ORDER : 1. Respondents in the writ petition have come up in this proceedings seeking review of the judgment. The parties and documents are referred to in this order, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner has preferred an application for building permit before the first respondent Panchayat. The application was for a commercial building. In terms of Ext.P9 communication, the second respondent, the Secretary of the Panchayat has informed the petitioner that his request cannot be considered until the unauthorized building existing in the land where he proposes to put up the new commercial building is regularised. This court rejected the stand of the respondents in Ext.P9 communication, holding that Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 (the Rules) dealing with the grounds on which the applications for permission to construct buildings can be rejected, does not confer authority on the second respondent to refuse to consider an application for building permit on that ground. That apart, this Court also took note of the fact that Ext.P8 communication issued by the Panchayat to the petitioner to seek regularisation of the building referred to in Ext.P9 communication has been challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and further proceedings pursuant to the said communication has been stayed by the Tribunal. This Court, in the circumstances, allowed the writ petition, quashed Ext.P9 communication and directed the second respondent to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner afresh. The case set out by the respondents in the review petition is that in the light of the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, the second respondent was justified in refusing to consider the application preferred by the petitioner on the ground mentioned in Ext.P9 communication, and the judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered without taking note of the said provision of law. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners as also the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the ground on which the respondents seek review of the judgment is not a ground that was taken in the writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners as also the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the ground on which the respondents seek review of the judgment is not a ground that was taken in the writ petition. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules does not empower the second respondent to refuse to consider an application for building permit. 5. True, the ground on which the respondents seek review of the judgment is not a ground that was urged at the time of hearing of the writ petition. However, the ground being a point of law, according to me, there cannot be any impediment for the respondents to seek review of the judgment on that ground. 6. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules dealing with the applicability of the Rules reads thus: “3. Applicability - These rules shall apply to:- (1) 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. (b) where the building is altered, these rules shall apply to the altered portion of the building. (c) where the occupancy or use of building is changed, these rules shall apply to all the parts of the building affected by the change. (d) where addition or extension is made to a building, these rules shall apply to the addition or extension only. Provided that, for calculation of Floor Space Index, coverage, required off street parking area to be provided and width of access to the plot as well as minimum width of the street giving access to the plot from the main street, the whole building existing to be retained and proposed shall be taken into account: Provided further that the addition, extension or new building shall be permitted only if the site and existing buildings are authorised.” (Underline supplied) 7. True, the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules provides that the addition, extension or new building shall be permitted only if the site and existing buildings are authorised. True, the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules provides that the addition, extension or new building shall be permitted only if the site and existing buildings are authorised. The question is whether the said proviso confers authority to the Secretary of the Panchayat to refuse to consider an application for building permit until unauthorized buildings, if any, in the land where a new building is proposed are regularised. Answer to the said question depends on the interpretation of the proviso aforesaid. Being part of the rule dealing with the applicability of the Rules, the said proviso is to be considered only in the context of the applicability of the Rules [Abdul Jabar Butt and Another vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1957 SC 281 ]. If the proviso aforesaid is read in that context, it is clear that what is intended to be conveyed by the rule making authority is only that addition or extension of an existing building can be permitted only if the existing building is one lawfully constructed, and that a new construction can be permitted only if the land is one on which a building could be lawfully constructed. The said proviso, according to me, cannot be understood as conferring power on the competent authority to refuse to consider an application for building permit until the unauthorized buildings, if any, in the land where the building is proposed are regularised. If that were to be the intention of the rule-making authority, then, the same should have been part of Rule 11 of the Rules dealing with the grounds on which applications for building permit could be rejected by the competent authority. 8. The review petition, in the circumstances, is without substance and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.