Judgment : A. Selvam, j. The impugned order dated 23.12.2009 passed in W.P.(MD) No.6302 of 2009 is being challenged in the present Writ Appeal. 2. The appellant herein as petitioner has filed W.P.(MD) No.6302 of 2009 on the file of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus so as to call for records relating to the order passed in ROC.C3/5352/07 by the first respondent. 3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner has been serving as pastor of Assembly of God, North Street, Neyyoor, Kanyakumari District and the said Assembly of God is in existence in the old house mentioned in the petition and for renovating the same, an application has been submitted to the first respondent viz., the District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. But the first respondent has rejected the same by way of passing the order in ROC.C3/5352/07 and the first respondent has specifically held that if such permission is granted, law and order problem would arise and in order to set aside the order passed by the first respondent, the present Writ petition has been filed as stated above. 4. The learned Single Judge after considering the divergent submissions made on either side, has dismissed the Writ Petition. Against the dismissal order, the present Writ Appeal has been filed at the instance of the petitioner as appellant. 5. The Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner has contended that the writ petitioner has attempted to get permission from the first respondent so as to renovate the building mentioned in the petition, wherein Assembly of God has been running. But the first respondent without assigning proper reason has rejected the request of the appellant/petitioner by way of holding that if such permission is granted, law and order problem would arise. Under the said circumstances, for quashing the order passed by the first respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed and the appellant/petitioner has erroneously dismissed the Writ Petition and thereafter, the dismissal order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with. 6. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate has contended with great vehemence that if permission is granted to the appellant/petitioner, definitely law and order problem would arise. 6. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate has contended with great vehemence that if permission is granted to the appellant/petitioner, definitely law and order problem would arise. Under the said circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the first respondent for rejecting the permission sought by the petitioner is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference and the Learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed W.P.(MD) No.6302 of 2009 and therefore, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge does not requires any interference. 7. It is seen from the records and also it is seen from the rival submission made on either side that the appellant/petitioner has sent an application to the first respondent for getting necessary permission so as to renovate the building which has been mentioned in the petition. 8. The Learned Government Advocate has submitted a photograph for the purpose of showing the juxtaposition of the building mentioned in the petition and other contiguous buildings. 9. In fact, that Court has seen the said photograph and ultimately found that the building which has been mentioned in the petition is in the stage of ramshackle condition and it requires immediate repairs or renovations. 10. The appellant has applied properly to the first respondent for getting necessary permission. But the first respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner by way of saying that if such permission is granted, law and order problem would arise. 11. In fact, immediately on the southern side of the building mentioned in the petition a newly constructed building is in existence. Since a newly constructed building is in existence and both buildings are contiguous properties, this Court is of the view that the apprehension expressed by the first respondent viz., the District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil is nothing but farce and further it is the duty of the Authorities to give necessary permission either to effect repair or to renovate the building mentioned in the petition. In really, after giving permission, law and order problem would arise, the Government machineries can take suitable action so as to pacify the same. But the reason given by the first respondent for rejecting the permission is not proper. 12. In really, after giving permission, law and order problem would arise, the Government machineries can take suitable action so as to pacify the same. But the reason given by the first respondent for rejecting the permission is not proper. 12. The Learned Single Judge without considering the nature of the permission sought for by the appellant/petitioner and also without considering the dilapidated condition of the building mentioned in the petition has erroneously dismissed W.P.(MD) No.6302 of 2009 and in view of the discussion made earlier, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for in the Writ Petition can easily be granted. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the contention put forth on the side of the appellant/petitioner is really having merit, whereas the contention put forth on the side of the respondent is sans merit. 13. In fine, this Writ Appeal is allowed without cost. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The order passed in W.P.(MD) No.6302 of 2009 is set aside and the order passed by the first respondent in ROC.C3/5352/07 is quashed. The appellant/petitioner is directed to submit a new application along with requisite plan for getting approval to the first respondent viz., the District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. The first respondent is directed to pass suitable order subject to certain limitation if necessary.