JUDGMENT : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. The Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority is in appeal. 2. The 1st respondent, a builder obtained permit from the Cochin Corporation for construction of a multi storied building. It is submitted on a query by us that the structure which has now been completed has 90 dwelling units. When the construction was completed and occupancy certificate was applied for, the Corporation issued Exhibit P7, requiring the builder to get NOC from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority. The builder moved this Court by filing a writ petition. The learned single Judge allowed it. The Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority is, therefore, in appeal, challenging that decision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned standing counsel for the Cochin Corporation. 4. The learned single Judge noted that, on the basis of the findings of the Corporation authorities in its files, there is a clearance of more than 100 meters from any water line, in so far as the construction in question is concerned. It was also noted that the coastal regulation zone issues raised by the Authority do not really have any application, since they depend upon the tidal lines and there is no such issue in the vicinity of the building in question. What seems larger is the fact that the Corporation had granted permission to build. At that time, the Corporation did not have a case that the structure is proposed to be put up in a water body. While the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority says that the google mapping and other particular materials reflect that this is a reclaimed piece of land, we are of the view that once a person is permitted to put up a construction, that has necessarily to be taken as a grant for putting up a construction for occupation. We say this because, the Corporation had the authority to grant permission to construct and when somebody spends to put up such constructions, the institutions of governance cannot turn around and refuse ownership certificate. 5. We see no ground to interfere with the directions issued by the learned single Judge after assimilating the facts and materials on record. This writ appeal, therefore, fails. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed.