JUDGMENT : In all these writ petitions, the dispute pertains to the Building Permit, Occupancy Certificate and the Consent to Establish granted to the 9 th and 3 rd respondents in WP(C) No.20590/2023, to establish an automobile workshop/service centre, to repair light motor vehicles manufactured by Maruti. (For convenience, WP(C) No.20590/2023 is treated as the leading case and the parties and Exhibits are referred to as described in the said writ petition, unless otherwise specifically mentioned). 2. The facts which are necessary to consider the issues are as follows: The petitioners in all these writ petitions are claiming to be persons/establishments residing or having properties near the property owned by the 9 th respondent, where an automobile workshop is being established by the 3 rd respondent. The property where the workshop is being established has an extent of 45.52 Ares, and the said property is situated on the side of Pala – Erattupetta main road, which comes within the jurisdiction of the 4 th respondent - Municipality. The 9 th respondent obtained a building permit from the 4 th respondent on 26.4.2019 for the construction of a commercial building and later in the year, 2023, the plan was revised as evidenced by Ext.P1 permit granted by the Municipality. Subsequently, on completion of the said building, the 4 th respondent issued Ext.P9 occupancy certificate to the said building which has a plinth area of 927.76 Sqm. In Ext.P9 itself, the nature of occupancy was shown as “Industrial Building – Automobile Workshop”. WP(C) No.20590/2023 was initially filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 8 to issue appropriate orders to stop the building construction and commissioning of the automobile workshop as per Ext.P1, by the respondents 3 and 9. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioners in WP(C)No.20590/2023 is that, the area where the building is being established is a flood-prone area where the water level came up to 2.318 meters above the ground level, during the flood that occurred in the year 2018. The said plot is near to the Meenachil river and in the subsequent years also there were waterlogging. The said plot is near to the Meenachil river and in the subsequent years also there were waterlogging. Therefore, their apprehension is that, if the automobile workshop is established in the said property, in all probability, the water sources of the petitioners are likely to be polluted, in case of a flood, due to contamination from the oil, diesel and petrol from the said workshop. 4. Earlier, when WP(C) No.20590/2023 came up for consideration, this Court directed the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) to conduct an inspection and to submit a report after hearing all the affected parties. Accordingly, a report was submitted by the DDMA before this Court, after hearing the parties and after obtaining reports from the 4 th respondent Municipality, the Town Planner and the Pollution Control Board. As per the said report, it is not desirable to deny a permit to the industrial venture. This finding was entered into, taking note of the fact that, the said area was never declared as a flood prone area in the Master Plan prepared for the Pala Municipality. It was also found that, in the year, 2018, the water level in that area reached at the level of 2.351 Mtrs. and the building for mechanical service of the vehicles was constructed by the 3 rd respondent at a height of 2.7 mtrs. from the ground level. 5. After submission of the said report, WP(C)No.20590/2023 was amended, incorporating a prayer to quash the said report, which is produced as Ext.P32. 6. W.P.(C) No.31128/2023 and WP(C) No. 39955/2024 were filed by one Kunjan Gopi, who claims to be a person residing near the property where the workshop is being established. In addition to the contentions regarding the pollution, it was also contended that, the issuance of Occupancy Certificate, Consent to Establish etc. were not legally sustainable in view of the fact that, the property is situated in the residential zone as per the Master Plan notified for the Pala Municipality, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5 in WP(C)No.31128/2023. Therefore, it was not possible for the 4 th respondent Municipality to sanction a building as requested by the 3 rd and 9 th respondents for running an automobile workshop. In WP(C)No.39955/2024, the petitioner also challenged the report of the DDMA. 7. Therefore, it was not possible for the 4 th respondent Municipality to sanction a building as requested by the 3 rd and 9 th respondents for running an automobile workshop. In WP(C)No.39955/2024, the petitioner also challenged the report of the DDMA. 7. The 3 rd and 9 th respondents have filed separate counter affidavits in all the writ petitions, opposing the reliefs sought. The 4 th respondent-Municipality submitted a counter affidavit, wherein, it was averred that, the area where the property is situated, is not declared as a flood prone area. As per the Master Plan, the area where the building proposed to be established, comes under the residential zone where the automobile workshop is not permitted. However, as per clause 32.2.17 of the Master Plan, the uses permitted in multi- functional zones may also be permitted by the Secretary of Local Self Government Institution, if the plot is situated on the side of the road with a width of 12 meters. As per 32.2.11.3 of the Master Plan, the automobile workshops with power limited up to 30 HP are included in the category of 'Uses Restricted-2, and as per clause 32.2.2, the Secretary can grant permission to such activities with the concurrence of Chief Town Planner concerned of the LSGD Planning (Department of Town and Country Planning). Thus, it was contended by the Municipality that, since the road in front of the plot is having a width of more than 12 meters., the activity of the Automobile workshop can be permitted by the Secretary after obtaining the concurrence of the Chief Town Planner. However, when the Occupancy Certificate was issued by the Municipality, by oversight, the requirement of concurrence was not noticed, and it was issued without the same. Later, upon realizing the same, the matter was informed to the 9 th respondent and the concurrence was already applied for. The same is now pending before the Chief Town Planner. 8. The Chief Town Planner has also submitted a statement, wherein, the receipt of the application for concurrence was admitted, but according to him a decision in this regard will be taken after the disposal of this writ petition. 9. The same is now pending before the Chief Town Planner. 8. The Chief Town Planner has also submitted a statement, wherein, the receipt of the application for concurrence was admitted, but according to him a decision in this regard will be taken after the disposal of this writ petition. 9. The Pollution Control Board also filed a counter affidavit wherein they admitted that, as the constructions were carried out, by complying with the requirement regarding the pollution control measures, they granted “Consent to Establish” initially, and “Consent to Operate” later. 10. The petitioners submitted a reply affidavit in WP(C) No.20590/2023 in response to the averments in the counter affidavits and statement. 11. Heard Sri. Johnson Manayani, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)No.20590/2023, Shri. G. Sreekumar (Chelur), the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No. 31128 /2023 and WP(C) No.39955/2024, Sri. Manoj Chandran, the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent, the Company which is establishing the workshop, Sri.Naveen T., the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board, Smt. Deepa V., the learned Government Pleader for the State, Sri. Sujit Mathew Jose, the learned counsel for the Pala Municipality and Sri. Shaji Thomas, the learned counsel for the 9 th respondent in WP(C) No.20590/2023, the owner of the property in question. 12. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners raised various contentions in support of the reliefs sought in the writ petitions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)No.20590/2023, the property is situated in a flood prone area and therefore, by virtue of the statutory stipulations contained in Rule 22(3) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules 2019, the construction could not have been permitted. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the Municipality, it was clearly admitted by them that, the area where the property is situated was never declared as a flood prone area. It is also a consistent stand taken by the authorities concerned that except for the year, 2018 there was no serious flood situation in the area. Going by the statutory stipulations contained in Rule 22(3) of KMBR , 2019, one of the requirements to attract the rigours of the said provision is that, the area must have been notified by the Municipality as likely to be flooded. In this case, admittedly, there is no such notification, and therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners in this regard cannot be accepted. In this case, admittedly, there is no such notification, and therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners in this regard cannot be accepted. 