Judgment :- K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1 to 3 respondents to give adequate police protection to the life and properties of petitioner. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing 2nd and 3rd respondents to take appropriate action against the 4 to 10 respondents, if they are making objection/protest to the proposed digging of bore well by the petitioner in his landed premise based on Ext.P3 advice from the ground water department. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2 and 3 respondents to take appropriate action upon the Exhibit P5 complaint preferred by the petitioner against 4 to 10 respondents and also declare that there is no valid permit required for digging bore well in Madavoor Grama Panchayat, which is not a graded Panchayat or which is not a notified area as per Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002." 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a non-resident Indian, working at Saudi Arabia from the last 12 years. Petitioner got a piece of property as his ancestral property by way of settlement deed in the year 1990. The total extent of the land is 45 cents. The land is comprised in Sy.No.365/1 of Madavoor Village, Chirayinkeezhi Taluk. Petitioner is now constructing residential building in the land mentioned above. The building work is almost complete and the petitioner's family is residing in the said building for the last two years. The open well of the petitioner in the landed premise is filled with black rock, which resulted to further rising of the depth of the open well. In such situation, the petitioner tried to dig a bore well in the proposed building site which caused protest from the part of the 4 to 10 respondents. A number of bore wells were dug recently in the nearby locality of the petitioner and no protest were raised from the part of the 4 to 10 respondents, on the sole reason that they are their relatives. A number of bore wells were dug recently in the nearby locality of the petitioner and no protest were raised from the part of the 4 to 10 respondents, on the sole reason that they are their relatives. Now, a threat of life persist from the part of the 4 to 10 respondents, which cause too much difficulty and hardship to the petitioner and his family members. In such situation, the petitioner is before us. 3. Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 4 to 10, stating, inter alia, that the petitioner has not received permission from the Ground Water Authority and the Madavur Panchayat is a necessary party to the Writ Petition. The party respondents are persons living in the neighbourhood and their source of drinking water is from the well and if bore well is dug, it will lower the water table and will result in the wells of the party respondents to be dried up. Several bore wells which were dug, caused the water table to go lower and thus the wells began getting dried up. The single biggest source of ground water depletion and lowering of the water table is over-pumping. Water enters underground water supplies through seepage of rainwater and run off and from the beds of bodies of water. The water travels slowly through layers of soil and rock before finally reaching the water table. Along the way, it is filtered and purified. That process can take a considerable amount of time, depending on the depth of the water table, the make up of the surrounding rock and the amount of water seeping into the soil. If the water does not have a chance to replenish itself after it is pumped out, the water table will drop and the band of water in the ground under the water table will shrink. If over-pumping occurs over a long period, wells will run dry. It is stated that the petitioner came to dig the bore well in the night hours and the party respondents have not caused any resistance as alleged and that they did not take the law and order into their hands. 4. Petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit. Therein, it is stated that the petitioner built a house on the basis of Ext.P1 permit. 4. Petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit. Therein, it is stated that the petitioner built a house on the basis of Ext.P1 permit. It is stated that Rule 10(xiii) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules categorically states that buildings in category II village panchayats under Group A-1 residential occupancy with total built up area on all floors upto 300 sq. metres including existing and proposed within the plot and the number of storeys limited to two and all single family residential buildings. Hence, as per G.O. (MS). No.41/11/LSGD dated 14/02/2011 issued by the Local Self Government Department clearly stated that category II village panchayats are not bound to issue permit, if it exceeds the total built up area on all floors which exceed 300 sq. metres. After oxygen, the predominant concern with the entire living organism is water. Petitioner is compelled to extract ground water by digging bore well. The State of Kerala is totally depending on rain falls and now the situation is totally changed and the State depend upon mainly ground water resources for personal use as well as commercial use. It is also stated that the controlling of ground water extraction is mainly persisting in the drought area, like Kasaragod, Punaloor and Palakkad. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the party respondents and the learned Government Pleader. Petitioner seeks to dig a bore well. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the area is not a notified area under the Kerala Ground Water (Control & Regulation) Act, 2002. But, according to petitioner, no permit is required from the panchayat for digging a well under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. This argument is premised on the provisions contained in Rule 10 of the said Rules. According to the learned counsel, the area in which the petitioner's land is located, falls in a category II village panchayat. He relies on a Notification issued by the Government. According to him, Madavoor Panchayat in which the well is sought to be dug, is not a Class I panchayat. Except all panchayats which are notified as Class I panchayats, the rest are to be treated as category II panchayats. Petitioner may be right in contending that Madavoor Panchayat is not included as Class I Panchayat and hence it may be treated as category II panchayat. Except all panchayats which are notified as Class I panchayats, the rest are to be treated as category II panchayats. Petitioner may be right in contending that Madavoor Panchayat is not included as Class I Panchayat and hence it may be treated as category II panchayat. But, we must examine whether the petitioner can still contend that for digging a bore well permit is not required under Rule 91 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules. Rule 91 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules reads as follows: "91. Essentiality of permit.- (1) No new well shall be dug without the permission of the Secretary. (2) Where any person intends to dig a well, he shall submit an application in the form in Appendix A to the Secretary, together with a site plan and document to prove the ownership. (3) The site plan shall show the position and dimension of the well and all existing and proposed buildings and structures in the site and within 7.5 metres radius from that well." Rule 91 falls under Chapter XIV. Rule 10, no doubt, inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules, no permit shall be necessary for executing certain works which do not otherwise violate any provisions regarding applicable general building requirements/structural safety and fire safety requirements of the said Rules. Rule 10(xiii) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules reads as follows: "10. Permit not necessary for certain works.-Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, no building permit shall be necessary for executing the following works which do not otherwise violate any provisions regarding applicable general building requirements, structural stability and fire safety requirements of the rules, namely:- (xiii) Buildings in Category-II Village Panchayats under Group A1-Residential occupancy with total built-up area on all floors upto 300 sq. metres (including existing and proposed within the plot) and the number of storeys limited to two and all single family Residential Buildings." "Building" as defined, reads as follows: "2. metres (including existing and proposed within the plot) and the number of storeys limited to two and all single family Residential Buildings." "Building" as defined, reads as follows: "2. Definition.-(1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,- (m) `building' includes any structure for whatsoever purpose and of whatsoever material constructed and every part thereof whether used for human habitation or not and includes foundations, plinth, walls, floors, roofs, chimneys, plumbing and building services, verandah, balcony, cornice or projections, part of a building, wells or anything affixed thereto or any wall enclosing or intended to enclose any land or space and signs and outdoor display structures." Undoubtedly, "building" takes in wells also. We must also advert to the definition of the words "built up area" contained in Section 2(o) which reads as follows: "2. Definition.- (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires.- (o) "built-up area" means the covered area at any floor, covered by roof other than cornice, roof or weather shades permissible." At any rate, the contention of the petitioner is based on sub-rules (xiii) and (xiv) of Rule 10. Therein, as far as sub-rule (xiii) is concerned, it refers to buildings in category II panchayats, but limited to Group A-I residential occupancy with a total built up area on all floors upto 300 sq. metres. Group A1 reads as follows: "Group A1 - Residential Building shall include any building in which sleeping accommodation is provided for normal residential purposes, with or without either cooking, and dining facilities. They shall include one or multifamily dwellings, apartment buildings or residential flats. Small professional Offices or spaces for advocates, doctors, engineers, architects, chartered accountants, beauticians, tailors, photographers, videographers, telephone booth operators, computer professionals, typists electrical or electronic equipment service professionals, not exceeding 50 sq. metres floor area and used as part of principal residential occupancy are also included in this group." Group A1 relates to residential buildings. The exemption in respect of Group A1 residential occupancy is limited however to those occupied with total built up area on all floors upto 300 sq. metres, including existing and proposed within the plot and the number of storeys is limited to two and all single storeyed residential buildings. We have already noticed the definition of the words "built up area". Necessarily, it must be a structure which is covered by roof other than cornice, roof or weather shades. metres, including existing and proposed within the plot and the number of storeys is limited to two and all single storeyed residential buildings. We have already noticed the definition of the words "built up area". Necessarily, it must be a structure which is covered by roof other than cornice, roof or weather shades. As far as well is concerned, we find it inconceivable that it can be treated as a building with built up area as contemplated under Group A1 residential occupancy. As far as the petitioner's residential building is concerned, probably it may come up under Group A1. But here, we are concerned with the question whether for constructing the well the petitioner is required to obtain a permit. Therefore, the petitioner, though seeking to construct a well in category II village panchayat, cannot avail of the exemption from obtaining permit. As far as sub-rule (xiv) of Rule 10 is concerned, namely, buildings in category II village panchayats under Group A2 and F occupancy mentioned in other categories, well will not fall within Group A2 and F occupancy. It is also noteworthy that after setting out buildings falling under Group A2 and F occupancy, the rule maker has expressly referred to poultry farms, livestock farms, traditional coir works, handloom units, cashew processing units, lime kilns, carpentry and smithy units, but not included wells would show that the authority has not contemplated well as within the exempted category under Rule 10 (xiv). If that be so, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Rule 10. The inevitable consequence of the above discussion is that the petitioner has to apply and obtain permit under Rule 91. Petitioner has approached this Court without obtaining such permit. No doubt, the case of the petitioner is that according to the panchayat, it is not necessary. We do not think that if the panchayat takes such a view, it can be accepted as the correct legal position. We cannot issue a writ of mandamus when the direction to the police will be to do something which is contrary to law. Writ Court cannot be called upon to issue mandamus to direct an authority to act contrary to law. In such circumstances, we are constrained to decline jurisdiction. We however leave it open to the petitioner to seek permission from the panchayat and seek remedies thereafter. Writ Court cannot be called upon to issue mandamus to direct an authority to act contrary to law. In such circumstances, we are constrained to decline jurisdiction. We however leave it open to the petitioner to seek permission from the panchayat and seek remedies thereafter. Undoubtedly, we only observe that if the petitioner makes an application under Rule 91 of the Building Rules, the Panchayat will necessarily consider the same in accordance with law at the earliest. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.