JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34707 of 2019 challenging the judgment dated 15.01.2020 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition holding that since a suit is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda by and between the appellant and the third respondent i.e., one K.P. Jayasankar, the appellant has not made out any case of arbitrariness or illegality justifying interference of this Court in Ext.P3 order issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat dated 30.11.2019 declining building number to the appellant. The validity of the said judgement is under challenge in this appeal. 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows: The appellant is the owner of properties situated in Survey Nos. 442/1-1, 449/07 and 437/10-1 of Amballoor Village, Thrissur District. The appellant secured a building permit, and approved plan from the secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat which are dated 08.03.2018. After the completion of the construction of the building, the appellant submitted application dated 20.11.2019 to the second respondent i.e., the Secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat for issuing occupancy certificate and assignment of building number to the building constructed; but the same was rejected by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat stating as follows: “A5/7826/2019 Date: 30.11.2019 From, Secretary, Alagappanagar Grama Panchayat. To, Sri. Narayanan, Kalarikkal House, Amballoor, Alagappanagar P.O. Sir, Sub: Decision regarding the application to assign building number-regarding. Ref: 1. Permit No. A5-BA(48318) 2018 dated 08.03.2018 issued from this office. 2. Your application No.A5/7826/2019 dated 20.11.2019 for obtaining building number. 3. I.A.No.5269/2019 filed by Sri. K.P. Jayasankar before the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda. Building permit first under reference has been sanctioned to you from this office for construction of residential building having an area of 188.4 sq. mtr. in 27.07 Ares property in Sy. No. 442/1-1, 449/07, 437/10-1 of Amballoor Village in Alagappanagar Grama Panchayat; and you submitted application second under reference for obtaining building number after completion of the construction of residential building having area of 229.51 sq. mtr. However, case third under reference has been filed stating that during the construction of the said building, the natural drainage in the property was altered and earth has been levelled in such a manner of flowing water to the property of Sri. mtr. However, case third under reference has been filed stating that during the construction of the said building, the natural drainage in the property was altered and earth has been levelled in such a manner of flowing water to the property of Sri. K.P. Jayasankar, Kalarikkal House, Amballoor, and therefore a wall has to be constructed to prevent the flow of rain water to his property. Therefore, it is informed that further action pursuant to your application can be taken only based on the directions from the Court.” It was aggrieved by the action of the Secretary, the writ petition was filed. 3. Admittedly, the suit filed by the third respondent as O.S. No. 228 of 2019 against the appellant, his wife, the Panchayat and the State of Kerala, is pending consideration before the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda. The reliefs sought for in the suit produced as Annexure A in the writ appeal, read thus: 1. Mandatory injunction against defendants for built up Blocking Wall/retaining wall in between plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and C & D schedule properties for stop flow of water on cost of defendants within a stipulated time span, failing which may allow the plaintiff for completion of the same on cost of defendants in the suit. 2. Prohibitory injunction against 1st and 2nd defendants either their men or agents from debasing 'B' schedule property and again against spilling dirty/mud/rain water to A & D schedule properties from B, C properties. 3. Directing the 3rd defendant to hold the process of issuing House number to the first defendant which the house newly built in 'B' scheduled property till disposal of this suit. 4. The cause of action for the suit is that the defendants, who are the appellant and his wife burdened the 'B' schedule property by debasing the property, removing soil from the property and after blocking all natural water channels of rain water and constructed a house and directed the whole dirty/mud/waste water to the plaint 'A' schedule property and has refused to construct blocking wall for stopping the rain water from 'B' schedule property to 'A' schedule property. 5. 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the suit and nowhere it is stated that there is any violation of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act, 1994' for short) and the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 (the Rules, 2011' for short). But, a contention is advanced by the learned counsel for the third respondent that the appellant has not secured necessary permits from the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, in terms of Rules, 2011 for the excavation of the land wherein the building was constructed. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the subject matter of the suit and the reliefs sought for thereunder has nothing to do with the constructions carried out by the appellant on securing the permit and the building plan from the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, and therefore, after the construction is complete, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat was to undertake the exercise of the issuance of occupancy certificate and assignment of the building number in terms of Act, 1994 and Rules, 2011,on suitable application submitted by he appellant. 7. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the writ petition basically contending that the appellant has carried out excavation to a depth of 7 feet and for that purpose, a permit was not secured from the Grama Panchayat and so also, the appellant has not secured the development permit from the Panchayat. 8. We have heard Sri. Mathew Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader for the State and the learned Standing Counsel for the Grama Panchayat, and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 9. The question to be considered is whether any manner of interference is warranted to the judgment of the learned Single Judge. On going through the impugned judgment, we find that the sole consideration that has weighed with the learned Single Judge is the pendency of the civil suit by and between the parties, and therefore, the action of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat refusing to consider the application for occupancy and to assign number to the building has not suffered with any consequences of arbitrariness or illegality. 10. In order to understand the requirements of law, we thought it fit to discuss the relevant provisions of the Rules, 2011. 10. In order to understand the requirements of law, we thought it fit to discuss the relevant provisions of the Rules, 2011. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has secured a building permit in terms of Rule 7(1) of the Rules, 2011, which stipulates that every person other than a Central or State Government department who intends to construct or reconstruct a building or make alteration or addition or extension to a building shall apply in writing to the Secretary in the form in Appendix A together with plans and statements in triplicate as required under these rules and documents to prove ownership of the land concerned and payment of application fee as in Schedule I along with a copy of the certificate of registration of the Architect or Building Designer or Engineer or Town Planner or Supervisor as the case may be, who has prepared and signed the plans, drawings and statements. 11. Rule 11 of the Rules, 2011 deals with approval of site and plans and issue of permit, which reads thus: “11. Approval of site and plans and issue of permit. - (1) The Secretary shall, after inspection of the site and verification of the site plan and documents, if convinced of the bona fides of the ownership of the site and that the site plan, drawing and specifications conform to the site and the provisions of these rules or bye laws made under the Act and any other law, approve the site and certify the same in the site plan. (2) The Secretary shall, after approving the site and site plan verify whether the building plan, elevation and sections of the building and specifications of the work conform to the site and site plan, and are in accordance with these rules and bye laws made under the Act or any other law; and approve the plan and issue permit to execute the work. (3) Approval of site and plans shall be intimated to the applicant in writing and the permit as in Appendix C shall be issued on remittance of the permit fee at the rates specified in Schedule II and submission of revised or modified plans, if approved with modifications or conditions. (4) If after inspection of the site and verification of the plans and documents, the Secretary decides to refuse approval, the same shall be communicated in writing specifying the reasons. (4) If after inspection of the site and verification of the plans and documents, the Secretary decides to refuse approval, the same shall be communicated in writing specifying the reasons. (5) The secretary shall, if modification to any plan, drawing or specification is required or any further document or plan or information is required or fresh plan is required under these rules for taking a decision, intimate the same to the applicant in writing within 10 days from the date of receipt of such application or plan or document or information.” 12. Rule 12 deals with approval of site and plans and issue of permit where excavations to a depth of more than 1.5 metres is involved, which stipulates that in the case of constructions or land developments which involve any earthwork excavation to a depth of more than 1.5 metres, if the depth of cutting is more than the horizontal distance of such cutting from the plot boundary, the provisions thereafter contained would apply. Proviso thereto specifies that such provisions are not necessary in cases where such excavation is carried out for construction of structures such as wells, septic tanks, recharge pits, drainage works, compound walls and the like. As per sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12, the application for Development and/or building permit shall be submitted by the applicant as per the provisions of the rules, 2011, along with a certificate of the Architect, Building Designer, Engineer, Town Planner, Supervisor as the case may be, who has prepared and signed the plans, drawings, statements etc. as to whether permit as envisaged under Rule 12 is required. As per sub-Rule (3) thereto, the application for permit shall also include sufficient copies of (i) dimensioned plan and sectional drawing showing the levels and depths of cutting at all places in respect of excavations for building construction and land development works; (ii) drawings, specifications and details of temporary and permanent protective measures proposed; and (iii) drawings, specifications and details of slabs, beams, columns, retaining walls etc. proposed at the ground floor level and below; and (iv) details of piles if any, including their drawings, specifications, erection methods and the like. Sub-Rule (4) stipulates that the Secretary shall issue permits as laid down in the Rules. 13. proposed at the ground floor level and below; and (iv) details of piles if any, including their drawings, specifications, erection methods and the like. Sub-Rule (4) stipulates that the Secretary shall issue permits as laid down in the Rules. 13. Therefore, on a reading of the afore-discussed provisions, it is apparent that a permit is granted by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat after verifying the plan, the application submitted as well as the accompanying plans and drawings in accordance with the requirements of Rules, 2011. Various provisions are contained under the Rules, 2011 enabling the Secretary to interfere with the constructions carried out, if it is not in accordance with Rules, 2011. Anyhow, after the completion of the construction, the building owner is duty bound to comply with the stipulations contained under Rule 25 of the Rules, 2011 which reads thus: “25. Completion certificate, development certificate and occupancy certificate.-(1) Every owner shall, on completion of the development or redevelopment of land or construction or reconstruction or addition or alteration of building, as per the permit issued to him, submit a completion certificate certified and signed by him, to the Secretary in the form in Appendix E: Provided that in the case of buildings, other than residential single residential units up to two floors with total floor area not exceeding 150 sq. metres, the completion certificate shall be certified and signed by the owner and registered Architect or Building Designer or Engineer or Town Planner or Supervisor also as in Appendix F. (2) The Secretary shall, on receipt of the completion certificate and on being satisfied that the development or redevelopment of land has been effected in conformity with the requirements of these rules, issue a development certificate in the form in Appendix G, not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of the completion certificate: Provided that if no such development certificate is received within the said fifteen days, the owner may proceed as if such a development certificate has been duly issued to him. (3) The Secretary shall, on receipt of the completion certificate and on being satisfied that the construction or reconstruction or addition or alteration has been carried out in conformity with the requirements of these rules, issue occupancy certificate in the form in Appendix