JUDGMENT : Petitioners are the owners of property having an extent of 6.75 Ares in Sy.No.85/18-2 of Aluva village. In the said property, the petitioners are having a commercial building is the submission. On 26.04.2012, petitioners submitted an application to the 2nd respondent seeking building permit for the construction of first floor in the existing building. Consequently, Ext.P1 building permit was issued. Subsequently, after the construction of the building on 05.07.2013, petitioners submitted an application to the 2nd respondent for issuing completion certificate. Since no action was taken by the officer concerned to issue completion certificate, the 1st petitioner submitted a reminder to the 3rd respondent to issue occupancy certificate after issuing number to the building. Ext.P2 is the reminder. In Ext.P2, petitioners stated that, though the building number was not issued, they had remitted an amount of ` 35,100/-towards the building tax as assessed by the Tahsildar, Aluva. Exts.P3 to P7 are the tax assessment order, notice of demand and three receipts to prove the same. Matter being so, on 07.09.2014, the 1st petitioner received a registered notice along with enclosure from the 3rd respondent intimating that as per the letter issued by the 5th respondent, NOC was declined to the building of the petitioners and therefore building number cannot be issued. Ext.P8 is the notice. It is submitted that the property in which construction is proposed is situated near to the Naval Armament Depot, Aluva (for short NAD), for which No Objection Certificate is required for issuing building permit. Thus, in pursuance of the application of the petitioners on 29.05.2012 a request for issuing NOC was forwarded by the 3rd respondent to the 5th respondent as provided under the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011 (for short 'Rules 2011'). Along with that letter it is seen that the 3rd respondent has also forwarded a copy of the NOC issued by the 5th respondent to the adjacent property of the NAD. Ext.P9 is the request forwarded by the 3rd respondent to the 5th respondent and Ext.P10 is the NOC issued to KMJ School. It is submitted that the said request with enclosure is accepted by the 5th respondent on 05.06.2012. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 7 (5) of Rules, 2011, the 4th respondent has to intimate their objection if any within 30 days from the date of receipt of Ext.P9. It is submitted that the said request with enclosure is accepted by the 5th respondent on 05.06.2012. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 7 (5) of Rules, 2011, the 4th respondent has to intimate their objection if any within 30 days from the date of receipt of Ext.P9. Since nothing was heard from the 5th respondent for more than 9 months after the submission of application for building permit, Ext.P1 was issued to the petitioners. Ext.P11 is also produced by the petitioners to show that an intimation was sent by the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent to find out whether there is any objection on the part of the 5th respondent in numbering the building. It is submitted that, in pursuance of Ext.P11 the 5th respondent issued Ext.P12 letter to the 3rd respondent enclosing a letter issued by the 4th respondent to the 5th respondent intimating that the application for NOC for construction of building by the petitioners has been examined and is not approved. It is submitted that the entire actions of the respondents are per se illegal and beyond the scope of their statutory authority. It is submitted that the petitioners have submitted an application for construction of the building on 26.04.2012 and the 3rd respondent had issued Ext.P1 building permit since there was no response from the 5th respondent for about 9 months after the submission of Ext.P9 seeking NOC. Petitioners have invested lakhs of rupees in setting up the building in issue on the bona fide assumption that they are having sanction for construction of the building in pursuance of Ext.P1. Petitioners cannot be made liable for delay and laches on the part of the officials concerned is the submission. Moreover, the petitioners also relied on Rules 7(5) and 7(9) of Rules 2011 and submitted that there is a presumption that there is no objection from the 5th respondent in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, this Writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(i) to issue a writ of mandamus calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P8, examine its legality, propriety and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 2 and 3 to number the building of the petitioners constructed in accordance with Exhibit P1 permit. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 2 and 3 to number the building of the petitioners constructed in accordance with Exhibit P1 permit. (iii) to pass any other and such other orders as this Honourable Court deem fit to pass in the nature and circumstances of the case. (iv) To award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.” [sic] 2. Heard the learned Senior counsel Adv. G. Sreekumar as instructed by his retaining counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayath and the learned DSGI. 3. The learned Senior counsel reiterated the contentions raised in this Writ petition. The learned DSGI based on the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent submitted that the construction is in the prohibited area and that is why the NOC was not issued. The DSGI took me through the counter filed and submitted that the NOC cannot be issued in the facts and circumstances of this case. 4. This Court considered the contentions of the parties. This Court directed the DSGI to produce the file which leads to 5th Ext.R4(b). Ext.R4(b) is the request submitted by the respondent to the Panchayath. This Court perused the file. It is an admitted fact that the Panchayath submitted Ext.P9 on 29.05.2012. It was received by the 5th respondent on 05.06.2012. Thereafter the NAD sought clarification from the Edathala Grama Panchayath vide letter dated 19.06.2012 as evident from Exhibit R4(b). The same is also available in the file produced by the DSGI. The relevant portion of Exhibit R4(b) is extracted hereunder: “2. It is requested that a copy of permission issued by the panchayat to construct the existing building (the ground floor building as per your plan) may be forwarded to this office for processing the case.” 5. In the above letter, it is only stated that a copy of the permission issued by the Panchayath to construct the existing building (the ground floor building as per the plan) is to be forwarded. Thereafter, as per the file produced by the DSGI, the matter was referred to the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Naval Command (CWO), Kochi as per letter dated 02.07.2012. 6. Thereafter, there is communication between the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief to the Officer-in-charge of Weapon Equipment Depot and the same is dated 09.07.2012, in which comments/recommendations in the letter dated 02.07.2012 was invited. 6. Thereafter, there is communication between the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief to the Officer-in-charge of Weapon Equipment Depot and the same is dated 09.07.2012, in which comments/recommendations in the letter dated 02.07.2012 was invited. Thereafter, the Lieutenant commander, Office-in-charge, Weapon Equipment Depot, Naval Base addressed to the Flag officer Commanding-in-charge, Headquarters, Southern Naval Command, Kochi in which it is stated that the proposal for construction may not be recommended for approval. Thereafter, there was some internal communication and consequently, the communication was sent on 22.08.2014 requesting the Panchayat not to allot building number to the building constructed by the petitioner near Weapon Equipment Depot, NAD, Alwaye and it should be kept in abeyance till NOC is received from the competent authorities of Navy. Subsequently, a letter dated 28.04.2014 was sent informing the Panchayat that the NOC sought was not approved. Ext. P12 is the letter. Based on the same, Ext.P8 dated 05.09.2014 is issued by the Panchayath to the petitioner. 7. So, it is clear that the Panchayat issued Ext.P9 on 29.05.2012 and an order was issued by the Weapon Equipment Depot only on 21.08.2014 refusing NOC. In the meanwhile, the building permit was already issued as evident by Ext.P1 on 15.02.2013. In such circumstances, whether Ext.P8 is sustainable is the question to be decided. 8. Rule 7 of the Rules, 2011 deals about the application for building permit. Rule 7(5) says about the permission to be obtained from the Defence establishment. It will be better to extract Rule 7(5) and (9) of the Rules, 2011. “7…… (5) In the case of an application to construct or re-construct a building or make alteration or addition or extension to a building or make or enlarge any structure within a distance of 100 metres from any property maintained by the Defence establishment, the Secretary shall consult in writing the officer in charge of the said establishment, before permission is granted. Such officer shall furnish his reply within 30 days from the date of receipt of the consultation letter if such establishment has any objection to the proposed construction. The objections raised by the officer within the said 30 days shall be duly considered by the Secretary before issuing permit. If no objection is received within the stipulated time, the Secretary shall presume that there is no objection and proceed with the issue of permit as per rules. The objections raised by the officer within the said 30 days shall be duly considered by the Secretary before issuing permit. If no objection is received within the stipulated time, the Secretary shall presume that there is no objection and proceed with the issue of permit as per rules. xxx xxx xxx xxx (9) In case where final remarks are not received within 30 days from the Defence officer/Railway Authority as in sub-rules (5) or (6) the Secretary may delay final decision in the application for permit, if any interim reply is received from the Defence/Railway authority. If not the Secretary shall presume that there is no objection and proceed with the issue of permit as per rules.” (Underline supplied) 9. A perusal of Rule 7(5) would show that in case of an application for construction or re-construction of a building or alteration or addition or extension to a building or enlargement of any structure within a distance of 100 metres from any property maintained by Defence establishment, the Secretary shall consult in writing the officer-in-charge of such establishment before the permission is granted. Such officer shall furnish his reply within thirty days from the date of receipt of consultation letter, if such establishment has any objection to the proposed construction. The objection, if any raised by the officer within the said thirty days shall be duly considered by the Secretary before issuing permit. If no objection is received within the stipulated time, the Secretary shall presume that there is no objection and proceed with the issue of permit as per rules. Rule 7(9) says that in case where the final remarks are not received within 30 days’ time from the Defence Officer or Railway Authorities as in sub rule (5) or (6), the Secretary may delay final decision, if “any interim reply” is received from the Defence/Railway Authority concerned. If not, the Secretary shall presume that there is no objection and proceed with the issue of permit as per rules. 10. From Rule 7(5) and (9), it is clear that the Secretary needs to issue a request for permission if an application for construction or re-construction of a building or alteration or addition or extension to a building or enlargement of any structure within the distance of 100 metres of the property maintained by the Defence establishment, is submitted. The Secretary needs to wait only for 30 days. The Secretary needs to wait only for 30 days. In the meanwhile, if “any interim reply” is received, the Secretary may delay the final decision. Rule 7(5) says that if the objection if any raised by the Officer within the said thirty days, the same shall be duly considered by the Secretary before issuing permit. In this case, absolutely no objection is received from the Defence establishment within thirty days. Rule 7(5) and (9) says that the Secretary shall presume that there is no objection and proceed with the issue of permit as per rules, if there is no interim reply is received within the period. The DSGI tried to convince this Court that the communication issued on 19.06.2012 produced as Ext. R4(b) can be treated as an “interim reply”. What is the meaning of 'interim reply'?. It means means an interim answer to the query. A request of forwarding some additional documents cannot be treated as “interim reply”. The letter dated 19.06.2012 cannot be treated as an interim reply to the request of the Panchayat on 29.05.2012. Therefore, from the date of receipt of Ext.P9, there is no reply or interim reply from the 4th and 5th respondents for 30 days. If that is the case, the Secretary is perfectly justified in presuming that there is no objection from 4th and 5th respondents. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P8 and the proceedings of the 4th and 5th respondents relied on Ext.P8 is to be set aside. Consequently the building of the petitioners is to be numbered. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions : 1) Ext.P8 and the reference No.3 in Ext.P8 are quashed. 2) There will be a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to number the building of the petitioners constructed, if the construction is in accordance with Ext. P1 permit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.