JUDGMENT : The facts presented in these cases exhibit a classic case of conflict between the residents of an area animated by apprehensions of safety, vis-a-vis the right of individuals to start businesses that are considered to be hazardous. 2. The three writ petitions that I am considering in this judgment have commonality in their legal attributes, with the factual situations involved therein being entwined. Since the reliefs in one case would immediately impact the reliefs to be granted in the other, I deem it appropriate to dispose of all these matters by this judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, I treat W.P. (C)No.21461/2016 as the lead case and all reference to parties, documents and materials in this judgment will be as appearing in the said writ petition unless otherwise specially ordered. 3. I have heard Sri.K.Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.Brijesh Menon, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21461/2016; Sri.Rahul Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.23221/2016; Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board; Sri.B.Krishna Mani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Grama Panchayat; Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 4. The first petitioner, Sri.K.Rajeev, claims to be the owner of certain extent of land at Kottiyam, while the second petitioner, Smt.Anju, is stated to be a person who has taken the said property on lease. According to the petitioners, Smt.Anju was issued Exhibit P1 Letter of Intent by the Indian Oil Corporation for the purpose of setting up distribution of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) Cylinders at Kottiyam. According to them, as per the terms of the Intent, they are to provide a godown to store the LPG cylinders and that for such purpose the first petitioner had applied to the Thrikkovilvattom Grama Panchayat, which is the concerned Local Self Government Institution, for a building permit. They say that when the Panchayat did not issue the permit initially, they had approached this Court and obtained orders, subsequent to which Exhibit P2 building permit was issued. They also say that, as is clear from Exhibit P2, the building permit has been issued specifically for the construction of a gas godown under the occupancy head 'hazardous'. 5. They say that when the Panchayat did not issue the permit initially, they had approached this Court and obtained orders, subsequent to which Exhibit P2 building permit was issued. They also say that, as is clear from Exhibit P2, the building permit has been issued specifically for the construction of a gas godown under the occupancy head 'hazardous'. 5. However, before the petitioners could cause the construction on the strength of Exhibit P2 building permit, it transpires that a neighbour by name Smt.P.Shyla Majeed filed an appeal, numbered as Appeal No.1170/2014 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram ('the Tribunal' for brevity) challenging the said permit. The pleadings on record show that this appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 20.12.2014 and that even though Smt.Shyla Majeed attempted a review against the said order, the same was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 09.01.2015. 6. It appears that when the petitioners thus commenced the construction, certain persons in the locality objected to the same citing security concerns, which constrained the second petitioner, Smt.Anju, to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27269/2014 and obtained an order directing the police authorities to afford her sufficient protection to complete the construction without let or hindrance from the obstructors. The petitioners say that pursuant to these directions, the police afforded protection and that the construction has now been completed. 7. The petitioners state that after the construction was thus completed, when they applied to the Panchayat for issuance of Occupancy Certificate and to have the building numbered, the Panchayat instead of doing so, issued a memo directing that the construction be stopped on the ground that there were objections from the residents of the neighbourhood and that this constrained them to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by filing Appeal Nos.208/2015 and 38/2016 challenging the aforementioned stop memo and seeking directions against the inaction of the Panchayat in issuing the Occupancy Certificate and allotting the building number. The petitioners say that in both these appeals the Panchayat was arrayed as the respondent and that the Tribunal, after affording them an opportunity to place their objections, if any, on record, allowed the appeals directing the Panchayat to issue the Occupancy Certificate and to number the building. The petitioners say that in both these appeals the Panchayat was arrayed as the respondent and that the Tribunal, after affording them an opportunity to place their objections, if any, on record, allowed the appeals directing the Panchayat to issue the Occupancy Certificate and to number the building. A copy of the said order of the Tribunal, which will hereinafter be referred to as the “Occupancy Order” to avoid confusion while I refer to certain other orders in this judgment, has been placed on record as Exhibit P5. On the specific allegation that the Panchayat has still not acted, the petitioners have filed this writ petition praying that this order of the Tribunal be implemented. 8. The above being so, W.P.