13. Even otherwise, the apprehensions voiced by the petitioners regarding the possible pollution in case of flood, cannot be accepted to hold that no permission needs to be granted to the 3 rd and 9 th respondents to establish a workshop. In this regard, it is to be noted that, in Ext.P32 report of the DDMA, the authority concerned came to a categorical finding, after conducting a joint inspection that the possibility of such pollution is not there. In the said report, it was noticed that, the building was constructed at a height of 2.7 meters from the ground level, whereas, the water level during the flood situation in the year, 2018 reached up to the height of 2.351 meters only. With regard to the nature of the constructions made and the pollution control measures taken by the 3 rd and 9 th respondents, the findings in the said report in the first page are very much relevant, which reads as follows: “After hearing them DDMA conducted a combined visit and inspected all the details of construction in order to clarify the issue. On site inspection, it was found that the building for mechanical service of the vehicle which was constructed at a height of 2.7 meters from the ground level. As it is a flood-prone area, the building is arranged in such a manner and such a height to overcome it. As per the special direction of Pollution Control Board the said service station had placed two plastics tanks having capacity of one thousand liter for collecting the serviced water. Water that collected is recycled to a tank which is constructed with the height of 9 meter above for purification. RCC (Reinforced Cement Concrete) tank below ground level as raw waste collection tank and enclosed with a wall at a height of 2.65 meter. It has been ascertained that the ETP (Effluent Treatment Plant) system is installed at a height of about six meters from the ground level and the treated water is collected in a tank at a height of nine meters from the ground level and it is constructed in such a way that it is used for reuse purpose.” 14. It has been ascertained that the ETP (Effluent Treatment Plant) system is installed at a height of about six meters from the ground level and the treated water is collected in a tank at a height of nine meters from the ground level and it is constructed in such a way that it is used for reuse purpose.” 14. The nature of constructions as referred to above, are also clearly mentioned in the counter affidavit-statement submitted by the Municipality and Pollution Control Board. From the above, it is evident that, all precautionary measures have been taken by the party concerned to avoid any possible pollution as apprehended by the petitioners. Moreover, in Ext.P32, DDMA categorically found that, the area is not known to have suffered any major floods since 2018 floods and thus they came to a definite finding that, it is not desirable to deny permission to the industrial venture in view of the impending natural calamity. It was also observed that, in the event of a flood DDMA will take precautions under the Flood Mitigation Plan. 15. Even though the said report was challenged by the petitioners, I do not find any reasons to entertain any such challenge. Firstly, apart from certain photographs showing waterlogging in the area, there are no other materials to take a contrary view. Moreover, Ext.P32 report is by an expert and a competent body which was prepared after obtaining reports from various other statutory authorities such as the Municipality, Pollution Control Board, Town Planner etc.. Besides, the fact that the constructions are made at a height of 2.7 meters from the ground level, is also a relevant aspect while taking a decision on the contentions of the petitioners. Admittedly, the highest water level in the area during the year 2018 flood situation was only 2.351 meters from the ground level. In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere in the permit/sanction granted to the 3 rd and 9 th respondents, for the reasons mentioned above. 16. Another ground raised by the petitioners is with regard to the zonal regulations as per the Master Plan. It is true that, as per the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act 2016, the Master Plan prepared under the said enactment will have supremacy and the uses of land can be permitted, only in accordance with the zoning regulations prepared under the said Act. It is true that, as per the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act 2016, the Master Plan prepared under the said enactment will have supremacy and the uses of land can be permitted, only in accordance with the zoning regulations prepared under the said Act. In this case, as per the Master plan so prepared, the plot where the construction is carried out, falls under the residential zone and therefore, it was contended that an automobile workshop is not permitted therein. It is true that, the property comes within the area of residential zone and the activities in said zone are mentioned in Clause 32.2.11.1 which include automobile workshops with power limited up to 10 HP alone, whereas, the power availed by the workshop in question, is 26 HP. 17. However, in clause 32.2.17, it is provided as follows: “32.2.17. Land to a depth of 300 m in Residential, Public and Semi Public Dry agricultural zones and Town centre along the sides of roads with existing or proposed width 12 meter and above, uses permitted in Residential, Public and Semi Public and Multifunctional Zone may also be permitted by the Secretary of Local Self Government Institutions if the uses are not permissible otherwise” As per clause 32.2.11.3, Automobile workshops with power limited upto 30 HP is included in the category of “uses restricted-1” of the multi-functional zones. 