JUDGMENT : The case of the petitioner is that he is owning 10 cents of property in Sy.No.560/399 of Vanchiyoor Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. He had submitted an application before the 2nd respondent-Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation for issuance of a building permit for constructing a commercial building in the year 2003. Later, a revised plan was submitted in that regard on 25.4.2013. Since there was long delay in the issuance of the building permit the petitioner was constrained to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions for adjudicating the issue in the matter of issuance of building permit. This led to Ext.P-1 order by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions rendered on 23.6.2014 in Appeal No.1081/2013 instituted by the petitioner herein. By Ext.P-1, the Tribunal disposed of the petitioner's appeal by directing that the petitioner has to file a fresh application with required plan within 15 days and thereafter the 2nd respondent-Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation was directed to dispose of the application within one month from the date of receipt of the application of the building permit. It is averred that the petitioner had submitted the revised application in compliance with the directives of the Tribunal in Ext.P-1 order and the 2nd respondent-Corporation had referred the matter in relation to the petitioner's application for issuance of a building permit to the 1st respondent-Chief Town Planner and Member Secretary of Art and Heritage Commission for necessary concurrence as the construction proposed by the petitioner is in the notified Heritage Zone. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P-2 proceedings dated 27.6.2016 granting necessary concurrence to the 2nd respondent-Corporation in the matter of issuance of building permit, subject to the general conditions and special conditions mentioned therein. In Ext.P-2, the 1st respondent Heritage Commission has granted approval/concurrence for issuing building permit to the petitioner subject to satisfying the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred for short as 'the KMBR, 1999'), and the other conditions mentioned therein including the condition therein that permission granted to the petitioner is not transferable and if the plot is transferred in any circumstances, the concurrence given by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P-2 for issuance of building permit will stand automatically cancelled. The petitioner has no grievance in all the general conditions and special conditions stipulated by the Heritage Commission in Ext.P-2 except the condition therein which reads as follows: "The permission is not transferable. The petitioner has no grievance in all the general conditions and special conditions stipulated by the Heritage Commission in Ext.P-2 except the condition therein which reads as follows: "The permission is not transferable. It shall be valid for a period of 3 years commencing with the date of issue. If the plot is transferred in any circumstances, the concurrence issued is automatically cancelled". It is this condition that is under challenge in the present writ proceedings. The prayers as raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are as follows: "1. Call for the entire records relating to Exts-P1 and P2 from the respondents; 2. Quash Ext-P2 to the extend it restrains the petitioner from transferring permission and the plot in which the concurrence is given for constructing building; 3. Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ or order or direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass order on the application of the petitioner for issuing building permit in 10 cents of property in Sy.No.560/399 of Vanchiyoor Village of Thiruvananthapuram Taluk without imposing restriction on transfer of the property and building permit. 4. Such other relief that this Hon'ble court may deem fit to render justice to the Petitioner." 2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 5.12.2016 through the learned Government Pleader. It is averred therein that the Government in compliance with the statutory requirement of Rule 154 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, had constituted the Art and Heritage Commission vide G.O(Ms).No.111/2000/LSGD dated 19.4.2000 and that as per the recommendations of the Commission, an Art and Heritage Committee has been constituted comprising the Member Secretary of the Commission as Convenor and Director of Archaeology, Chief Architect PWD and a Conservation Architect as members for rendering recommendations/advice on behalf of the Commission on architectural character of the facade and heritage conservation on individual applications and that the Chief Town Planner is the Ex-officio Member Secretary of the Heritage Commission. Reference is made to the provisions contained in clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 155 which deals with wide ranging powers conferred on the Commission. Reference is made to the provisions contained in clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 155 which deals with wide ranging powers conferred on the Commission. It is also stated in Rule 3 of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, that notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, the provisions or regulations in any Town Planning Scheme in force under the Town Planning Act shall prevail over the respective provisions of these rules wherever such scheme exists. As regards the facts of the matter, in para 4 of the counter affidavit it is averred that the proposed site of the petitioner falls under the Residential zone in the sanctioned General Town Planning Scheme for Thiruvananthapuram and as per the varied zoning regulations of the sanctioned General Town Planning Scheme for Thiruvananthapuram sanctioned as per G.O.(Ms).No.144/07/LSGD dated 31.5.2007, the proposed site comes under the Fort Area & Environs and that in this zone, no development, redevelopment, construction including additions, alteration, repairs, renovations, replacement of special and architectural features, demolition of any part or whole thereof in respect of any objects of buildings in this area, shall be allowed except with the prior written recommendation of the Art and Heritage Commission constituted by the Government under Rule 154 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, in order to conserve the heritage character of the area. That the zoning regulations also stipulate that the Art and Heritage commission if found necessary may entrust the above regulatory aspects to committees constituted for the purpose by the Commission. Further it is averred in para 6 of the counter affidavit that in such area, concurrence/permission of Art and Heritage Commission is granted for obtaining building permit from the concerned local body concerned. Further that, the said concurrence/permission is granted to individual application and that as per Ext.P-2 proceedings dated 27.6.2016, it has been clearly stipulated that concurrence/permission from Art and Heritage Commission cannot be transferred and that this condition is insisted with due regard to the conservation of building, precincts and natural features of heritage value and the second condition in Ext.P-2 does not intend that the plot owned by the petitioner or the building permit issued from the local body cannot be transferred. It only intends that concurrence/permission of Art and Heritage Commission shall be obtained by the transferee afresh. It only intends that concurrence/permission of Art and Heritage Commission shall be obtained by the transferee afresh. Further reference is also made in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent to sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the KMBR, 1999, regarding the stipulation that every person in whose favour any property is transferred along with a development or building permit by the transferor shall before commencing or continuing the work obtain permit of the secretary in writing before commencing or continuing the work. It is also stated in para 8 of the counter affidavit that the impugned condition in Ext.P-2 does not hinder the petitioner to transfer plot with building permit obtained from local body. It only mandates that fresh concurrence shall be obtained from the Art and Heritage Commission. It is clearly averred in the counter affidavit that the impugned condition clearly states that concurrence/permission from the Heritage Commission shall be obtained by the transferee afresh. 3. Heard Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. N. Nandakumara Menon, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. P.K. Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation, appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the 1st respondent. 4. The short point that arises for consideration is as to whether the 1st respondent Commission is competent to issue the impugned condition and also the aspect as to whether even if the 1st respondent-Commission is so competent, whether the said condition can be branded as arbitrary or unreasonable. To determine this issue, it would be relevant to make a reference to Chapters II & III of the KMBR, 1999 which deal with the aspects relating to issuance of building permit. Chapter II of the Rules contains the caption "permit" and it contains Rules 4 to 16 and Chapter III is with the caption "action against unauthorised construction" which contains Rules 17 to 22. Rules 4, 5, 6 & 7 deal with 'essentiality of permit, application for development permit, site plan, service plan, etc., to be submitted and application for building permit' respectively. Rule 12 deals with the 'grounds on which approval of site or permission to construct or reconstruct building may be rejected'. Rule 15A deals with 'extension and renewal of periods of permits'. Rule 12 deals with the 'grounds on which approval of site or permission to construct or reconstruct building may be rejected'. Rule 15A deals with 'extension and renewal of periods of permits'. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15A stipulates that a development permit or a building permit issued under these rules shall be valid for three years from the date of issue. The manner and method of extension and renewal of periods of permits are dealt with in other sub-rules of that rule. Rule 16 deals with 'suspension and revocation of permit'. Rule 21 under Chapter III of the Rules deals with 'transfer of plots to be intimated'. Rule 21 reads as follows: "Rule 21: Transfer of plots to be intimated.- (1) Every person holding development or building permit shall, unless the work has been executed in full and development or occupancy certificate obtained, inform the Secretary, every transfer of the whole or part of any property involved in the permit together with the name and address of the transferee and his intention to transfer or otherwise of the permit. (2) Every person in whose favour any property is transferred along with a development or building permit by the transferor shall before commencing or continuing the work obtain permit of the Secretary in writing. (3) The request for permission to commence or continue work shall be submitted in white paper affixed with necessary court fee stamp, together with document regarding the ownership and possession certificate and fee of Rs.25. (4) The Secretary shall, if convinced that the transfer will not in any way badly affect the development or construction, issue permission in wring, transferring the permit and allowing the commencement or continuation of the work, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the request." 