JUDGMENT : P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. 1. The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34469 of 2017 wherein he had prayed for quashing Ext.P18 letter dated 31.8.2017 sent by the Chief Town Planner informing her that her application for approval of the lay out of the proposed LPG godown will be considered only in the event of a fresh registered permanent lease deed without a termination clause being submitted. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. Pursuant to a notification issued by the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL for short) for appointment as LPG distributor, the appellant applied. She was selected and thereupon Ext.P1 letter of intent dated 28.3.2015 was issued. It was inter-alia stipulated therein that she should provide a godown for storage of 8000 Kg (minimum) of LPG filled in cylinders. Yet another condition stipulated was that the construction of the godown and showroom should be completed within a period of four months from the date of the letter of intent and that the godown and showroom should be freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road. It was stipulated in Ext.P1 that the tenure of the distributorship shall be for an initial period of 10 years, renewable for a term of five years at a time, subject to the examination of the performance of the distributorship by the BPCL. 3. The appellant had, for the purpose of establishing the godown, taken on lease 19.17 Ares of land situate in Sy. No.275/1 of Kakkulissery Village, Chalakudy Taluk, Thrissur District, lying to the north of her own lands. The access to both these parcels of land is through the Panchayat road passing along the eastern boundary. She thereafter submitted an application to the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) to approve the site lay out and the construction plan of the proposed storage facility. A similar request was made to the Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Palakkad as well. By Ext.P2 letter dated 4.8.2015 the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Ernakulam approved the site lay out and construction plan of the proposed storage facility subject to the conditions stipulated therein. By Ext.P3 letter dated 13.8.2015, the Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Palakkad issued a No Objection Certificate subject to the conditions stipulated therein. It was inter-alia stipulated in Ext.P3 that the approach road should have a minimum width of 7 metres. By Ext.P3 letter dated 13.8.2015, the Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Palakkad issued a No Objection Certificate subject to the conditions stipulated therein. It was inter-alia stipulated in Ext.P3 that the approach road should have a minimum width of 7 metres. The appellant thereafter submitted an application to the Secretary, Kuzhur Grama Panchayat for a building permit. That application was forwarded to the District Town Planner, Thrissur to be forwarded to the Chief Town Planner for approval. The District Town Planner returned the application for building permit to the Secretary, Kuzhur Grama Panchayat along with Ext.P4 letter dated 11.9.2015 wherein inter-alia it was mentioned that the access to the storage facility does not have a width of 7 metres as stipulated in Rule 61 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for short). He also pointed out that the lease deed in respect of the site of the proposed godown is not registered. He had inter-alia pointed out in the said letter that the width of the access is only 3.40 metres. 4. The appellant thereupon took on lease for a period of two years a parcel of land for the purpose of providing wider access to the site of the godown from the panchayat road on the east. She thereafter re-submitted the application for approval of the lay out. The Secretary, Kuzhur Grama Panchayat forwarded the application to the District Town Planner, Thrissur along with his letter dated 17.12.2015. The District Town Planner returned it along with Ext.P6 letter dated 31.12.2015 pointing out that the extent of the lands belonging to the appellant and the lands taken on lease by her for the purpose of establishing the godown have not been clearly set out in the sketch and that the lease in respect of the lands proposed to be used as pathway is only for a period of two years. He also pointed out certain other defects. The appellant thereupon took on lease 5.26 Ares of land situate in Sy. No.269/3 of Kakkulissery Village, Chalakudy Taluk, Thrissur District from Marikkal Sree Bhagavati Temple for a period of 15 years. This was as per Ext.P7 lease deed dated 5.2.2016 registered as document No.319 of 2016 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Annamanada. He also pointed out certain other defects. The appellant thereupon took on lease 5.26 Ares of land situate in Sy. No.269/3 of Kakkulissery Village, Chalakudy Taluk, Thrissur District from Marikkal Sree Bhagavati Temple for a period of 15 years. This was as per Ext.P7 lease deed dated 5.2.2016 registered as document No.319 of 2016 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Annamanada. Ext.P7 specifically refers to the fact that the appellant has taken on lease the aforesaid parcel of land for the purpose of providing access to the storage facility and also for parking of vehicles. In the said lease deed it was inter-alia stipulated that the term of the lease is for a period of 15 years and the rent payable is Rs.5,000/- per mensem. It was also stipulated that in the event of default in payment of rent on the first of every English calender month, the appellant will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum and in the event of continuing default, it will be open to the lessor to evict the lessee. The lease deed also contained a clause enabling either of the parties to terminate the lease by giving one month's notice in writing. The appellant thereafter submitted a fresh application for approval of the lay out. The Secretar, Kuzhur Grama Panchayat forwarded it to the District Town Planner who in turn forwarded it to the Chief Town Planner along with his recommendations as per Ext.P9 letter dated 26.2.2016. The Chief Town Planner considered the lay out and rejected it on the ground that it violates the provisions in Rule 61(4) of the Rules. The Chief Town Planner communicated his decision to the Secretary, Kuzhur Grama Panchayat as also to the appellant by Ext.P10 letter dated 21.3.2016. 5. The appellant thereupon submitted Ext.P11 representation dated 24.3.2016 before the Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department, invoking the power of the Government under Rule 152 of the of the Rules. She thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.14255 of 2016 in this court seeking expeditious disposal of Ext.P11 representation. By judgment delivered on 8.4.2016, a learned single Judge of this court directed the State Government to consider Ext.P11 representation and pass orders thereon within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, with notice to the appellant. The Government considered the said representation and rejected it by Ext.P12 order dated 4.6.2016. By judgment delivered on 8.4.2016, a learned single Judge of this court directed the State Government to consider Ext.P11 representation and pass orders thereon within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, with notice to the appellant. The Government considered the said representation and rejected it by Ext.P12 order dated 4.6.2016. The Government held that there is no provision to grant lay out approval based on a lease agreement for the reason that it can be revoked at any time before the expiry of the lease period. The appellant thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.20667 of 2016 in this court challenging Ext.P10 letter and Ext.P12 Government order. The learned single Judge after considering the rival contentions, dismissed W.P.(C) No.20667 of 2016 by Ext.P13 judgment delivered on 19.1.2013. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: 4. Admittedly, the plot in which the petitioner intends to construct the LPG godown, has access through a pathway having width of only 3.5 meters to 3.9 meters. The provision under Rule 61(4) is extracted hereunder: "61(4) The minimum clear width of access to a building as well as the width of the street giving access to the plot from the main street shall be 7 meters and shall be motorable: Provided that, in the case of {vault] crematoria or burial grounds, the width shall not be less than 3 meters and shall be motorable. Provided further that, in the case of Type C magazines as per the provisions contained in the Explosives Rules, 2008, such width shall not be less than 3.6 meters." 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first proviso indicates that if the total floor area is upto 300 square metres, such buildings need have only a width of not less than three meters. The said proviso has now been substituted, as hereinabove extracted, by S.R.O. No.362/2015 with effect from 03.06.2015. Hence, as of now, the requirement is a minimum 7 meter width for buildings of Group 1 - hazardous occupancy, except as provided in the provisos. The provisos does not exclude an LPG godown. Hence, the mandate is that the access to the plot from the main street shall be 7 meters. 6. Hence, as of now, the requirement is a minimum 7 meter width for buildings of Group 1 - hazardous occupancy, except as provided in the provisos. The provisos does not exclude an LPG godown. Hence, the mandate is that the access to the plot from the main street shall be 7 meters. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has obtained lease of an adjacent property lying across the length of the pathway and together with that; there would be definitely the required access as mandated. An alternate contention is also taken relying on the definition of 'street' as provided in Rule 2 (1)(cr) of the KPBR, which also takes in a private street. 7. The argument raised, based on the definition of 'street', cannot be countenanced since there is no contention that there is a private street leading to the property. The access to the pathway is only of 3.5 meters to 3.9 meters and the specific contention taken by the petitioner is that he has taken on lease a land which has frontage all along the length of the pathway and together with the land, there would be the required width. The said contention has been rightly addressed by the Government. The Government has found that there could be no permission granted on the basis of the lease, since the lease could, at any time, be withdrawn. The specific mandate under Rule 61(4) of the KPBR is that access should have 7 meters width and the same not having been provided, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reason why the matter should be asked to be re-considered by the District Town Planner. The orders impugned does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The writ petition, hence, would stand dismissed. No Costs." 