JUDGMENT : As the issue involved in both these writ petitions is similar, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in both these writ petitions are residents in Ward No.20 of Ayarkunnam Grama Panchayat in Kottayam District, where, the 6th respondent has taken steps to establish an M-Sand unit installing a Vertical Shaft Impactor Machine in the property owned by him and comprised in Sy. Nos. 209/8, 209/8-1 and 215/1 of Ayarkunnam Village. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioners that the 6th respondent has taken steps to establish the M-Sand unit without obtaining the necessary permission under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, for establishing the unit in question, and further, that the petitioners had, without obtaining the said permission under Section 233, proceeded to obtain a building permit from the respondent Panchayat, and thereafter a Dangerous and Offensive license [D&O license] for conducting the M-Sand unit. In the writ petition, the building permit as well as the D & O license granted to the 6th respondent are impugned, as are the Resolutions of the respondent Panchayat which entailed the grant of the D & O license to the 6th respondent. It is the definite case of the petitioners that, while the 6th respondent had chosen to apply for the necessary permissions and licenses that were required for starting an M-Sand unit in his property, by preferring an application before the Kerala Single Window Clearance Board, he had subsequently abandoned the said route, and had chosen to separately approach the statutory authorities entrusted with the task of granting permissions and licenses for the M-Sand unit. It is stated that, while the 6th respondent had succeeded in getting some of the approvals and permissions, he had not obtained a permission under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, prior to approaching the Panchayat for the D & O license. It is also pointed out, in connection with the building permit granted to the 6th respondent, that the said respondent had obtained the permit on 15.06.2015, when, the law, as it stood on that date, mandated that a building permit could be granted for the purposes of establishing an M-Sand unit only if the width of the road leading to the property was at least 7 metres. It is stated that the width of the road in the instant case being less than 7 metres, the building permit granted to the 6th respondent itself is in violation of the statutory provisions, and therefore, illegal. The prayer sought for in the writ petitions is essentially to quash the building permit, the D & O license and the Resolutions passed by the Panchayat leading up to the D & O license, on the ground that they have been issued in violation of the statutory provisions under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act as also Rule 12 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the 6th respondent in both these writ petitions, wherein, documents have been produced to show that, while the said respondent had preferred an application before the Kerala Single Window Clearance Board for obtaining the necessary permission and consents from various statutory authorities entrusted with the regulation of the activities proposed by the said respondent, the Single Window Clearance Board had, in its first meeting held to consider the application of the said respondent, intimated the various statutory authorities of the proposal of the said respondent to establish an M-Sand unit, and had directed them to take decisions in the matter and report their decisions to the Single Window Clearance Board. Thereafter, in the subsequent meeting, while the only objection received by the Board was from the Office of the Chief Town Planner, which indicated that certain documents had yet to be obtained from the 6th respondent, for considering his application for the necessary permission to start the unit in question, the other statutory authorities had not raised any specific objection to the application of the 6th respondent that was forwarded to them for their decision. While matters stood so, in a subsequent proceedings before the Board a representation was made before the Board that the 6th respondent had already obtained the necessary permissions and licenses, and therefore, no further proceedings needed to be pursued before the respondent Board. The Board, therefore, by its decision dated 13.04.2015, closed the proceedings before it based on the representation made before it that the necessary approvals and permissions had already been obtained by the 6th respondent. The Board, therefore, by its decision dated 13.04.2015, closed the proceedings before it based on the representation made before it that the necessary approvals and permissions had already been obtained by the 6th respondent. It is stated that the 6th respondent had in fact obtained all the necessary licenses and consents from the respective statutory authorities, save for the permission under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, which he had no reason to assume would be denied to him since the Panchayat itself had issued a 'No Objection Certificate' to the issuance of such a permission in the event of the 6th respondent making an application before it. As it turned out, the 6th respondent did not get any permission from the Panchayat in terms of Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. As regards the building permit and the D & O license issued to the 6th respondent, it is stated that the application for building permit, although submitted before the Secretary of the respondent Panchayat, was forwarded to the Chief Town Planner for approval in terms of Rule 61 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules. It is stated that, during the relevant time, when the Chief Town Planner was considering the application in terms of Rule 61, the amendment to the Building Rules, which came into force with effect from 03.06.2015, whereby, the minimum access width of the road had to be 7 meters, had not taken effect, and hence, the Chief Town Planner had granted the approval based on the un-amended provisions which mandated that the width of the road to the construction put up by the petitioner, (being one with a floor area less than 300 sq. ms) needed to be only more than 3 meters, which existed in the instant case. It is stated that inasmuch as the approval of the Chief Town Planner was obtained prior to the date of the amendment to Rule 61 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, the building permit that was subsequently granted to the petitioner based on the approval of the Chief Town Planner, could not be impugned on the ground that, as on the date of grant of building permit, the law had been amended to the prejudice of the 6th respondent. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent would also place reliance on the decisions of this Court in Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority v. Pearls Infrastructure Projects Ltd. - [ 2017 (1) KLT 602 ], Kallada Hotels and Resorts v. State of Kerala [ 2012 (2) KLT 167 ] and judgment dated 31.10.2017 of the Division Bench in W.A. No.249/2016, to contend that inasmuch as the 6th respondent had constructed the building based on the building permit that was issued to the said respondent by the respondent Panchayat, the petitioners could not contend that the construction put up by the 6th respondent, based on the building permit issued to him, was illegal. 4. I have heard Sri. Raju Joseph, the learned senior counsel, duly assisted by Adv.Sri. Julian Xavier for the the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.29640/2017, Sri. Harish Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19935/2017, Sri. Abraham Vakkanal, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Smt. Vineetha Susan Thomas for the 6th respondent in both these writ petitions, Sri. Sebastian Thomas, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Panchayat in both these writ petitions, Sri. T.Naveen, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and also Sri. Dilip.S, the learned Government Pleader for the Official respondents of the State in both these writ petitions. 5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made across the Bar, I find from a perusal of the averments in the writ petition and the counter affidavits filed that, it is not in dispute that the 6th respondent had preferred an application before the Kerala Single Window Clearance Board for the necessary permissions and consents in order to establish an M-Sand unit in the property belonging to him within the territorial limits of Ayarkunnam Grama Panchayat. The application, though preferred before the Single Window Clearance Board, in the proceedings that took place before the Board, the Board had given intimation to the respective statutory authorities, who had to issue necessary licenses and consents, to take a decision in the matter and report the decision to the Board. In response to the directions from the Board, only the office of the Chief Town Planner raised objections to the applications submitted by the 6th respondent. In response to the directions from the Board, only the office of the Chief Town Planner raised objections to the applications submitted by the 6th respondent. While the other statutory authority did not raise any objection before the Board, and proceedings before the Board should have logically concluded with the issuance of directions by the Single Window Clearance Board to the statutory authorities concerned either to grant the necessary permissions or to refuse the same, it would appear that in subsequent proceedings before the Board based on a representation that the 6th respondent had already obtained the necessary licenses and consents, the Board closed the matter without issuing any further directions. Thus, the 6th respondent did not get any permission or license from any of the statutory authorities based on any direction issued by the Single Window Clearance Board. It would appear, however, that the 6th respondent did succeed in getting licenses, permissions and No Objection Certificates from the various statutory authorities, independently, and without recourse to the procedure of going through the Single Window Clearance Board. While the No Objection Certificates and the other consents obtained by the 6th respondent are not disputed in the present writ petitions, a contention has been raised by the petitioners with regard to the validity of the building permit issued to the 6th respondent as also the D & O license granted to the 6th respondent. The challenge in the writ petitions against the building permit granted to the 6th respondent is essentially on the premise that the building permit that was granted on 15.06.2015 could not have been issued in the light of the amendments that had been brought in to Rule 61 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, and which made it mandatory for the 6th respondent to ensure an access road width of at least 7 meters to the property in question, where he intended to establish an M-Sand unit. It is stated that, notwithstanding the fact that the 6th respondent may have obtained the approval from the Chief Town Planner prior to the date of amendment of the Rule, the fact that the application for building permit was considered, and the building permit granted only on 15.06.2015, meant that the permit had been granted without considering the law as on the date of grant of permit. I find force in the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners for, it is now well settled that the applications for grant of sanction or approval of building plans should be decided in accordance with the law applicable on the day on which such permission is granted. In the instant cases, although on the date when the Chief Town Planner granted an approval, it was the preamended Rule that was in force, by the date on which the building permit itself was granted, relying on the approval of the Chief Town Planner, namely, 15.06.2015, the amended provisions had come into force and the Secretary of the Panchayat could not have issued a building permit based on a provision of law that had not been taken into consideration by the Chief Town Planner while approving the layout plan. I also find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the D & O license itself was granted contrary to the express provisions of the Statute which mandate that such a license cannot be issued to a person, who has not obtained a permission under Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act. The decision of this Court in George v. Vannappuram Grama Panchayat [2017 (3) KLT 1049] is authority for the proposition that a permission to establish an industrial unit should be obtained, prior to the obtaining of a building permit for constructing the industrial unit. In the instant cases, it is not in dispute that the 6th respondent had not obtained a permission under Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act for establishing the M-sand unit in question. It would follow therefore that the 6th respondent could not have obtained a building permit for constructing the building for housing the said unit, and further, such a person could not also have been granted a D & O license by the respondent Panchayat for carrying on activities in a unit, the establishment of which itself was illegal. I therefore, allow these writ petitions, by quashing the Resolutions of the Panchayat, which led to the issuance of a D & O license in favour of the 6th respondent and also the building permit issued in favour of the 6th respondent. 6. I therefore, allow these writ petitions, by quashing the Resolutions of the Panchayat, which led to the issuance of a D & O license in favour of the 6th respondent and also the building permit issued in favour of the 6th respondent. 6. I must hasten to add that, while, under normal circumstances, consequent to a quashing of the building permit on the ground that the 6th respondent had not obtained a permission under Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act, this Court would have relegated the matter before the Panchayat for a fresh consideration of the application for building permit, in the event of the 6th respondent obtaining a permit under Section 233, I find that in the instant case, that would be an exercise in futility, since, going by the express provisions of Rule 61 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules as they stand today, the 6th respondent cannot be given a building permit for the proposed activity of establishing the M-Sand unit, since the width of the access road is admittedly much less than 7 meters. The writ petitions are therefore allowed as above with consequential reliefs to the petitioners.