the petitioner may seek and this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant.

(SIC)

2. Petitioners submitted an application for building permit to construct a residential building. Originally the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed WP(C) No.6335/2025. This Court, as per Ext.P6 judgment, set aside the same and directed to reconsider the matter. Thereafter the Panchayat issued Ext.P7 pointing out certain defects. According to the petitioners, those defects were already cured. Subsequently the petitioners received Ext.P9 order in which it is stated that there is a complaint from a neighbour, and therefore, the building permit application of the petitioners cannot be entertained. Aggrieved by Ext.P9, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat and also the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ext.P9 is an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The counsel also submitted that a building permit application can be rejected only for the reasons mentioned in Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules , 2019, and therefore, Ext.P9 will not stand. The Standing Counsel for the Panchayat takes me through paragraph 10 of the writ petition and submitted that the petitioners are intending to construct a public place of worship.

5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents. This Court perused Ext.P9. Admittedly Ext.P9 is an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. For that simple reason, Ext.P9 is to be set aside. Simply because there is a complaint from a neighbour, that is not a reason to reject a building permit application. If any building is constructed in violation of the building permit, the Panchayat can take action. If a building permit is issued for constructing a residential building and the petitioners convert the same into a prayer hall, the Panchayat is at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. But the building permit application can be rejected only for the reasons mentioned in Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules , 2019. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P9 is to be set aside and the Panchayat has to reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 4^th respondent. The Standing Counsel for the Panchayat submitted that even without getting a building permit, the petitioners already constructed the building. If that is the case, the Panchayat can take action in accordance with law. What I stated is that the reasoning in Ext.P9 to the effect that, there is a complaint from a neighbour and therefore permit cannot be granted, will not stand.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Ext.P9 is set aside.