6. The learned single Judge held that though the appellant has taken on lease a piece of land which has frontage all along the length of the pathway leading to the site of the godown and consequently there would be the required width for the access, the Government rightly declined to grant permission on the ground that the lease could be revoked at any time. The learned single Judge held that in view of the stipulation in Rule 61(4) of the Rules that the access should have a width of 7 metres and as it has not been provided, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 7. The appellant challenged Ext.P13 judgment by filing W.A.No.367 of 2017. When the writ appeal came up for final hearing before a Division Bench of this court, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant will take steps to incorporate a minimum tenure in the tease agreement and that the stipulation which empowers the lessor to terminate the lease in the event of default in payment of rent will be modified. In that view of the matter, even while upholding the view taken by the learned single Judge in Ext.P13 judgment, the Division Bench reserved liberty with the appellant to have a proper lease deed executed and to have it presented before the Chief Town Planner for consideration. The Division Bench held that the second respondent shall thereupon consider the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard. W.A.No.367 of 2017 was accordingly disposed of by Ext.P14 judgment delivered on 2.3.2017, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: 3. The sequence of events shows that the appellant came to be identified by the fifth respondent Company for allotment of LPG distributorship. Ext.P1 is the 'Letter of Intent' issued by the fifth respondent. For running the godown, the property having an area of 19.17 Ares was identified. It is stated that the appellant has obtained clearance from all sectors, including Ext.P3 NOC issued by the Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services. It is stated that necessary licence from the Local Authority in respect of the 'hazardous occupancy' is to be obtained, besides obtaining necessary clearance from the Pollution Control Board adding that steps in this regard are being pursued. At the same time, the appellant had to obtain 'Layout approval' and necessary proceedings were filed before the second respondent in this regard. At the same time, the appellant had to obtain 'Layout approval' and necessary proceedings were filed before the second respondent in this regard. Observing that the property was not having a pathway of requisite width, in terms of Rule 61 (4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, approval came to be turned down as per Ext.P10; which was sought to be challenged by approaching the Government as per Ext.P11, in terms of Rule 152 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules. Since no timely action was taken, the appellant approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.14255/2016, which was disposed of as per Ext.P12 judgment dated 8.4.2016, directing the first respondent/Government to consider and finalize the said proceedings within a time frame. It was pursuant to said verdict, that the matter was considered by the Government, leading to Ext.P13 order dated 4.6.2016. 4. It is relevant to note that the defect pointed out by the Chief Town Planner was sought to be cured by the appellant, by procuring the nearby property situated along the side of the pathway leading to the property in question (having an extent of 6.07 Ares, which belongs to Marikkal Sree Bhagavathi temple), by way of a registered lease executed for a period of 15 years. A copy of the lease deed has been produced along with the writ petition as Ext.P7. However, the Government, while passing Ext.P13 order, observed that as per the existing provisions, it was not possible to consider 'lease' and further that the 'lease' could be cancelled at any time and hence the layout approval could not be granted. It was challenging Ext.P10 and Ext.P13, that the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.20667/2016. After hearing, the learned Single Judge declined interference with the stand taken by the Chief Town Planner and the Government, in so far as there was no challenge with regard to the Rule position. This, in turn, is under challenge in this appeal. 5. There is no dispute with regard to the Rule which stipulates that the pathway leading to the property should be having a width of 7 meters'. The stipulation in this regard is very vital, in so far as the item to be stored in the premises is 'LPG cylinders', which involves a high security risk. 5. There is no dispute with regard to the Rule which stipulates that the pathway leading to the property should be having a width of 7 meters'. The stipulation in this regard is very vital, in so far as the item to be stored in the premises is 'LPG cylinders', which involves a high security risk. The main purpose of providing pathway of adequate width, is to ensure that in case of any emergency, the Fire and Rescue Authorities could rush in with all necessary infrastructure to deal with the situation, meeting the need of the hour. It is not for mere access to the vehicles carrying the cylinders coming in and going out or for the convenience of the customers. The pathway leading to the property should be kept clear always, without causing any vehicle to be parked or blocking the access. The entire access of 7 meters should be thrown open at all times and as such, even if the nearby property is taken on lease it has to be ensured that the purpose is served at all times. Scrutiny has to be made in the said background. 6. There is a clause in Ext.P7 lease deed, that although it is executed for a period of 15 years, it is possible to be terminated by either side, on issuing one month's notice. It was in the said circumstance, that the Government observed in Ext.P13, that it could not be treated as a valid and acceptable document to grant 'layout approval' which stand has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. We do not find anything wrong in this regard. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that steps are being taken to modify the relevant clause, which now stands adverse to the interest of the petitioner/appellant and that a minimum tenure will be caused to be incorporated therein, so as to safeguard the interest of all concerned. It is also stated that the appellant will confine the relief only to the said extent, adding that appropriate provision could be incorporated in the approval to be given and that it could be added in the licence to be issued (based on such approval) as part of the conditions to be complied with. 8. It is also stated that the appellant will confine the relief only to the said extent, adding that appropriate provision could be incorporated in the approval to be given and that it could be added in the licence to be issued (based on such approval) as part of the conditions to be complied with. 8. In the above circumstances, the appeal is disposed of without prejudice to the rights and liberty of the appellant to have a proper lease deed executed, satisfying the above requirements in accordance with law and to have it presented before the second respondent for fresh consideration. On submission of the relevant proceedings in this regard, the matter shall be considered afresh by the second respondent in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and others concerned, if any The proceedings shall be finalised at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of production of the relevant deed as above. Ext.P10 and Ext.P13 will stand modified to the said extent. The appellant shall also produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the appeal containing a full text of the proceedings before the second respondent for further steps. The writ appeal is disposed of as above." 8. The appellant accordingly entered into Ext.P15 lease agreement with the lessor on 30.3.2017 and got it registered as document No.605 of 2017 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Annamanada. Ext.P15 contained a stipulation to the effect that in the event of persistent default in payment of rent, it will be open to the lessor to terminate the lease and to evict the lessee. The appellant thereafter moved afresh to have the lay out approved. The Chief Town Planner, after considering the materials before him, held that in view of the stipulations in the lease deed and in view of the fact that the lease is not permanent, meaning thereby that the appellant will not be free to use the pathway so long as the godown is in existence, the approval sought for cannot be granted. The Chief Town Planner was of the view that unless a permanent registered lease deed is executed, the application cannot be considered. The Chief Town Planner accordingly issued Ext.P16 order dated 11.5.2017. The Chief Town Planner was of the view that unless a permanent registered lease deed is executed, the application cannot be considered. The Chief Town Planner accordingly issued Ext.P16 order dated 11.5.2017. The appellant thereupon got Ext.P17 lease deed executed on 17.6.2017 whereby the stipulation in Ext.P15 that in the event of default in payment of rent it will be open to the lessor to terminate the lease agreement and to evict the lessee was deleted and the appellant was permitted to use the property leased out to her for a period of 15 years on payment of Rs.5,000/- per mensem as rent. The relevant recitals in Ext.P17 lease deed are extracted below: Any Other Language 9. The appellant thereafter moved afresh for approval of the lay out. The Chief Town Planner once again rejected it on the ground that Ext.P17 lease deed cannot be treated as a permanent lease deed and consequently, approval of the lay out cannot be granted. The Chief Town Planner took the view that approval of the lay out can be granted only if a registered lease deed without a termination clause (registered permanent lease deed) is produced. The Chief Town Planner communicated his decision to the appellant as per Ext.P18 letter dated 31.8.2017 which was challenged in the instant writ petition. 10. The appellant contended that as the access provided to the site of the godown has a width of more than 7 metres and as the lease deed ensures a minimum tenure of 15 years and it does not contain a termination clause, the Chief Town Planner erred in insisting on the production of a permanent lease deed. She contended that the site of the godown is only 30 metres away from the PWD road which has a width of 12 metres, that it is to cover a short distance of 30 metres that a road having a width of 7 metres is insisted upon, that the said access has now been made available and that the site of the godown is situate in the lands belonging to the appellant as also the lands taken on lease by her for the purpose of establishing the LPG godown. 11. W.P.(C) No.34469 of 2017 came up for admission hearing before the learned single Judge on 11.12.2017. 11. W.P.(C) No.34469 of 2017 came up for admission hearing before the learned single Judge on 11.12.2017. After hearing learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant cannot get over the provisions contained in Rule 61(4) of the Rules by amending the lease deed. The learned single Judge further held that the observations in Ext.P14 judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.367 of 2017 will not enable the appellant to get over the provisions contained in Rule 61(4) of the Rules by entering into Ext.P17 lease deed. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Hence this appeal. 