(C)No.22567/2016 has been filed by the Panchayat who, very interestingly, are challenging not only the aforementioned “Occupancy Order” which has been produced as Exhibit P11 in this writ petition, but also the order of the Tribunal, dated 20.12.2014, in the appeal filed by Smt.Shyla Majeed, referred by me earlier (which order will herein after be referred to as the “Building Permit Order”), a copy of which has been produced in this writ petition as Exhibit P5, as also the order of the Tribunal, dated 09.01.2015, in the review application, also filed by Smt.Shyla Majeed, a copy of which has been placed on record as Exhibit P6 in this writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the “Review Order”). The primary contention of the Panchayat, as is discernible from the pleadings in this writ petition, is that these orders of the Tribunal are illegal and untenable, since they have been issued by the Tribunal without adverting to the safety concerns of the public at large. 9. In addition to the afore two writ petitions, W.P.(C)No. 23221/2016 has been filed by five individuals, the first of whom is stated to be the member of the Grama Panchayat. For ease of reading this judgment, I will refer to the petitioners in this writ petition as the “objectors”. 10. The objectors challenge the “Occupancy Order” of the Tribunal dated 23.05.2016, which has been produced as Exhibit P6 in this writ petition. For ease of reading this judgment, I will refer to the petitioners in this writ petition as the “objectors”. 10. The objectors challenge the “Occupancy Order” of the Tribunal dated 23.05.2016, which has been produced as Exhibit P6 in this writ petition. Their allegation is that the construction made by the first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21461/2016 (who will hereinafter be referred to by his name -Sri.Rajeev) is hazardous to human life and that the operation of an LPG godown in the said building would lead to disastrous consequences for the neighbourhood. 11. It is in the afore-narrated factual matrix that I am now called upon to consider the various dialectical claims made by the parties to these writ petitions. 12. As I have already seen above, the construction made by Sri.Rajeev is concededly on the strength of Exhibit P2 building permit dated 26.09.2014. Pertinently, neither the Panchayat or its Secretary has at any time issued any order cancelling the said permit. The sole challenge to that permit was made by Smt.Shyla Majeed, who assailed it directly before the Tribunal, which led to the “Building Permit Order” being issued by it. Even though the Panchayat was a party in that appeal, it is clear from the contents of the order that they have chosen not to contest the appeal or to say anything against the building permit. This is perhaps because the Panchayat could not have said anything against the said permit, which was validly issued by them and which had not been even attempted to be cancelled by its Secretary, invoking the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. 13. I can see from the “Building Permit Order” that the Tribunal went into the issues involved therein in great detail, particularly the question whether such a construction requires a road access with a minimum width of seven metres and found that under the then existing Building Rules, the width of such road was required to be only three metres, which is admittedly available in this case and thus, the appeal was dismissed. Even though a review was attempted against that order by Smt.Shyla Majeed, as seen by me earlier, it was also dismissed, as is clear from the “Review Order”. 14. Even though a review was attempted against that order by Smt.Shyla Majeed, as seen by me earlier, it was also dismissed, as is clear from the “Review Order”. 14. Once the proceedings before the Tribunal concluded so, obviously, the petitioners were entitled to continue construction, since there were no subsisting legal impediments in their path and therefore, when obstructions were caused by residents of the neighbourhood to their construction activities, they were able to obtain an order from this Court directing the police to afford protection for the construction and it was thus that it was completed. Legitimately, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to have the building numbered and Occupancy Certificate issued, since there were no other legal issues standing in their way. 15. However, instead of doing so, the Panchayat chose to issue a stop memo and to refuse to number the building, which constrained the petitioners to approach the Tribunal again and to obtain the “Occupancy Order”, dated 23rd May, 2016 from it, wherein all the objections raised by the Panchayat were rejected. It is, therefore, luculent that the decks had been cleared for the numbering of the building and the issuance of the Occupancy Certificate, since the Panchayat normally would not have obtained the locus to challenge the orders of the Tribunal, particularly because the building permit, earlier issued by the Secretary, has not been cancelled at any point of time. 16. However, inexplicably, the Panchayat has chosen to file W.P.(C)No.22567/2016, challenging not merely the “Occupancy Order” of the Tribunal but also the “Building Permit order” and the “Review Order”, as per which, the building permit had been found valid. 17. I fail to understand how the Panchayat has assumed to itself the locus to file this writ petition when they do not have a case that the building permit issued by them in the year 2014 suffers from any vice or that it is liable to be withdrawn. It has expressly conceded in its pleadings in this writ petition that the building permit was never sought to be cancelled and also that the Panchayat had not raised any objections to the said permit even when the Tribunal was seized of the matter in the appeal filed by Smt.Shyla Majeed. 18. That apart, the “Building Permit Order” of the Tribunal was issued on 20.12.2014 and the review application filed against this was dismissed on 19.01.2015. 18. That apart, the “Building Permit Order” of the Tribunal was issued on 20.12.2014 and the review application filed against this was dismissed on 19.01.2015. Nothing is stated in this writ petition as to why the Panchayat kept quiet until June, 2016 to file this writ petition and it is thus obvious that they were remaining as a mute spectator merrily watching the parties fight each other and then they finally jumped into the bandwagon only when the “Occupancy Order” of the Tribunal was issued. This order of the Tribunal, dated 23.05.2016, is only directing the Panchayat to issue the Occupancy Certificate and to number the building and for some inscrutable reason, the Panchayat feels that it is now upon them to challenge all the orders, including the “Building Permit Order” and “Review Order”, without stating as to why such a challenge is moved. 19. As I have already said above, as long as the building permit has not been objected to by the Panchayat or withdrawn by them, I fail to understand how they would obtain the competence to challenge the subsequent order of the Tribunal which only directs them to number the building, constructed on the strength of such permit, and to issue Occupancy Certificate to it. 20. I, therefore, am of the opinion that I would have been justified in mulcting exemplary costs on the Panchayat for having approached this Court in this fashion but on account of the fact that it is a Public Authority and since that they have presumably acted on account of the pressure of the residents of the neighbourhood, I deem it appropriate to leave it there, without making any order as to costs against them. 21. As regards W.P.(C) No.23221/2016 is concerned, as stated by me above, one of the “Objectors” is a Panchayat member and the others are stated to be residing close to the construction made by the petitioners. They have challenged the “Occupancy Order” of the Tribunal dated 23.05.2016, but not the “Building Permit Order”. Their only challenge in this writ petition is hence against the direction issued by the Tribunal to the Panchayat to number the building and to issue the Occupancy Certificate. However, very pertinently, none of “objectors” are parties in the appeal that led to the said order and they have, admittedly, not even approached the Panchayat with a representation against the construction. However, very pertinently, none of “objectors” are parties in the appeal that led to the said order and they have, admittedly, not even approached the Panchayat with a representation against the construction. They have, however, chosen to lend their name to this litigation, to challenge an order of the Tribunal before which they were never a party and in a proceeding in which they never even attempted to implead themselves. It is baffling that the “objectors” should, therefore, claim the locus to file this writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal in which they were not arrayed on either side and for which they have not sought the leave from this Court, even if it is assumed that such a leave can be obtained. This writ petition should, in ordinary circumstances, therefore only deserve to be dismissed for this sole reason. 22. However, since the “objectors” seem to be voicing a public apprehension against the construction made by the petitioners, even though I find no locus for them to file a writ petition, I deem it necessary to consider their contentions in this writ petition so that they will not be left with a grievance that they have been non-suited solely on account of absence of locus standi. This is more so since I am guided to a suspicion that the “objectors” have rushed to this Court in this manner probably being under a wrong impression that they have gathered with regard to the proposed activity in the building. 23. I say this because, in the representation said to have been made by the local residents, (but not the “objectors”), a fear is seen stated that the construction may be used for the purpose of an LPG Bottling Plant. If, as apprehended by the residents in the said representation, the construction is meant to be used as an LPG Bottling Plant, certainly they would have had a cause for concern. However, the fact remains that in this case, the construction is intended to be used only as a storage for LPG Cylinders, under the strict supervisory scrutiny of the Indian Oil Corporation. 24. Further, as has been found by the learned Tribunal in its “Building Permit Order”, the permit was issued after obtaining full compliance of the then existing Rules and finding that the proposed construction conforms to all the stipulations and requirements under the said Rules. 24. Further, as has been found by the learned Tribunal in its “Building Permit Order”, the permit was issued after obtaining full compliance of the then existing Rules and finding that the proposed construction conforms to all the stipulations and requirements under the said Rules. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the “objectors” is that the Building Rules were amended in the year 2015 and therefore, that the petitioners should have been directed by the Panchayat to comply with such amendments also. I am afraid that I cannot accede to this contention at all because the building permit was issued in the year 2014 and the construction also appears to have been commenced and completed soon thereafter. In that view of the matter, the assertion that the amendments made in the year 2015 should be made applicable to the construction of the petitioners is completely untenable and too far fetched. 25. The above apart, as regards the safety issues impelled by the “objectors” are concerned, I notice the submissions made on behalf of the Pollution Control Board that a storage godown for LPG gas cylinders has been included in the white category, because the potential for pollution has been found to be virtually negligent. The learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board also adds that even a consent to operate is not necessary to be obtained by the petitioners for such purpose and that a one time registration will be sufficient. 