5. Chapter XXII of the KMBR, 1999, deals with 'Art and Heritage Commission' and Rule 154 thereof speaks about the 'Constitution of the Commission' and the 'functions of the Commission' are laid down in Rule 155. Rule 154(1) stipulates that the 'Government may constitute an Art and Heritage Commission for the State'. Chapter XXII of the KMBR, 1999, deals with 'Art and Heritage Commission' and Rule 154 thereof speaks about the 'Constitution of the Commission' and the 'functions of the Commission' are laid down in Rule 155. Rule 154(1) stipulates that the 'Government may constitute an Art and Heritage Commission for the State'. Rule 154(2) stipulates that the 'Commission shall consist of, (i) Secretary, Local Self Government Department who shall be the Chairman, (ii) Director of Panchayats, (iii) Director of Municipal Administration, (iv) Chief Town Planner, (v) Director, Archeology Department, (vi) Chief Engineer (Buildings), PWD and (vii) two persons having knowledge and experience in Art, Architecture or History, nominated by the Government'. Rule 155 which deals with the functions of the Commission provides as follows:- "Rule 155. Function of the Commission.- (1) Function of the Commission shall be- (i) to identify areas of heritage and monuments to be preserved; (ii) to identify areas of architectural importance and building to be preserved; (iii) to identify places or streets where a particular form or group of architectural forms of buildings alone may be permitted and to prepare model plans, elevations, etc; for that place or street; (iv) to examine architectural features in respect of any building or parts thereof or their aesthetic vis-a-vis the existing structures in a particular area or street; (v) to advise Government or Municipality on any subject mentioned above and referred to it; and (vi) to submit periodical reports. (2) The Municipality may insist any particular architectural or aesthetic form of construction on any street or area is advised by the Commission. (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules and with due regard to the conservation of buildings, precincts and natural features of heritage value, the commission shall have powers to recommend to permit or recommend to decline and developments, uses and constructions including additions, alteration demolitions etc., within the areas identified or advised by the commission as having heritage value. (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules and with due regard to the conservation of buildings, precincts and natural features of heritage value, the commission shall have powers to recommend to permit or recommend to decline and developments, uses and constructions including additions, alteration demolitions etc., within the areas identified or advised by the commission as having heritage value. (ii) The municipality shall seek such recommendations of the commission, and the recommendations of the commission shall be binding to the Municipality including any particular architectural or aesthetic form of construction in the case of land developments and constructions in such area." In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is clearly stated that concurrence/permission of the Art and Heritage Commission wherever applicable is granted for obtaining building permit from the local body concerned and permission granted to individual application. The counter affidavit makes it clear that the proposed site comes under the Fort Area & Environs and that in this zone, no development, redevelopment, construction including additions, alteration, repairs, renovations, replacement of special and architectural features, demolition of any part or whole thereof in respect of any objects of buildings in this area, shall be allowed except with the prior written recommendation of the Art and Heritage Commission constituted by the Government under Rule 154 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, in order to conserve the heritage character of the area. Therefore, a reading of the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent makes it clear that in such a situation, the concurrence/permission granted by the Art and Heritage Commission as the one in Ext.P-2 is granted for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to obtain building permit from the local body and this was granted to an individual application. In this regard, this Court has also to bear in mind as it is averred that the varied zoning regulations of the sanctioned General Town Planning Scheme for Thiruvananthapuram, sanctioned as per G.O(Ms). No.144/07/LSGD dated 31.05.2007, the efficacy of Rule 3(i)(a) of the KMBR, 1999, is also relevant in the context. Rule 3(i)(a) of the KMBR reads as follows:- "Rule 3. Applicability.- These rules shall apply to,- (i) any public or private building as described below, namely:- (a) where a building is newly erected, these rules shall apply to the designs and construction of the building". Rule 3(i)(a) of the KMBR reads as follows:- "Rule 3. Applicability.