18. Thus, it is evident that, even though an automobile workshop with the power of 30 HP is not included in the permissible uses in residential zone, the same can be included by virtue of the operation of the above clause, if the conditions therein are satisfied. In this case, admittedly the said conditions are satisfied, and therefore the permission cannot be denied merely because, the residential zone does not permit such uses. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.31128/2023 and WP(C) No.39955/2024, raised a contention that going by Clause 32.2.17, what are permissible, are the uses ‘permitted’ in a multi-functional zone alone. To be precise, according to the learned counsel, as far as the activity of automobile workshops with power limited up to 30HP is concerned, the same is not included in the “permitted uses” of multi-functional zones, but it is included in the category of “Uses Restricted-1”. To be precise, according to the learned counsel, as far as the activity of automobile workshops with power limited up to 30HP is concerned, the same is not included in the “permitted uses” of multi-functional zones, but it is included in the category of “Uses Restricted-1”. Therefore, it was contended that, as the said activity is included in “Uses restricted-1”, the same cannot be treated as a permissible use, as contemplated in Clause 32.2.17, as it mentions about only “uses permitted in residential, public and semi public and multi functional zones”. 20. After carefully going through the Master Plan, I am not inclined to accept the said contention. It is true that, in the Master Plan, as far as the uses of the plots are concerned, four categories are mentioned viz., “Uses Permitted”, “Uses Restricted-1”, “Uses Restricted-2” and “Uses Prohibited”. Thus, the question is, since the activity of Automobile Workshop with 30HP, is not included in the category “Uses Permitted” of multi functional zone, can the same be granted permission, invoking clause 32.2.17 as it is included only in ‘Uses Restricted-1” of multi functional zone. 21. When considering the said question, the explanation contained in the Master Plan with regard to the expression “Permitted”, Restricted-1, Restricted-2 and “Uses prohibited” are to be examined. The said explanations are made in clause 32.2.2 and the relevant clauses are extracted hereunder: “Uses ‘Permitted’ in a zone cover the uses that can be normally accommodated in the relevant zone. Such uses may be permitted by the Secretary, Pala Municipality, hereinafter referred to as Secretary. In some cases it may be possible to permit some other uses also, which are not likely to affect the quality and environment in a zone specified for a particular use. Such cases have to be individually studied based on their performance characteristics and special location factors. Such cases which come under this category are classified as “Uses Restricted”. Uses Restricted-1 Category deals with the uses that shall be restricted by the Secretary with the concurrence of the Town Planner of the District office of the LSGD Planning (Department of Town and Country Planning) having jurisdiction over the area. Such cases which come under this category are classified as “Uses Restricted”. Uses Restricted-1 Category deals with the uses that shall be restricted by the Secretary with the concurrence of the Town Planner of the District office of the LSGD Planning (Department of Town and Country Planning) having jurisdiction over the area. Uses Restricted-2 Category deals with the uses that shall be restricted by the Secretary with the concurrence of the Chief Town Planner concerned of the LSGD Planning (Department of Town and Country Planning) “ Uses prohibited”: enlists the various objectionable uses in each zone which shall not be permitted under normal circumstances” From the explanation given to the “Uses Permitted”, it can be seen that, the uses permissible in a particular zone are not confined to the categories included in the “Uses Permitted”. The said aspect is very clear from the explanation that, “In some cases, it may be possible to permit some other uses also, which are not likely to affect the quality and environment in a zone specified for a particular use. Such cases, have to be individually studied based on their performance characteristics and special location factors. Such cases which come under this category are classified as “Uses Restricted.” . Therefore, as per the Master Plan, activities included in “uses restricted” are activities which could possibly be granted permission, after individual studies based on their performance characteristics and special location factors. In other words, activities in “uses restricted” are also permissible activities subject to various conditions, and it is for the authorities concerned to decide, taking note of the factors referred to above. Thus, it is