JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. Meenachil Grama Panchayat issued a permit to the fifth respondent to construct an M-sand unit on approval of layout by the Chief Town Planner. Under Rule 61 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 relatable to Group-I hazardous occupancy, the site must have minimum clear width of access of 7 meters. [See Rule 61(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules]. 2. The fifth respondent in this appeal obtained an approval of layout from the Chief Town Planner on a condition that he will ensure the width of the bridge is made to 7 meters at the time of its reconstruction. It is through this bridge the fifth respondent is having access to his site. This was questioned by the appellant herein before the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institution, Thiruvananthapuram. This challenge was negatived by the Tribunal, and subsequently, a writ petition was filed before this Court. The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition dismissed the same. This is how, the appeal was preferred by the petitioner. 3. It is appropriate to refer Rule 61(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, which reads thus : 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. The above statutory provision is mandatory. No authority can dilute the statutory provision to grant mandatory approval. Statutory authorities are bound to ensure that, before a permit is being granted, there exist a minimum clear width of 7 meters access to the building or plot from main street. Statutory provisions cannot be diluted by obtaining an undertaking to that effect that access to the plot will be widened in future. Therefore, we are of the view that both the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge erred in holding otherwise. 4. However, the Senior Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent raised three arguments. The first argument was that the writ petition is not maintainable; the second argument is that it is a vexatious litigation and; the third argument is that the appellant being a foreign national, he cannot maintain the writ petition. We shall answer these questions together. 5. A permit issued in violation of the statutory provision can be questioned by any person. We shall answer these questions together. 5. A permit issued in violation of the statutory provision can be questioned by any person. Admittedly, the appellant is the resident of the Meenachil Grama Panchayat. This cannot be treated as a public interest litigation as the individual interest of a resident of the locality would be affected if local bodies are allowed to flout the law. It is true that the appellant is a Canadian citizen. He is also a holder of Overseas Citizenship of India card and residing within the local areas of the Panchayat. It is also to be noted that he was also an applicant for establishing a M-Sand unit; and his application was rejected on the same ground, that is, lack of width for access road. Law does not distinguish between an Indian citizen and a foreign citizen, if such a violation affects him due to non compliance of mandatory statutory provisions. Therefore, this writ petition is maintainable. 6. As we already observed, the Chief Town Planner could not have approved this layout plan as it violates the mandatory statutory rules. Law does not envisage compliance of requisites for issuance of permit in a future date, after issuance of the permit. If requisites are to be complied before issuance of the permit, no permit can be issued with a stipulation to comply on a future date. Thus, according to us, the permit is liable to be revoked. 7. However, taking note of fact that the M-sand unit is functioning for last more than eight years, we grant time as mentioned hereafter to the fifth respondent to comply with the directions by widening the bridge having minimum access of 7 meters by the Panchayat on meeting the entire expenses by the fifth respondent. The Panchayat shall prepare estimates for widening the bridge within a period of four weeks; and, thereafter, the fifth respondent shall deposit the amount with the Panchayat within a further period of two weeks. If this is not done within the time limit, the Panchayat shall revoke the permit issued in favour of the fifth respondent without any delay thereon. On deposit of the amount by the fifth respondent, the Panchayat shall award the work through tender for successful completion without much delay. The entire work shall be completed within a further period of three months thereon. The writ appeal is disposed of as above.