- These rules shall apply to,- (i) any public or private building as described below, namely:- (a) where a building is newly erected, these rules shall apply to the designs and construction of the building". The functions vest with the commission as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 155 which specifically culminated as in the matters are as follows: "(i) to identify areas of heritage and monuments to be preserved; (ii) to identify areas of architectural importance and building to be preserved; (iii) to identify places or streets where a particular form or group of architectural forms of buildings alone may be permitted and to prepare model plans, elevations, etc; for that place or street; (iv) to examine architectural features in respect of any building or parts thereof or their aesthetic vis-a-vis the existing structures in a particular area or street; (v) to advise Government or Municipality on any subject mentioned above and referred to it; and (vi) to submit periodical reports." However, sub-rule (2) thereof further stipulates that the Municipality may insist any particular architectural or aesthetic form of construction on any street or area if so advised by the Commission. In this regard, it is further clearly mandated as per clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 155 that notwithstanding anything contained in these rules and with due regard to the conservation of buildings, precincts and natural features of heritage value, the commission shall have powers to recommend to permit or recommend to decline and developments, uses and constructions including additions, alterations demolitions etc., within the areas identified or advised by the commission as having heritage value. Further clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 155 also stipulates that the Municipality shall seek such recommendations of the Commission, and the recommendations of the commission shall be binding on the Municipality including any particular architectural or aesthetic form of constructions in the case of land developments and constructions in such area. Further clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 155 also stipulates that the Municipality shall seek such recommendations of the Commission, and the recommendations of the commission shall be binding on the Municipality including any particular architectural or aesthetic form of constructions in the case of land developments and constructions in such area. Therefore, a conjoint reading of the various provisions contained in Chapters II and III of the Rules more particularly Rule 21 (which is more relevant in a case like this) along with provisions contained in Rule 155 will make it clear that special regulatory powers conferred on the Art and Heritage Commission with respect to the matters enumerated therein will have the effect, notwithstanding anything contained in the KMBR, 1999, and further that such recommendations of the Commission regarding conservation of buildings, precincts and natural features of heritage value including those recommendations to decline and developments, uses and constructions including additions, alterations demolitions, etc., shall be binding on the Municipality concerned. 6. True that a reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 21 enables every person holding development or building permit shall, unless the work has been executed in full and development or occupancy certificate obtained, inform the Secretary, every transfer of the whole or part of any property involved in the permit together with the name and address of the transferee and his intention to transfer or otherwise of the permit. In such a situation, every person, in whose favour any property transferred along with a development or building permit by the transferor, shall, before commencing or continuing the work, obtain permit of the Secretary in writing. The procedure for such facility shall be availed by the transferee which mentions that request for permission to commence or continue work shall be submitted in while paper affixed with necessary court fee stamp, together with documents regarding the ownership and possession certificate and fee of Rs.25/-. The ground on the basis of which such request of the transferee is to be dealt with is contained in sub-rule (4) of Rule 21 which mandates that Secretary shall, if convinced that the transfer will not in any way badly affect the development or construction, issue permission in writing, the transfer of permit and allowing the commencement or continuation of the work, within 15 days of the date of receipt of the request. Therefore, what is conceived in Rule 21 is only a formal application to be made by the transferee and unless the Secretary of the Municipality/Municipal Corporation has strong reasons to believe that transfer will alter and affect the development or construction, the local body concerned is obliged to issue permission in writing and allowing commencement or continuation of the work within 15 days of receipt of the request. 