Judgment :- A.S. ANAND, CJ. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10916 of 1990 decided on 4-9-1990. 2. The respondent herein had applied for a licence/building plan permission for construction of a building in R.S. No. 6/2-D Block No. 6 Ward ‘B’ at Gymkhana Road, Kodaikanal. That permission was refused, for the following three reasons; “(a) Since the proposed site lies within the “Agricultural Use Zone” of the consented Master Plan of Kodaikanal Township. (b) As per the revised Master Plan of Kodaikanal the proposed site lies within the ‘Prohibited Area’ and (c) The proposed site is within 200 metres from Gymkhana Grounds and it violates the Master Plan Regulations 8-6-4.” The learned Single Judge examined all the grounds independently and in the light of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant herein and it was found that none of the grounds would justify the refusal to sanction the plan. Nothing was placed before the learned single Judge to show that the grant of permission had been refused on any other ground. Since the grant of permission had been refused for the three grounds noticed hereinabove, and learned Single Judge found that none of these grounds was tenable, he set aside the order impugned in the writ petition. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that there is a violation of 8-6-4 of the revised Master Plan, and, therefore, the direction by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. 8-6-4 of the revised Master Plan reads as follows : “Building activity is prohibited to a depth of 200 metres adjoining the lake area and in the Gymkhana Ground area” A plain reading of the said paragraph shows that within 200 metres adjoining the lake area as also in the Gymkhana ground area, building activity is prohibited. The interpretation placed by the learned Special Government Pleader on 8-6-4 of the revised Master Plan to read within it that the prohibition is also for construction within a depth of 200 Metres in adjoining areas of Gymkhana ground would do violence to the plain language of the paragraph. The use of the expression “and in Gymkhana ground area” unmistakably shows that the prohibition for constructions within 200 metres of the lake area contained in the first part is distinct than the prohibition of constructions within the Gymkhana area. The use of the expression “and in Gymkhana ground area” unmistakably shows that the prohibition for constructions within 200 metres of the lake area contained in the first part is distinct than the prohibition of constructions within the Gymkhana area. If the interpretation of the learned Special Government Pleader were to be accepted, then the paragraph would read : “Building activity is prohibited to a depth of 200 metres adjoining the lake or the Gymkhana ground area.” In other words, we would be deleting the words “area and in” and substituting them by the word “or”. That is not a permissible course to adopt. The Court cannot rewrite the paragraph when on the plain language of it, the interpretation is clear. Keeping in view the stand taken in the counter in our opinion, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are unexceptionable. We have not been persuaded to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. Consequently the writ appeal fails and is dismissed.