12. We heard Sri T.A.Shaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri Sunilkumar Kuriakose, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, Sri S.Vidyasagar, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, Sri M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned standing counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and Sri George Mathews, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. It is evident from the materials before us, more particularly Ext.P8 location sketch that the appellant proposes to establish the storage facility (LPG godown) in her lands situate in Sy. No.275/1 Part as also an adjoining parcel of land situate in the very same survey number, taken on lease by the appellant, viz; the lands lying immediately to the north of her own lands. The access to the lands belonging to the appellant as also the lands taken on lease by her for the purpose of establishing the godown is through a panchayat road having a width of 3.5 metres originating from Mala-Eravathur PWD road lying to the south of the appellant's lands and the lands belonging to others. There is no direct access from Mala-Eravathur PWD road to the site of the proposed godown. Access to the site of the godown can be had only through the panchayat road aforesaid. It was for this reason that she took on lease the lands belonging to a temple having a total area of 5.26 Ares situate in Sy. No.269/3. The said lands lie to the east of the panchayat road. Access to the site of the godown can be had only through the panchayat road aforesaid. It was for this reason that she took on lease the lands belonging to a temple having a total area of 5.26 Ares situate in Sy. No.269/3. The said lands lie to the east of the panchayat road. Ext.P8 sketch which sets out the location and lie of the lands taken on lease by the appellant for the purpose of locating the godown and the lands taken on lease by her for the purpose of giving more width to the access to the site of the godown is appended to this judgment. The green shaded portion in Ext.P8 sketch is the property belonging to the appellant, the yellow shaded portion in Ext.P8 sketch is the property taken on lease by her for the purpose of locating the godown and the red shaded portion in Ext.P8 sketch is the lands taken on lease by her for the purpose of providing wider access to the site of the godown. 13. Ext.P8 sketch discloses that the panchayat road provides access not only to the lands of the appellant but also the lands taken on lease by her, both lying to the west of the panchayat road. The fact that the panchayat road has a width of only 3.5 metres is not in dispute. The fact that the panchayat road together with the lands lying to its east, taken on lease by the appellant to provide wider access to the site of the godown, has a width of more than 7 metres is also not in dispute. A mere look at Ext.P8 sketch would also show that the panchayat road provides access to more than one plot. It provides access to the lands belonging to the appellant, the lands taken on lease by her for the purpose of locating the godown and other lands. The short question that arises before us is whether in these circumstances, it can be said that the requirements of Rule 61(4) of the Rules are satisfied. Rule 61 is extracted below: "61. Group 1 - Hazardous occupancy.-- (1) Approval of the District Town Planner shall be obtained for the usage of plot up to one hectare area and/or layout of buildings up to 1000 sq. Rule 61 is extracted below: "61. Group 1 - Hazardous occupancy.-- (1) Approval of the District Town Planner shall be obtained for the usage of plot up to one hectare area and/or layout of buildings up to 1000 sq. metres in floor area under hazardous occupancy and approval of the Chief Town Planner shall be obtained for usage of plot exceeding one hectare area and/or layout of building above 1000 sq. metres in floor area: Provided that, in the case of Type C magazines as per the provisions contained in the Explosives Rules, 2008, such approval of the District Town Planner or Chief Town Planner is not necessary. However all other mandatory clearances applicable for such constructions shall be obtained. (2) The usage of plots proposed for development or redevelopment or construction of any building shall be governed by the provisions contained in the detailed town planning scheme or development plan for the locality. Provided that where no such plan exists the usage of the plot and/or building shall be decided by the Chief Town Planner or an officer authorised by him in this behalf: Provided further that, in the case of Type C magazines, as per the provisions contained in the Explosives Rules, 2008, such approval of the District Town Planner or Chief Town Planner is not necessary. However, all other mandatory clearances applicable for such constructions shall be obtained. (3) The minimum width of open yard and all around the building shall be 7.5 metres: Provided that, the minimum open yard mandated above shall not be made applicable for insisting setbacks between the gravestone/graveyard and any building, both within the plot, if the plot is partly or fully used for burial purpose. (4) The minimum clear width of access to a building as well as the width of the street giving access to the plot from the main street shall be 7 metres and shall be motorable. Provided that, in the case of vault, crematoria or burial grounds, the width shall not be less than 3 metres and shall be motorable. Provided further that, in the case of Type C magazines as per the provisions contained in the Explosives Rules, 2008, such width shall not be less than 3.6 metres. Provided that, in the case of vault, crematoria or burial grounds, the width shall not be less than 3 metres and shall be motorable. Provided