7. It is contended by Sri. Lathessh Sebastian, learned counsel for the petitioner, that since this is the provision envisaged in Rule 21, more particularly sub-rule (4) thereof, the transferor and transferee are able to intimate the factum of the transfer of the land along with development permit/building permit to the Secretary of the local body concerned, upon which the said authority is obliged to transfer the building/building permit in favour of the transferee and the only ground on which it can be rejected is that if the Commission has strong reasons to believe on the basis of relevant materials that such transfer will badly affect the development or construction in question. It is thus contended that since this is the position, the sole competent authority to issue permit is the local body concerned. In such a situation where a building permit is so issued by the local body and where it was subsequently transferred to another person, and once the procedure prescribed in Rule 21, more particularly, sub-rule 4 is involved and the building permit/development permit stands transferred to the name of the transferee, then the concurrence/permission granted by the Art and Heritage Commission as the one in Ext.P-2 will stand automatically transferred in favour of the transferee subject to the currency period of such permission as has been stipulated in Ext.P-2. On this basis it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent-Art and Heritage Commission has no jurisdiction to incorporate a condition as the one in Ext.P-2 that permission granted to the 1st petitioner is not transferable and if the plot is transferred in any circumstances, the concurrence given by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P-2 for issuance of building permit will stand automatically cancelled, etc. It is alternatively argued that even if the Art and Heritage Commission has the competence in regard to issue such conditions as the one impugned is per se unreasonable and arbitrary as it has no rationale nexus with the object sought to be achieved as the currency period is limited on the transfer of the building permit along with concurrence/permission as in Ext.P-2 validated by the currency period of such concurrence will be limited to the validity period originally notified therein and that therefore no rationale purpose can be sub-served by issuing such condition as the validity period is only for a period of three years from the date of issue. With regard to the first contention raised by the petitioner it is to be noted that the power conferred on the Art and Heritage Commission, more particularly, the one delineated in clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 155 is having wide ranging ramifications and such wide ranging powers are conferred with the explicit statutory mandate notwithstanding other provisions contained in the KMBR, 1999. The objectives sought to be achieved by those functions of the Commission are also clearly delineated in Rule 155 which show that such conditions are stipulated by the Heritage Commission having due regard to the conservation of buildings, precincts and natural features of heritage value, etc., and that the Commission has wide ranging powers to permit, to recommend or to decline and developments, uses and constructions including additions, alterations demolitions, etc., within the areas identified or advised by the Commission as having heritage value. Further clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 155 makes it clear that the nature of the recommendations mentioned therein are binding on the Municipality/local body concerned. More particularly, what is fulfilled in issuance of Ext.P-2 is a concurrence/permission granted by the Art and Heritage Commission to the Municipality/Municipal Corporation/local body concerned so as to inform the local body to take further steps for continuous construction of the building which is sought for by the applicant concerned. It is brought to notice that even now, the 2nd respondent Municipal Corporation has not issued formal building permit to the petitioner presumably in view of the pendency of this Writ Petition, even when there is no dispute. It is brought to notice that even now, the 2nd respondent Municipal Corporation has not issued formal building permit to the petitioner presumably in view of the pendency of this Writ Petition, even when there is no dispute. What is involved is initially the issuance of permission/concurrence by the Art and Heritage Commission and it is only thereafter that the Municipal Corporation can consider the issuance of formal building permit. Therefore, the concurrence, as in Ext.P-2 is valid for a period of three years from its issuance and therefore the currency of the concurrence granted by the Heritage Commission is not co-terminus with the currency and validity of the building permit issued by the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, merely because the transferee is eligible to seek transfer of the building permit from the previous owner in the mechanism as envisaged in Rule 21 will not lead to the situation that Ext.P-2 concurrence should also be formally automatically transferred in favour of such transferee. More importantly, having regard to the wide ranging powers conferred on the Commission, it cannot be said that the Commission is not competent to issue the impugned condition. Moreover, having regard to the averments in the counter affidavit, the efficacy of Rule 3(1)(a) of the KMBR, 1999, should also be kept in mind. In the light of these aspects and having regard to the wide ranging objectives that are to be achieved in the functions of the Art and Heritage Commission as envisaged in the Rules, the impugned condition as the one in Ext.P-2 cannot be said to be palpably perverse or arbitrary. It is brought to notice of this Court that no explicit guidelines are laid down in a matter of renewal of Ext.P-2 permission/concurrence consequent to transfer of the plot to a new owner during the currency of such permission. Merely because the nature of the functions that is to be achieved by the Commission is of a wide nature, it does not mean that the Commission can arbitrarily decide not to formally issue or renew the permission in