evident that the zoning regulations are to be implemented by treating the uses included in the categories of “Uses Restricted” as permissible ones. In other words, by virtue of the above, categories included in the “Uses Restricted” are deemed to have been included in the category of “Uses Permitted”, in certain circumstances, subject to the compliance of certain conditions. The term "Uses Permitted" in a zoning context refers to those activities that can generally be accommodated within a specific zone, with the word "normally" indicating that this list is not exhaustive or rigid. The use of the word "normally" suggests a flexible approach, allowing for a broader interpretation rather than a strictly limited one. The term "Uses Permitted" in a zoning context refers to those activities that can generally be accommodated within a specific zone, with the word "normally" indicating that this list is not exhaustive or rigid. The use of the word "normally" suggests a flexible approach, allowing for a broader interpretation rather than a strictly limited one. The Karnataka High Court in Alliance Business Academy , rep by its Director, Bangalore v. Dr. H. Jayaram Reddy and Others, ILR 2005 KAR 450, at para 15, observed as follows: “ Zoning Regulations are statutory instruments, and, therefore, in interpreting those regulations, it is well settled, the Courts should give content and meaning to every word of the regulations. The Courts cannot by interpretative processes reduce a term or word in the regulations as surplusage or otiose or redundant” Therefore, under no circumstances, the contention raised by the petitioners can be accepted and it has to be held that, the activities included in the “Uses Restricted” would come within the scope of 32.2.17, where the uses permitted in multi-functional zones are permitted in residential zones as well, in certain circumstances. 22. However, it is to be noted in this regard that, as far as the uses included in the Restricted-1 category are concerned, concurrence of the Town Planner of the District Office of the LSGD Planning (Department of Town and Country Planning) is necessary. In this case, admittedly, the occupancy certificate was granted without the concurrence of the Town Planner. However, it is also an admitted position that, subsequently, an application for concurrence is already submitted before the Town Planner and the decision thereon has not been taken by the Town Planner, only because of the pendency of these writ petitions. 23. The learned counsels for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the Occupancy Certificate should be quashed as the same was secured without obtaining any concurrence from the Town Planner. However, I am of the view that, merely because the same was issued without any concurrence, it need not be interfered with. This is because, the concurrence is a matter which can be considered by the Town Planner even at this juncture and in case, after examination of all materials, the Town Planner reaches the conclusion that, there are no other illegalities or irregularities in the occupancy certificate issued, the same can be regularised. This is because, the concurrence is a matter which can be considered by the Town Planner even at this juncture and in case, after examination of all materials, the Town Planner reaches the conclusion that, there are no other illegalities or irregularities in the occupancy certificate issued, the same can be regularised. It is also to be noted in this regard that, going by the counter affidavits and statements submitted by all the official respondents, there are no irregularities in the constructions carried out by the 3 rd and 9 th respondents, except the lack of concurrence of the Town Planner. Moreover, the District Disaster Management Authority, conducted a detailed enquiry and recommended to grant approval to the automobile workshop. In addition to the above, based on the complaint submitted by one of the petitioners, the Chief Town Planner (Vigilance) has also conducted an enquiry and the report of the said enquiry is produced as Ext.R12(d) in WP(C)No.39955/24 along with the counter affidavit of the owner of the property, the 12 th respondent therein. In the said report, even though it was found that, granting of Occupancy Certificate without the concurrence of the Town Planner was not proper, it was recommended that, the constructions can be regularized, if it is otherwise in order. In such circumstances, in the light of the reasons/grounds mentioned above, I do not find it justifiable to grant any of the reliefs sought in these writ petitions. Since the application for concurrence for the building is now pending consideration before the Town Planner, the 10 th respondent in WP(C)No.39955/2024, it is only proper that, an urgent decision thereon be taken without any delay, taking note of the observations made in this writ petition. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of subject to the above observations.