26. On an assessment of the afore submissions and circumstances, it becomes obvious that the “objectors” have approached this Court under a misdirected apprehension that the presence of an LPG godown in the area would have disastrous consequences. 27. Unfortunately, the Panchayat and the members of the Panchayat have thought it fit to add to the fearmongering and they have filed a writ petition without any discernible reason, challenging lawful orders of the Tribunal, without even stating why such challenge has been made. The conduct of the Panchayat, I must say, is extremely disconcerting and, as I have already said above, normally should have led to implicit consequences of costs being ordered against them. The conduct of the Panchayat, I must say, is extremely disconcerting and, as I have already said above, normally should have led to implicit consequences of costs being ordered against them. It is their duty to assure the citizens that their actions and orders are done and issued validly, under the applicable process of law and that the alarmist canards being spread, either out of ignorance or by vested interests, are allayed by them suitably rather than contributing to it by filing a writ petition, making reckless and unsubstantiated assertions for parochial and questionable reasons. 28. Sri.B.Krishnamani, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat at this time submits, in purported answer to my observations above, that the Panchayat has filed the writ petition only because they thought that the concerns of the neighbourhood had to be taken into account. According to him, the stop memo was issued to the petitioners asking them to stop construction only because the persons in the locality apprehended that the conduct of a gas godown in the building will be hazardous to human life and he says that the Panchayat was legally obligated to act thus under the provisions of Section 235-O of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. I notice that, in fact, these contentions were also taken note of by the learned Tribunal while issuing the “Occupancy Order” dated 23.05.2016, and that it concluded, in my view correctly, that it is only when a building or a construction endangers human life, can the Panchayat invoke the provisions of this Section. 29. This is indubitable from the particular manner in which Section 235-O is drafted in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. To facilitate a full reading, I deem it appropriate to extract the said Section as under: “235-O. Stoppage of construction or reconstruction endangering human life.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the foregoing provisions in this chapter, the Secretary may, at any time, stop the construction or reconstruction of any building if, in his opinion, the work in progress is dangerous to human life.” 30. An ex facie reading of the said Section makes it absolutely inescapable that the Secretary of a Local Self Government Institution can ask a construction or a reconstruction of a building to be stopped, if he is of the opinion that the work in progress is dangerous to human life. An ex facie reading of the said Section makes it absolutely inescapable that the Secretary of a Local Self Government Institution can ask a construction or a reconstruction of a building to be stopped, if he is of the opinion that the work in progress is dangerous to human life. It does not require any further expatiation that it is only when a construction is in progress and when such ongoing construction is, in the opinion of the Secretary, dangerous to human life can he order to stop it. The purpose of this Section is ineluctably to ensure that even a construction, proceeded under a valid permit, if found carried on dangerously to human life, is interdicted by the competent authority. 31. This is, however, in contra-distinction to the user to which a building is put to use and the Secretary has no power to seek a completed construction to be either demolished or removed merely because the proposed user is, in his opinion, dangerous to human life. This consideration comes to play when the D&O licence is considered by the Panchayat and it will very well be open to it to deny such licence for the user of the building being found contrary to law or endangering human life. However, for this purpose, Section 235-O cannot be pressed into service and the attempt of the Panchayat to act under its umbra in this case is clearly ill-conceived and bordering on mischievousness. 32. In this case, what the Panchayat says is not that the building is harmful or dangerous to human life but that the activity that is proposed inside it may cause danger to the residents of the neighbourhood. I am firm in my mind that the learned Tribunal has concluded correctly that in such circumstances the provisions of Section 235-O of the Panchayat Raj Act cannot be invoked by the Panchayat. 33. To add of this, the fact that the Panchayat had chosen to remain completely silent in the proceedings before the Tribunal, both when the building permit was challenged and when the “Occupancy Order” was issued, without choosing to even file their counter pleadings on record, I fail to understand how they would obtain the locus to say all this in a writ petition challenging the said orders even without making an attempt to file a review before the Tribunal. 34. 34. For the afore reasons, I order W.P.(C)No.21461/2016 and direct the second respondent -Secretary of the Panchayat to immediately issue the Occupancy Certificate with respect to the building in question, constructed by the petitioners and to number the same. This exercise shall be completed by the Secretary as expeditiously as is practically possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, W.P.(C) Nos. 22567/2016 and 23221/2016 will consequently stand dismissed.