favour of the new transferee during the period of its currency. Merely because the nature of the functions that is to be achieved by the Commission is of a wide nature, it does not mean that the Commission can arbitrarily decide not to formally issue or renew the permission in favour of the new transferee during the period of its currency. In this regard, this Court is inclined to take cognizance of the policy guidelines made by the statutory rule making authority in Rule 21(4) which obliges that in the case of application for transfer of the building permit from the previous owner to the new owner such application has to be considered on a liberal basis and unless the competent authority is convinced that the transfer will badly affect the development or construction in question permit is to be formally transferred in favour of the new transferee. The same policy guidelines could be appropriately imported in a situation where the transferee seeks a formal renewal or issuance of permission granted as per Ext.P-2 consequent on the transfer. It is made clear that as and when the transfer of the plot is made, and on necessary intimation by the transferor and transferee, and so long as the original currency period of such permission has not yet expired, the 1st respondent is obliged to favourably consider such request for renewal of issuance of such concurrence as in Ext.P-2 in favour of the transferee, during the currency period of Ext.P-2, and the only ground on which it can be rejected is that if the Heritage Commission has strong reasons to believe on the basis of relevant materials that such transfer will badly affect the development or construction as envisaged in Rule 21(4). No doubt, the Commission can stipulate all the other general conditions and special conditions as envisaged in Ext.P-2 even with respect to its enjoyment by the new transferor. It is also brought to notice by the petitioner that building permit has not so far been formally issued by the 2nd respondent presumably in view of the pendency of this Writ Petition. Sri. N. Nadakumara Menon, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that if there are no other legal impediments, the 2nd respondent will certainly take proactive steps to ensure that all further steps are completed and building permit is issued to the petitioner without any further delay, if the application is otherwise in order. Sri. N. Nadakumara Menon, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that if there are no other legal impediments, the 2nd respondent will certainly take proactive steps to ensure that all further steps are completed and building permit is issued to the petitioner without any further delay, if the application is otherwise in order. The said submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent is recorded. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that so far he has not yet transferred the plot and he is having financial difficulties in completing the construction. The apprehension of the petitioner that the impugned condition will be viewed as a restriction on the right to alienate his property is without any legal foundation. This position is all the more reiterated specifically by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the following orders are issued: (i) In the light of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Corporation, it is ordered that the 2nd respondent shall take all necessary steps to ensure that building permit is issued to the petitioner without any further delay, if the application in that regard is otherwise fully in order. Steps in this regard may be taken without any further delay and it is hoped and expected that the building permit is issued atleast within a period of one month. (ii) The impugned condition in Ext.P-2 is also upheld. (iii) In case the petitioner transfers the plot along with building permit to another person, then the transferor and transferee will be at liberty to invoke the provisions in Rule 21 in the matter of transfer of building permit through the 2nd respondent-Corporation. (iv) In the event of such transfer, the transferor and the transferee will also intimate the factum of such transfer along with transfer of the building permit to the 1st respondent, who is the Member Secretary of the Art and Heritage Commission and they will be at liberty to make formal request to the 1st respondent to formally renew or issue the concurrence/permission as in Ext.P-2 in favour of the transferee so long as the original period of Ext.P-2 has not expired. (v) Formal orders regarding renewal or issue of permission/concurrence in favour of the transferee shall be effected expeditiously and in that regard time line of 15 days as envisaged in Rule 24 should also be kept in mind by the 1st respondent. If any such request is made curing the currency period of 3 years from the date of issuance of Ext.P-2 dated 27.6.2016, it is made clear that the 1st respondent shall favourably consider such request and shall issue necessary orders for renewing or issuing such permission/concurrence in favour of the new transferee and it is also made clear that the only ground on which it can be rejected shall be the one as envisaged in Rule 21(4) of the KMBR, 1999. If the 1st respondent is prima facie convinced that such adverse grounds are available, the 1st respondent should issue necessary show cause notice to the transferee and shall render a decision within a period of one month on that issue only after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to such affected person. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.