further that, in the case of Type C magazines as per the provisions contained in the Explosives Rules, 2008, such width shall not be less than 3.6 metres. (5) Where the internal drainage system from a building under hazardous occupancy is proposed to be connected to the public drainage system, prior approval of the arrangements shall be obtained from the Pollution Control Board and Water Authority and in such cases the internal drainage system shall be connected by means of a suitable trap so as to exclude volatile or other objectionable matters. (6) In the case of buildings under hazardous occupancy, a certificate of approval from the Director of Fire Force or an officer authorised by him in this behalf shall be obtained and produced before issuing building permit. (7) All other requirements in respect of fire protection in hazardous including warehousing buildings shall conform to Part IV, Fire and Life Safety, National Building Code of India, 2005 and amendment No.3. (8) The minimum sanitation facilities to be provided in hazardous buildings shall be as shown below. (a) at the rate of one water closet for the first 50 males or part thereof and two water closets for the first 50 females or part thereof and thereafter one water closet for every additional 70 persons or part thereof, males or females; (b) at the rate of one urinal for every 100 males or part thereof; (c) at the rate of one drinking water fountain for every 100 persons or part thereof; (d) at the rate of one washing facility for 50 persons or part thereof; and (e) the number of sanitation facilities like water closet, urinal, etc. to be provided shall in no case be less than as computed at the rate of one person for every 30 sq. metres of the gross floor area of the building. Note:--In cases where the total number of workers does not exceed five, at least one water closet shall be provided. to be provided shall in no case be less than as computed at the rate of one person for every 30 sq. metres of the gross floor area of the building. Note:--In cases where the total number of workers does not exceed five, at least one water closet shall be provided. (9) The Secretary shall, after considering the width of roads, traffic generated, location with respect to points of intersections and nearness to occupancies of educational, assembly, mercantile, storage and hazardous uses, in consultation with the District Collector and Chief Town Planner decide the location of automobile fuel filling stations and their layout. (10) The location and construction of petrol tank and vent-pipe, shall be governed by the provisions of the Petroleum Rules, 1976. (11) The retail dispensing unit of an automobile fuel filling station shall be installed at a distance of 7.5m from any point of the market boundary of its premises. (12) The canopy shall have a minimum set back of 3 metres from the existing or proposed road boundary, as the case may be. (13) The kiosk or sales office shall have a minimum open space of 1 metre from the plot boundaries other than that abutting the street. (14) The location and area limits of crematoria or burning and burial grounds including cemetery shall be as approved by the District Collector. (15) There shall be minimum 7.5 metres open space all around the crematoria." 14. Rule 61(4) of the Rules stipulates that the minimum clear access to the plot from the main street, shall be 7 metres and shall be motorable. The term "access" is defined in Rule 2(a) of the Rules, to mean the way to a plot or building. The term "street" is defined in Rule 2(cr) to mean a private street or a public street; synonymous with road and giving access to more than one plot or one building. The term "road" is defined in Rule 2(cc) to mean any highway, street, lane, pathway, alley, passageway, carriage way, footway or bridge whether a thorough fare or not, over which the public have a right of passage or access uninterruptedly for a specified period; whether existing or proposed in any town planning scheme. On the terms of Rule 61(4), there cannot be any dispute about the fact that the access to the site of the godown should have a clear width of 7 metres. On the terms of Rule 61(4), there cannot be any dispute about the fact that the access to the site of the godown should have a clear width of 7 metres. As stated earlier, the term "access" means the way to a plot or building. A look at Ext.P8 sketch will show that the access to the lands belonging to the appellant and the lands taken on lease by her for the purpose of locating the godown is through the panchayat road which runs along the eastern boundary of the said lands. The said panchayat road does not have a width of 7 metres. It is also stipulated in Rule 61(4) that the street giving access to the plot from the main street shall also have a width of 7 metres. That being said, a question will necessarily arise as to whether the street giving access to the plot from the main street has a width of 7 metres. In the case on hand, the street giving access to the plot is the panchayat road, which as stated earlier, does not have a width of 7 metres. The appellant has provided more width to the panchayat road by taking on lease 5.26 Ares of land lying to the east of the panchayat road. It is not in dispute that though there has been no dedication to the public by the land owner, the street giving access to the lands belonging to the appellant and the lands taken on lease by her for the purpose of establishing the godown has a width of more than 7 metres. The main street which is the Mala-Eravathur PWD road admittedly has a width of 12 metres. In the context and setting of Rule 61(4) of the Rules, the PWD road is the main street and panchayat road is the street giving access to the plot. 15. Then the question is whether the panchayat road coupled with the lands taken on lease by the appellant as per Ext.P17 lease deed can be said to be a street, since going by the definition of the term "street" occurring in Rule 2(cr) of the Rules, a street should provide access to more than one plot or one building. 15. Then the question is whether the panchayat road coupled with the lands taken on lease by the appellant as per Ext.P17 lease deed can be said to be a street, since going by the definition of the term "street" occurring in Rule 2(cr) of the Rules, a street should provide access to more than one plot or one building. Going by the definition, even a private street will satisfy the definition of the term "street", the only condition being that it should give access to more than one plot or one building. From Ext.P8 sketch it is clear that the panchayat road which runs along the eastern boundary of the appellant's lands and the lands taken on lease by her for locating the godown is sought to be given more width by taking on lease the lands lying to the east of the panchayat road. That parcel of land which abuts the panchayat road provides wider access not only to the lands belonging to the appellant in Sy. No.275/1 Part, but also the lands taken on lease by her in the very same survey number for the purpose of locating the godown. The private street and the public street jointly provide access having a width of more than 7 metres to the lands belonging to the appellant and the lands taken on lease by her from another person which are situate to the west of the panchayat road. Thus, in our opinion, the requirements of Rule 61(4) are satisfied in the case on hand. As observed by the Division Bench in Ext.P14 judgment in W.A.No.367 of 2017, the main purpose of providing a pathway of adequate width is to take care of an emergency. At that point of time the dispute was about the termination clause in the lease deed originally entered into between the parties (Ext.P7). Ext.P7 lease deed provided for termination of the lease in the event of persistent default in payment of rent. That clause was deleted when Ext.P15 lease deed was entered into. Then the objection raised was that it does not contain a clause enabling the lessee to use the pathway so long as the godown is in existence. That defect was also rectified when Ext.P17 lease deed was executed. That clause was deleted when Ext.P15 lease deed was entered into. Then the objection raised was that it does not contain a clause enabling the lessee to use the pathway so long as the godown is in existence. That defect was also rectified when Ext.P17 lease deed was executed. However, the Chief Town Planner once again rejected the application for approval of the lay out by Ext.P18 letter setting out the very same reasons set out in Ext.P16. Having regard to the facts stated above and the recitals in Ext.P17, we are of the opinion that the stand taken by the Chief Town Planner cannot be sustained. 16. It is relevant in this context to note that the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the lessor Devaswom are on the party array as respondents 6 to 8. It is evident from Ext.P1 letter of intent that the dealership is for a period of 10 years. It can be renewed thereafter for terms of five years subject to examination of performance by the BPCL. Ext.P17 lease deed discloses that the lands described therein have been leased out to the appellant for a period of 15 years. It also ensures user of the land as a pathway and for parking of vehicles during the said period of 15 years. The other residents of the locality do not have to pass through the lands leased out to the appellant as per Ext.P17 lease deed for the reason that their access is only through the panchayat road and not through the lands covered by Ext.P17 lease deed. The lands covered by Ext.P17 lease deed provide more width to the panchayat road for a distance of about 50 metres. The lands taken on lease as per Ext.P17 can be used for the purpose of providing access to the godown and also for parking of vehicles. That apart, the Division Bench has in Ext.P14 judgment permitted the appellant to enter into a fresh lease deed incorporating a minimum fixed tenure. Such a minimum fixed tenure has been incorporated in Ext.P17 lease deed. Such a term did not occur in the earlier lease deeds. Apart from stating that the lease is not a permanent one, the Chief Town Planner has not set out any reason to decline grant of approval. Such a minimum fixed tenure has been incorporated in Ext.P17 lease deed. Such a term did not occur in the earlier lease deeds. Apart from stating that the lease is not a permanent one, the Chief Town Planner has not set out any reason to decline grant of approval. The Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Ernakulam and the Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Palakkad have approved the site lay out. In the approval granted by the Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Palakkad it is stipulated that the approach road should have a minimum width of 7 metres. We have already held that the street giving access to the lands belonging to the appellant and the lands taken on lease by her for the purpose of establishing the godown, has a width of more than 7 metres. Such being the situation, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled to succeed. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, quash Ext.P18 and direct the Chief Town Planner to grant the approval sought for, expeditiously and in any event, within one month from the date on which the appellant produces a certified copy of this judgment before him. No costs.