JUDGMENT : Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. The present intra court appeal is filed against the judgment dated 14.1.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.20894 of 2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge repelled the challenge raised by the appellant against the refusal of permit by the Panchayat for establishing and running a M-sand unit on the solitary ground that the approach road to the unit was less than 7 metres as required by Rule 61(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. 2. According to the appellant, as per the Asset Register of the Panchayat, the approach road is having a width of 8 metres which is undisputed. In response, the Panchayat and the private respondents, who are neighbours and who have been protesting against the setting up of the unit, submit that as per the digitalized Asset Register now prepared, the width of the road is shown as 6 metres, meaning thereby that the width has shrunk by two metres. Responding to this submission, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that it fails comprehension as to how, upon digitalization of record, there would be reduction in width of the road. Learned counsel for the Panchayath also states that the Panchayat itself is unable to explain this shrinkage of the road. 3. It is borne out from the records that the Panchayat road has been encroached upon and the width of the road which was 8 metres as per the Asset Register, by virtue of unauthorised encroachments, has been reduced to 6 metres. 4. The contention of Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, is that because of the act of the private respondents in encroaching upon the road, the right of the appellant cannot be frustrated. In law, the appellant is entitled to a permit to run the M-sand unit. As per the original Asset Register, the road is having a width of 8 metres. The minimum requirement being 7 metres only. This right cannot be taken away or curtailed by unscrupulous encroachers, encroaching upon the road and the Panchayat being unable to explain the shrinkage of 2 metres. 5. Having considered, we find force in the submission. It is not denied that originally the road is shown to have a width of 8 metres. The minimum requirement being 7 metres only. This right cannot be taken away or curtailed by unscrupulous encroachers, encroaching upon the road and the Panchayat being unable to explain the shrinkage of 2 metres. 5. Having considered, we find force in the submission. It is not denied that originally the road is shown to have a width of 8 metres. It appears that due to encroachments, the width of the road is reduced to less than 8 metres now. But that does not mean that right of a person to establish his industry which is conditioned upon an approach road of 8 metres can be denied. It would be something like saying that because the Panchayat has failed in its duty to keep the road free of encroachment, a person is denied his right to use his land in the manner he would like. For default of another, the right of a person cannot be frustrated. All we can do is refer to what Chief Justice Chagla had said in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate v. I.T. Commr., Bombay ( AIR 1954 Bom. 232 ), which reads as follows: “But the most surprising contention is put forward by the Department that because their own officer failed to discharge his statutory duty, the assessee is deprived of his right which the law has given to him under sub-section (2) of S.24. In other words, the Department wants to benefit from and wants to take advantage of its own default. It is an elementary principle of law that no person – we take it that the Income-tax Department is included in that definition – can put forward his own default in defence to a right asserted by the other party. A person cannot say that the party claiming the right is deprived of that right because “I have committed a default and the right is lost because of that default.” ” 6. In view of the aforesaid, we have no option but to allow this appeal setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We direct the Panchayat to grant the permit to the appellant for carrying on the business of manufacturing M-sand. In view of the aforesaid, we have no option but to allow this appeal setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We direct the Panchayat to grant the permit to the appellant for carrying on the business of manufacturing M-sand. It would also be the duty of the Panchayat to restore the land to 8 metre original width as recorded in its Asset Register with the assistance of Revenue officials, if so required, and take all urgent effective steps to evict all the encroachers from the public road aforesaid. The permit shall be issued within a period of one month from today. Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of.