H: not later than fifteen days from the date of receipt of the completion certificate: Provided that, in case there is deficiency as per these rules in the minimum mandatory open spaces/yards other than the distance stipulated as per Section 220(b) of the Act and rule 112 of these Rules after completion of the construction, the secretary may allow a tolerance upto 5% of the minimum mandatory open spaces/yards to be provided as per these rules or 25 centimetres whichever is less for the building constructed: Provided also that if no such occupancy certificate is issued within the said fifteen days, the owner may proceed as if such occupancy certificate has been duly issued to him. (4) The owner of a building may if he intends to occupy the building before its completion, apply to the Secretary for that purpose and the Secretary shall, on being satisfied that such occupancy will not in any way endanger life, issue occupancy certificate in respect of the completed part.” 14. Therefore, at that stage of the proceedings, it is for the Secretary to identify whether the appellant is entitled to secure occupancy certificate and the building number. Even assuming that the owner of the building has carried out any construction violating the building permit the Secretary is vested with ample powers to identify the same and then act in terms of the Rules, 2011. Rule 134 of Chapter XXII dealing with regularisation of unpermitted constructions and deviations are dealt with, which reads thus: “134. Even assuming that the owner of the building has carried out any construction violating the building permit the Secretary is vested with ample powers to identify the same and then act in terms of the Rules, 2011. Rule 134 of Chapter XXII dealing with regularisation of unpermitted constructions and deviations are dealt with, which reads thus: “134. Power of the Secretary to regularise certain constructions.-The Secretary shall have the power to regularise construction or reconstruction addition or alteration of any building or digging of any well or telecommunication tower or any structure or land development or any work, for which permission of the Secretary is necessary under this rule commenced, being carried on completed without obtaining approved plan or in deviation of the approved plan: Provided that such construction or reconstruction or addition or alteration of any building or digging of any well or telecommunication tower or any structure or land development or any such work shall not be in violation of any of the provisions of the Act or these rules: Provided further that such power shall not relieve the Secretary of his responsibility in detecting and preventing such work and in taking other actions as per these rules: Provided also that where the construction or work was commenced, being carried on or completed after the statutory period specified in these rules, such construction or work shall be considered as duly permitted and not one requiring regularization.” 15. So also, Rule 135 of the Rules, 2011 deals with submission of application and procedure for its disposal and it reads thus: “135. Submission of application and procedure for its disposal.-(1) Application for regularization shall be submitted in the form in Appendix A. (2) The application for regularization shall be accompanied by documentary evidence of ownership of plot, site plan, elevation, building plan, service plan, parking plan in cases where the building requires parking, and other details and specifications as are necessary in the case of an application for new building permit; in the case of deviation from approved plan, the approved plan and permit already obtained shall also be submitted. (3) The procedure for disposal of an application for regularization shall be that followed in the case of an application for new permit.” 16. (3) The procedure for disposal of an application for regularization shall be that followed in the case of an application for new permit.” 16. On an analysis of the provisions discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat was duty bound to take a decision in the application submitted by the appellant, especially due to the fact that there was no interim orders preventing the Secretary from carrying out the statutory duties conferred on him under the Rules, 2011. When that be the situation, we are of the view that Ext.P3 order passed by the Secretary on the application submitted by the appellant stating that the application cannot be considered for the issuance of occupancy and assigning building number due to the pendency of the suit is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be interfered with. Moreover the Rules 2011 delineates a structured mechanism to deal with the building permit applications and all consequential matters arising thereto and it is a self contained statute having its own methodologies to deal with the situations arising there from. Therefore, in our considered view, unless and until any embargo is created by any lawful orders of any court of law interfering with the power of the secretary, the secretary is duty bound to discharge the duties cast upon him under the Rules, 2011. Above all, the 3rd respondent has not raised any cause of action in the suit in respect of the plan and permit secured by the appellant from the secretary of the Panchayat and therefore mere relief sought for, for not issuing building number to the completed construction in the suit is a superfluous one lacking merits and bona fides and further it shows an attempt on the part of the 3rd respondent to protract the proceedings before the Secretary. 17. Therefore deducing the facts, law, and circumstances in that manner, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that mere pendency of the suit will disable the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to take a decision in the application submitted by the appellant. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge requires interference. Therefore deducing the facts, law, and circumstances in that manner, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that mere pendency of the suit will disable the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to take a decision in the application submitted by the appellant. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge requires interference. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and direct the second respondent i.e., the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, Alagappanagar Grama Panchayat, Thrissur District to reconsider the application submitted by the appellant in terms of the Act, 1994 and the Rules, 2011 at the earliest and at any rate, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after securing participation of the appellant. We also make it clear that, we did not intend to interfere with the suit proceedings in respect of other issues raised in the suit in terms of the cause of action, and all those issues are left open to be tried and adjudicated in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed.