JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. Present intracourt appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench, whereby the order of the Tribunal dated 21.08.2020, Ext.P33, dismissing the revision petition of the 1st respondent/petitioner has been set aside and the writ petition has been allowed. 2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are as herein below: In the year 1993, one Najeeb started a metal crusher unit in Sy.No.439/1 of Kizhakkambalam Village of Kizhakkambalam Gram Panchayat. In 1998, Sunny Varghese purchased the crusher unit and expanded it by making additional constructions. It is pertinent to mention here at that time, the Kerala Building Rules were not made applicable in the aforementioned Panchayath and the construction was made without the building permit. The Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1990 was made applicable to Gram Panchayath areas only on 06.06.2007. On 18.09.2007, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board granted the consent to operate the unit, which was again reiterated on 17.12.2007. 3. In 2008, the 8th respondent, Sunny Varghese, made additional construction, including heightening of the walls to the roof level in obedience of directions in Annexure A1 and A2. It is pertinent to mention here that Annexure A1 and A2 were given by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board noticing the fact that there were no building permits. 4. The problem occurred only in 2008 when Sunny Varghese, on 28.05.2008, submitted Ext.P2 application for obtaining permit for construction of a machine room having a plinth area of 36 sq.mt. It is pertinent to mention here that the plinth area where the metal crusher unit is being run is 344.30 sq.mt. Ext.P3 site plan was also submitted along with Ext.P2. The 5 th respondent, Secretary, Panchayath, forwarded the application for building permit for machine room and the site plan to the Chief Town Planner vide letter dated 28.05.2008. Since the side walls was not constructed to prevent the pollution to spread, 8 th respondent constructed the same realizing that no permission has been sought and an application for regularization of the building was submitted along with building plan,Ext.P7. 5. The Kerala Municipality Building Rules were amended and as per notification dated 16.02.2009, stone crushers were included in Group I(Hazardous Building) of Rule 30 of Kerala Muncipality Building Rules. 5. The Kerala Municipality Building Rules were amended and as per notification dated 16.02.2009, stone crushers were included in Group I(Hazardous Building) of Rule 30 of Kerala Muncipality Building Rules. Similarly, Rule 59(4) of the KMBR , 1999 also envisages that the minimum clear width of access to a building and plot as well as the width of the street giving access to the plot from the main street shall be 7 metres. 6. On 15.10.2010, the Chief Town Planner vide, Ext.P9, approved the layout plan to construct machine room with a condition to provide minimum access width of 7 metres (emphasis supplied to the condition No.3). Vide Ext P10, regularization order was issued by the Panchayath in respect of the building bearing number No.X/717 whereby Rs.10,329/- was deposited as compounding fees by the erstwhile owner of the land, i.e., Sunny Varghese. 7. On 16.06.2012, the appellant/7 th respondent purchased the crusher unit from the 8 th respondent vide a sale deed. On 24.04.2013, consent was issued by the Pollution Control Board in favor of the appellant/7 th respondent. Vide Ext.P21 dated 20.03.2015, the Chief Town Planner cancelled the order, Ext.P9 dated 15.10.2010 which approved the layout of the machine room with a condition to provide minimum width of 7 metres, on the ground that the petitioner had not provided the access of 7 meters. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant/respondent No.7 had dropped the idea of proposed machine room for which the site plan was submitted. 8. On 14.10.2015, a petition, Ext.P24, was submitted before the Local Self Government by the appellant for renewal of licence. 9. Vide order dated 30.12.2015, Ext.P25, the 1 st respondent in the writ petition directed to consider the application for regularization dated 23.06.2008, on clarifying the said access width required as per the rules as on the date of the application. On 14.10.2015, a petition, Ext.P24, was submitted before the Local Self Government by the appellant for renewal of licence. 9. Vide order dated 30.12.2015, Ext.P25, the 1 st respondent in the writ petition directed to consider the application for regularization dated 23.06.2008, on clarifying the said access width required as per the rules as on the date of the application. The contents of Ext.P25 dated 30.12.2015 worth extraction: Government of Kerala Number 64754/RB1/13/LSGD Local Self Government (RB) Department Thiruvananthapuram, Date 30/1215 Secretary Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath Ernakulam Sir, Subject: Kizhakkambalam Panchayath - regrading unauthorized construction Reference: 1) Complaint by Mr Joy M.V. dated 29/05/15 2) Complaint by Mr Subair A. M dated 14/10/15 3) Letter with number C1/568/2011 dated 9/10/13 by the Chief Town Planner 4) Letter by the Panchayath Director with number C4/6174/15 dated 17/8/15 5) Your letter with number C6/2613/13 dated 9/12/14 6) Your letter with this number dated 5/11/15 7) Hearing dated 2/12/15 Your attention is invited to the references. It is directed to examine whether the building had access width as per the then existing law at the time of submitting the application, about which the Panchayath Director has given Report that it is operating since 1993, and has applied for regularization on 23/6/08 and to consider the matter of giving permit. Faithfully Sonia Washington Under Secretary For Secretary With permission S/d Section Officer Copy to :- 1. Mr Subair A.M., Elavukudy house, Ponjassery P.O. Ernakulam -683547 2. Mr Joy M.V., Madakkal house, Njaralloor, Kizhakkambalam 683562 10. Grama Panchayath, vide letter dated 01.02.2016, informed the appellant that the steps are being taken in terms of Ext.P25 dated 30.12.2015. The contents of Ext.P26 reads as under: C-140/2018 Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath Office Kizhakkambalam-683562, Ernakulam District. Phone 0484 2680222 Date 01/02/2016 From Secretary Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath To Mr. A. M. Subair Managing Partner Robust Granites Elavumkudy house, Ponjassery PO. Grama Panchayath, vide letter dated 01.02.2016, informed the appellant that the steps are being taken in terms of Ext.P25 dated 30.12.2015. The contents of Ext.P26 reads as under: C-140/2018 Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath Office Kizhakkambalam-683562, Ernakulam District. Phone 0484 2680222 Date 01/02/2016 From Secretary Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath To Mr. A. M. Subair Managing Partner Robust Granites Elavumkudy house, Ponjassery PO. Sir, Subject: Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath – Regarding Regularization of unauthorized construction Reference: 1) Letter with No 64754/RB/1/13/LSGD Dt 30/12/2015 by the Under Secreatry LSGD(RB) Dpt, Thiruvananthapuram 2) Application dated 02/06/2008 by Mr Sunny Varghese, Robust Granites, Njaralloor, for regularization of building construction Ernakulam 3) Building construction lay our approval Order No. D2-8657/2008 D. Dis dated 15/10/2010 passed by the Chief Town Planner, Thiruvananthapuram 4) Letter with No. A3/2801/10(1) dated 10/12/2010 by the Senior Town Planner, Ernakulam By Reference (1) No: 64754/RB/1/13/LSGD Dt 30/12/2015 letter, it is directed to examine whether the firm Metal Crusher Unit Robust Granites operating in the land in resurvey No: 439/16 in block 35 in Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath had access width as per eth existing law at the time when it applied for regularization and to take steps. When the said Unit had applied for regularization vide Reference (2) the Kerala Municipality Building Rules was in force. But in the KMBR there was no exact direction regarding access width. But the said Unit has got building construction Lay Out Approval vide Reference (3) and thereafter the Lay Out Approval was cancelled as per reference (4). In it the access width is seen as 5M. 6.30M, & 6.60M. Hence, it is informed that steps as per reference (1) letter shall be taken on the basis of this access width Faithfully, S/d M.P. Jagadheesh, Secretary, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath Kizhakkambalam Post Mob: 94960 45753 Office seal 11. The respondent/writ petitioner submitted a complaint to the Secretary, Gram Panchayat vide Ext.P27 dated 08.01.2016, alleging pollution i.e., noise and others, which was followed by Ext.P28. 12. Vide Ext.P31 dated 08.05.2019, Gram Panchayat issued license to the appellant/7 th respondent in the writ petition. The request of the respondent/writ petitioner to the Gram Panchayat was rejected vide resolution dated 05.10.2019 (Ext.P32), against which the respondent/writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government, which was also dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2020, Ext.P33. 12. Vide Ext.P31 dated 08.05.2019, Gram Panchayat issued license to the appellant/7 th respondent in the writ petition. The request of the respondent/writ petitioner to the Gram Panchayat was rejected vide resolution dated 05.10.2019 (Ext.P32), against which the respondent/writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government, which was also dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2020, Ext.P33. In the meantime, the appellant had also submitted an application dated 19.07.2022 for obtaining the lease of 13 sq.mtr of land, which the Grama Panchayat had passed a resolution on 04.08.2022 vide Ext.R6(B). 13. The pith and substance of the order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government, Ext.P33, is enumerated herein: ORDER REVISION PETITION NO.124/2010 This revision petition has been preferred by the revision petitioner Joy.M.V against respondents 1 to 3 challenging the impugned decision No.1/1 dated 05/10/2019 taken by the Grama Panchayat Kizhakkambalam. The averments in the revision petition in brief thus:- The petitioner herein is a permanent resident of 9 th ward Kizhakoumbalam Grama Panchayat. The 3 rd respondent herein applied for licence in order to run a granite metal crusher in the property consist in Re.Sy. No.439/6 having an extent of 69 cents. The application was for running the unit with the aid of 40 HP motor. It was referred by the Secretary Granma Panchayat along with covering letter to the Chief Town Planner, Thiruvananthapuram through District Town Planner, Ernakulam and the shine was approved by the Chief Town Planner on 15/10/2010 along with certain conditions. Since the conditions stipulated are not fulfilled then the building permit issued to the 3 rd respondent metal crusher was revoked and a notice was issued to the prior owner named Sri Sunny Varghese on 28/01/11 by the 2 nd respondent. The application was only for the purpose of running the industry crusher unit with the aid of 45 HP motor in a thatched shed. The said crusher, was working and till the year 2010 there was no other buildings in the said property. While so, on 13/09/10 the 2 nd respondent had issued a notice to stop the building construction in the stipulated unit with the reason that there is no open space up to 7.5 m and further minimum 7m width pathway by also necessary. Since the permit was cancelled the 3 rd respondent could not run the unit without renewing the permit. Since the permit was cancelled the 3 rd respondent could not run the unit without renewing the permit. So the government directed to initiate steps against the 3 rd respondent crusher unit. Thus, during the year 2015-16, the 2 nd respondent issued notice rejecting the renewal application for licence. For that unit the 2 nd respondent now issued licence on 08/05/19. So the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the LSOI Tribunal as appeal No.615/19. During pendency of this appeal Oruma Panchayat had taken decision dated 05/10/19, so the appeal was dismissed. Now the said impugned decision is not correct and the same is taken against the sting laws and principles. The 2 nd respondent ought to have rejected the application for renewal of the licence. Thus an error committed by the 2 nd respondent by renewing the licence in favour of the 3 rd respondent. The appeal preferred by the revision petitioner was not considered properly. The Panchayat Committee has not considered the fact that through the western side of the building there is no open space as stipulated by the rules. Since the building constructed by the 3 rd respondent is without having any sanction or permit, so the licence renewed in favour of the 3rd respondent itself is not correct. There is irregularity in renewing the licence application in favour of the respondent. On 28/01/11, the regularization permit Issued in favour of 3 rd respondent was already cancelled by the 2nd respondent. But this materials aspect was not considered by the Panchayat Committee and thereby committed a grave mistake. Despite of challenging through the appeal, it was not considered by the Panchayat. The relevant rules applicable to the said building was also not properly appreciated by the committee at the time of considering the appeal. So a decision taken by the Panchayat Committee dated 05/10/10 through decision No.1/1 is only liable to set aside. Hence aggrieved by the rejection of the said appeal preferred this revision petition. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance and inter alia resisted the same through the written statement. 4. The main contentions raised by the respondents 1 & 2 in the written, statement are as follows:- The Revision Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is filed only with an intention to mislead the Tribunal and the same is only liable to dismiss in limine. 4. The main contentions raised by the respondents 1 & 2 in the written, statement are as follows:- The Revision Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is filed only with an intention to mislead the Tribunal and the same is only liable to dismiss in limine. These respondents have done everything strictly in accordance with the law and within its statutory authority after complying all the procedural formalities, This is the 5 th round of litigation by the same petitioner against the issuance of licence to the 3 rd respondent. The metal crusher unit has been working from the year 1993 onwards by its previous owners. At that time-the crusher was working with 40 HP machine. Subsequently, on 02/06/2008, the previous owner Mr.Sunny Varghese submitted an application along with all documents required for regularizing the construction of the said building and the same was forwarded to the District Town Planning Department and the lay out was approved by the Chief Town Planner after several procedural formalities through its order dated 15/10/2010 so as to allow him to regularize based on the existing rules. He has submitted the No Objection Certificate obtained from the Assistant Divisional Officer of Fire and Rescue service and also the consent obtained from the Pollution Control Board Subsequently, the 2 nd respondent after complying the directions of the Chief Town Planner and after verifying all the records and also considering the facts that there is no residential building, Religious place or any drinking water sources within the radius of 100m of the said unit, regularized the instruction after obtaining the prescribed fee. It was so done based on the decision taken by the Panchayat Committee meeting held on 02/12/2010. Licence was also granted. Thereafter, the owner of the crusher unit was permitted to cruct machineries in the primary unit having 45 HP motor. Subsequently, on the basis of the complaints, the Senior Töwn Planner conducted a investigation and directed the 2 nd respondent to cancel the permit on the ground that the width of the road is less than 7m and also the set back is not correct. So the regularization was cancelled. The building rules took effect only from 06/06/2007 onwards. As per the circular No.31019/R.A.I/11/LSGD dated 22/06/11, the rules were made applicable only to those directions done after commencement of the said rules. So the regularization was cancelled. The building rules took effect only from 06/06/2007 onwards. As per the circular No.31019/R.A.I/11/LSGD dated 22/06/11, the rules were made applicable only to those directions done after commencement of the said rules. The building was constructed prior to 2007 by the previous owner Mr.Sunny Varghese and 3rd respondent purchased the same. He had not made any further construction other than the works required by the Pollution Control Board to strengthen the outer walls so as to make it sound proof. Since it is a building constructed prior to the commencement of the building rules, it is not seen applicable to the crusher unit. The crusher unit was functioning since 1993 onwards with all required documents and certificates; without having any severe complaints, Subsequently, with the permission of Pollution Control Board and Fire and Rescue Department, this respondent allowed the 3d respondent to enhance the power of machine to 45 HP based on the decision taken by the Panchayat Committee. Thereafter on 7/08/15, the Panchayat Committee through its decision renewed the licence provisionally strictly subjected to the final decision of the Government in this matter. Subsequent to that decision directed the 2 nd respondent to consider whether permit can be given after examining the access width as per the existing rules. Based on that order, the Assistant Engineer of the Panchayat inspected the site. In the meantime, the 3 rd respondent purchased some extent of property abutting his crusher unit and on inspection it was found that the set back and access width is more than that of the required measurement. Hence the issuance of licence became valid and respondents subsequently renewed twice the licence after verifying all the records. In the year 2017, when the 3 rd respondent submitted the application to renew the licence, it was renewed after complying all the formalities. In the meantime, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the 1 st respondent challenging this issuance of licence. Since the Secretary, could not take a decision within time, the petitioner herein approached the Tribunal by filing appeal No.746/17 and obtained an order directing these respondents to take a decision in the said appeal within a period of one month. After getting the copy of the order, the 2 nd respondent conducted hearing on both sides and considered the documents produced by either sides. After getting the copy of the order, the 2 nd respondent conducted hearing on both sides and considered the documents produced by either sides. Thereafter, the same was considered by the Panchayat Committee also on 12/12/17. As per decision No.26/1 taken by the Panchayat Committee, it is found that the licence has been granted to the 3rd respondent, after examining all the required documents and certificates, from various documents. There is also an allegations with respect to the encroachment of puramboke land and the said is pending consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. When licence period expired on 30/03/18, the 3 rd respondent again submitted an application for renewal. At that time, revision petition 145/17 was pending consideration before this Tribunal, the 2 nd respondent could not take a decision within time. Anyway the said revision petition 145/17 was dismissed. This was repeated in the next year also. When the 3 rd respondent submitted the application to renew the licence in 2019, this respondent, renewed his licence verifying all the relevant records. Challenging this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Panchayat Committee alleging inaction on the part of the Secretary. Subsequently, as directed by the Tribunal the 2 nd respondent heard both parties and decided to renew the licence again. This was challenged by the petitioner in this revision petition. These respondents renewed licence for five years based on the directions of the Government after levying the prescribed fee as well as verified the required documents and certificates. The petitioner herein also filed OP No.82/16 before the Ombudsman regarding the very same subject. Another petition as OP No.238 14/16 filed by some other persons before the Hon'ble High Court. The petitioner is purposefully filing petitions one after another before different forums. It is to be noted that, not even an Interim order has been obtained by the petitioner from any of the said forums. Thus the entire allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of the revision petition with cost. 5. The main contentions raised by the 3 rd respondent in the written statement are as follows:- The Revision Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is filed by suppressing the material facts The Crusher unit namely Robust Granites of the 3 rd respondent was started in the year 1993 by one Najeeb. 5. The main contentions raised by the 3 rd respondent in the written statement are as follows:- The Revision Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is filed by suppressing the material facts The Crusher unit namely Robust Granites of the 3 rd respondent was started in the year 1993 by one Najeeb. At the time of starting the crusher unit building rules were not made applicable to the Grama Panchayat, It was started after obtaining all the necessary permits licence and orders from all authorities as required, under law. The crusher unit was constructed in Kizhambalam Village and there is a Panchayat road on the western boundary of the crusher unit owned by Kunnathunadu Grama Panchayat. formerly, the said Panchayat road was a lane and subsequently it was widened into a road by using the property surrendered by neighbouring property owners. In the year 1996, Sunny Varghese purchased crusher unit and, he was conducting the same. In the year 2010, complaints were made against the unit alleging that the unit was constructed by trespassing into the road puramboke land consists in Sy.No.127/2 of Kunnathunadu Grama Panchayat. It was reached before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide WP(C)No.36070/2010 and it was pleased to issue direction to the District Collector, Ernakulam to take appropriate action in the matter after considering the objection of the owner of the crusher unit. The Taluk Surveyor conducted the survey and prepared the sketch showing that property having an extent of 12sq.m of puramboke land was encroached for the construction of crusher unit and pillars of the crusher unit are situated, in that width of the land. The owner Sunny Varghese raised objection against the survey measurement. Meantime, the 3 rd respondent purchased the crusher unit from Sunny Varghese. The Secretary, Kunnathnadu Orama Panchayat issued an order dated 19/12/14 directing the 3 rd respondent to demolish the crusher unit from 12sq.m of land. Challenging the said order the 3 rd Respondent filed WPIC No.3723/15 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala from by which an Interim order suspending the same was obtained by the 3 rd respondent. During the pendency of writ petition, one Ansal.P.A filed WP(C)No.23814/16 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala seeking identical reliefs. As per the order dated 25/01/18, said revision petition got dismissed. During the pendency of writ petition, one Ansal.P.A filed WP(C)No.23814/16 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala seeking identical reliefs. As per the order dated 25/01/18, said revision petition got dismissed. The revision petitioner herein unsuccessfully approached the Ombudsman filing O.P.No.824.16 for identical reliefs suppressing these material facts. if the revision petitioner has grievances the remedy is to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C)No.3723/15 which is still pending The statement that the Senior Town. Planner issued direction to the 2nd respondent to cancel the permit and issuance of notice by the 2 nd respondent are incorrect and hence denied. The previous owner of the crusher unit Sunny Varghese was running the crusher unit after obtaining all necessary licence, permit as well as consent from the concerned authorities. The authenticity of the same was considered and found in favour of the crusher unit by various authorities including the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The 3 rd respondent as well as the previous owners of the crusher unit have been conducting the crusher unit without Interruption. The attempt of the revision petitioner is to reopen the issues which is already decided and settled by competent authorities. The statement regarding the width of the passage to the unit as stated in the revision petition is misleading and the same is not applicable at the time of constructing the crusher unit. The Senior Town Planner considered these aspects and submitted report to the Chief Town Planner. The Hon'ble High Court considered these aspects and on the basis of the directions issued by it, various authorities have considered the same which are raised in this revision and passed appropriate orders. The only attempt of the revision petitioner is to take up the matter again. With respect to the cancellation of lay out approval as well as issuance of stop memo with respect to the renewal of licence etc are also denied. The building and all constructions activities in the land of the 3rd respondent is in accordance with the Panchayat Raj Act and building rules. The respondents 1 & 2 considered all these aspects in detail and issued the licence to the crusher unit which was renewed periodically. None of the grounds raised in the revision..petition are sustainable. The statement that the order regularizing the building construction of the 3rd respondent was cancelled on 28/01/19 is also not correct. The respondents 1 & 2 considered all these aspects in detail and issued the licence to the crusher unit which was renewed periodically. None of the grounds raised in the revision..petition are sustainable. The statement that the order regularizing the building construction of the 3rd respondent was cancelled on 28/01/19 is also not correct. The revision petitioner herein, in order to score vengeance unsuccessfully filed cases one after another against the 3rd respondent. Though the revision petitioner approached the LSGI Tribunal by filing appeal No.756/17, R.PNo. 145/17, appeal No.605/19, raising the same allegations, this Hon'ble Tribunal did not grant reliefs sought for in those cases. The allegation with respect to the trespass towards the puramboke land is unsustainable. The said subject matter is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The crusher unit is functioning with valid licence, permit and consent from all the authorities. The licence was issued only in accordance with law. Thus the entire allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of the revision petition with cost. 6. Heard both sides. 7. Now the points that arose for consideration are: (1) Whether the revision petition could be allowable? (ii) Relief and cost? 8. Point No. (1) For the purpose of entertaining this revision petition perused the documents produced by either sides as well as the file produced by the side of respondents 1 & 2. The case advanced by the side of the revision petitioner herein is that, the respondents 1 & 2 without-considering the material aspects and appreciating the relevant rules renewed the licence in favour of the 3 rd respondent for the year 2019-2020. Aggrieved by the said order the revision petitioner approached by way of an appeal. But respondents 1 & 2 rejected the appeal and took a decision in favour of the 3 rd respondent. So the rejection of the appeal as well as the decision taken by the 2nd respondent as decision No. 1/1 dated 05/10/19 is only liable to set aside. Respondents 1 to 3 completely denied the entire allegations. At this Juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that respondents 1 & 2 purposefully aided the 3 rd respondent and renewed the licence for the year 2019-20. Respondents 1 to 3 completely denied the entire allegations. At this Juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that respondents 1 & 2 purposefully aided the 3 rd respondent and renewed the licence for the year 2019-20. The learned counsel challenged the decision taken by the 2 nd respondent which leads to the renewal of the licence in favour of 3 rd respondent upon the following grounds. Since the building wherein, the crusher unit is running is having no valid permit and the District Town Planner issued the order to cancel the permit. On the basis of its order, the regularization granted by respondents 1 & 2 are also cancelled. Still it is alive. So according to the learned counsel, the building in question is unauthorized without having valid permit. In such a situation, the licence could not be issued to the 3 rd respondent. Another contention raised by the learned counsel is that some portion of the puramboke land was trespassed by the crusher unit for its construction. On the basis of the direction given by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, the Collector initiated the proceedings and notice issued to remove the illegal construction abutted towards the puramboke land. To that score also, the 14 respondent has no power to renew the licence at any rate. The learned counsel also relied the documents produced and marked as annexure P5 to P8 and P10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 vehemently opposed and argued that there is no error committed by the respondent in renewing the licence in favour of the 3 rd respondent. The metal crusher unit in question is running from 1993 onwards by the previous owners. This is the 5 th round of litigation against the 3 rd respondent. Again the learned counsel emphasized his argument that the crusher unit was working with 40 HP machine from the year 1993 onwards by Its previous owners. Subsequently, on 02/06/2008, the previous owner Mr.Sunny Varghese submitted an application along with all the required documents for regularizing the construction of said building. It was forwarded to the District Town Planning Department and the layout was approved by the Chief Town Planner after complying all the procedural formalities as per order No.D2/8657/08D dated 15/10/10. The order was to allow him to regularization based on the existing rules. It was forwarded to the District Town Planning Department and the layout was approved by the Chief Town Planner after complying all the procedural formalities as per order No.D2/8657/08D dated 15/10/10. The order was to allow him to regularization based on the existing rules. Thus the owner of the unit submitted all the relevant documents including NOC from the Fire and Rescue Services, consent obtained from Pollution Control Board. So the 2nd respondent after verifying all the records and consider the matter in detail regularized the construction of the building after obtaining the prescribed fee. Thereafter, the owner of the crusher unit was permitted to cruct the machineries having 45 HP motor. The learned counsel also relied the relevant pages of file produced on their side. Morcover, the building was constructed prior to 2007 by the previous owner Mr.Sunny Varghese and the 3rd respondent purchased the same. No other work had been done by the 3 rd respondent except the work as required by the Pollution Control Board to strengthen the outer walls so as to make it sound proof. Moreover, it is the building constructed prior to the commencement of building rules, it is not seen applicable to the crusher unit. Subsequently, the Government through its order directed 2nd respondent to consider about the permit after examining the access width as per existing rules. In order to ascertain this aspect the Engineer inspected the site. In the meantime, the 3 rd respondent purchased some extent of property abutting his crusher unit and it was found that set back and access width is more than that of the required measurement. So such an error was also not in existence, and in such circumstances, licence was renewed after verifying all the records. Moreover, when the licence period expired periodicals the 3 rd respondent will submit the application and it could not be considered due to the filing of litigation by this revision petitioner. So according to the learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 there is no illegality or infirmity in renewing the licence in favour of the 3 rd respondent. In order to substantiate ail these arguments, the learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 relied page numbers 147, 163, 174, 201 of the file Volume No. 1. So according to the learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 there is no illegality or infirmity in renewing the licence in favour of the 3 rd respondent. In order to substantiate ail these arguments, the learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 relied page numbers 147, 163, 174, 201 of the file Volume No. 1. The other relevant pages are page No.7 to 9 in volume II, page No. 11 & 16 in volume IV of the file. Thus the learned counsel justified the action initiated by respondents 182. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent also vehemently argued that the revision petition itself is not maintainable and the same is only liable to be dismissed in limine. The crusher unit was running by the 3 rd respondent after obtaining all the necessary permit, licence, and other certificates obtained from the various authorities. The learned counsel also canvassed his argument that the allegation with respect to the pathway as well as unauthorized constructions are justified and clarified by the respective authorities. The learned counsel also relied the documents produced by the side of the 3rd respondent. Now the cardinal point to be considered is whether the licence renewed in favour of the 3rd respondent by respondents 1 & 2 are liable to cancel and also whether the decision taken by the respondents 1 & 2 are correct or not. The fact that crusher unit namely Robust Granite was started in the year 1993 by one Najeeb is not in dispute. At the time of starting the crusher unit building rules were not applicable to Grama Panchayat. In the year 1996, Sunny Varghese purchased the crusher unit and he was conducting the crusher unit. These facts are also not in dispute. Upto the year 2010 there was no allegations or complaints made against the said unit. The 1 litigation started in the year 2010, by way of writ petition No.36070/2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala alleging the trespass by the Granite unit towards road puramboke belongs to the Grama Panchayat. The said writ petition it as disposed with a direction to the District Collector to initiate the appropriate action in the matter. As per the directions in the writ petition the District Collector initiated the proceedings and issued the order against the 3rd respondent. The said writ petition it as disposed with a direction to the District Collector to initiate the appropriate action in the matter. As per the directions in the writ petition the District Collector initiated the proceedings and issued the order against the 3rd respondent. respondents herein challenged the said order in WP(C)No.3723/15 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and an interim order to suspend the further action obtained. Now it is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for consideration. The copy of the So the 3 rd respondent herein challenged the said order in W.P.(C) No.3723/15 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and an interim order to suspend the further action obtained. Now it is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for consideration. The copy of the writ petition and the interim order is produced as annexure R3(a). So from this annexure R3(a) it can be seen that the allegations with respect to the trespass towards the puramboke land is still pending consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. So such an allegation raised by the revision petitioner could not be concluded in the present situation in and such an argument led by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner could not be sustainable. With respect to the next allegation of open space for 7.50m is required but only 3.30m is available as per the report by the original Town Planning Officer. The said report is produced as annexure P8. It is pertinent to note that the said aspect was clearly clarified and justified by the Senior Town Planner through its order dated 24/01/2015. The said report is produced as annexure R3(b) on the side of the 3 rd respondent. On going through this document, which would categorically shows that open space for 7.50m is available and the 3 rd respondent herein purchased the property in the year 2012. At the same time, on the north eastern side of the plot widened, so at present the boundary could not be identified. So from this report it can be seen that open space as required in annexure P8 is now available. So to that score also the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner could not be sustainable. Annexure R3(b) is the application for renewal of licence for the year 2012. So from this report it can be seen that open space as required in annexure P8 is now available. So to that score also the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner could not be sustainable. Annexure R3(b) is the application for renewal of licence for the year 2012. But the saki application could not be considered due to the filing of the complaint by the revision petitioner herein. It is true that as per Annexure P6, the P9 order was cancelled. But through R3(L) report, all those aspects were clarified. So at present. the allegation with respect to the open space is also not sustainable. From the file produced by the side of the respondents 1 & 2 also categorically shows that they have complied all the formalities and adopted the procedure strictly in accordance with the law. Next aspect is. with respect to the unauthorized construction made by the 3 rd respondent at the crusher unit. It is admitted fact that the crusher unit was working from the year 1993 onwards with the aid of 40 HP machine. The 3 rd respondent categorically denied the unauthorized construction as alleged by the revision petitioner herein. The 3 rd respondent had set up a case that no unauthorized constructions are effected only the changes no required by the Pollution Control Board was effected. Moreover, the crusher unit is running after obtaining valid permit, NOC, and other necessary documents, from the concerned authorities. According to the respondents 1 & 2 also, there is no such unauthorized constructions. Moreover, from the file produced by the side of the 3rd respondent shows that respondents 1 & 2 have considered all the entire aspects in detail and issued licence to the crusher alt which was renewed periodically. It further shows that the, have considered and decided by higher authorities and the licence was Issued on the basis of decision as well as direction of the higher authorities. With respect to other litigation before the Hon'ble Ombudsman as well as earlier litigation before this Tribunal are also not in dispute. All those litigations are disposed by the competent authorities. Moreover, from the file produced the side of the respondents 1 & 2 shows that they have verified the certificates, issued by the District Medical Officer, Health, Department of Factories and Bollers, Assistant District Industries Officer and Pollution Control Board. All those litigations are disposed by the competent authorities. Moreover, from the file produced the side of the respondents 1 & 2 shows that they have verified the certificates, issued by the District Medical Officer, Health, Department of Factories and Bollers, Assistant District Industries Officer and Pollution Control Board. So the entire procedures adopted by- respondents 1 & 2 are perfect and correct. It could not be said that respondents 1 and 2 have committed error while renewing the licence for 5 years in favour of the 3rd respondent. For the aforestated facts, evident and other circumstances I am of the view that the decision No.1/1 dated 05/10/19 taken by the 1 st respondent and licence issued by the 2 nd respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent dated 08/05/19 need not be cancelled. In such circumstances, the revision petition filed by the revision petitioner could not be allowable. The point is found accordingly. 9. Point No. (il) I find the Revision In view of finding on pointing No. (1) Petition filed by the Petitioner could not be allowable. In the result Revision Petition dismissed. Considering the nature and circumstances. No order as to costs.” 14. It was stated that the building was constructed prior to 2007 by the previous owner and the appellant/7th respondent purchased the same and no other work had been done by the appellant, except the work as required by the Pollution Control Board to strengthen the outer walls, so as to make it sound proof. Thereafter, the Grama Panchayath had been renewing the license after verifying all the records. At the time of starting the crusher unit, Building Rules were not applicable to the Gram Panchayath. As per the order of the Town Planner dated 24.01.25 and the report Ext.R3(b), it is evident that there is an open space of 7.5 meters and therefore, the allegation regarding non-availability of the open space was held to be not sustainable. As far as the allegation of unauthorized construction were concerned, it was stated by the Tribunal that the crusher unit was working from the year 1993 onwards with the aid of 40 HP machine and from time to time, the Pollution Control Board had been granting the permission, as evident from the pollution certificates, after duly inspecting the site and had all other permissions to run the unit. The respondent, M.V.Joy, challenged Ext.P33 order of the Tribunal in this Court, vide W.P.(C) No.20306 of 2020. Learned Single Bench has allowed the writ petition by holding that the application of the petitioner was for permission to construct and not for regularization, much less, had been running on 238.5 HP motor. There was additional construction which has not been regularized and therefore the regularization was meaningless and discarded Ext.P10, regularization order. Learned Single Bench stated that the Tribunal has also failed to consider the absence of the access width in the proper legal perspective and did not accept the argument of the appellant that Ext.P25 dated 30.09.2015 was not challenged by the writ petitioner, much less the regularization order. It is in that background, present intra court appeal has been filed. 15. Mr.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Alexander Joseph, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that, learned Single Bench has not considered the contentions raised by the appellant, as, the regularization of permit was issued in favor of the appellant in respect of the building No.X/717. The 1 st respondent/ writ petitioner has no case that Ext.P2 was an application for building permit. Ext.P10 was a permit for regularization issued by the Panchayat. The appellant had dropped the idea of construction of the machine room and had only, in compliance of the directions of the Kerala Pollution Control Board, raised the side walls and did not increase the plinth area. Therefore, the alleged raising of the wall cannot be considered to be an unauthorized construction. Realizing that, tomorrow there may be any complaint or an action at the instance of any of the controlling authorities for not obtaining requisite permission for raising the side walls, an application for regularization was submitted. But the authorities at the helm of the affairs had connected the said application by laying focus on the request submitted later for construction of the machine room in additional area of 32 square metre, which was dropped and had never been raised, as evident from the site plans prepared by the Kerala Pollution Control Board vide Ext.A11 filed along with the review petition. 16. 16. Rule 59(4) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules 1999 deals with the access width of 7 metres, which was made applicable to the crushing units in Grama Panchayat, only with effect from 16.12.2009 as the crushing units were brought under the definition of ‘hazardous building’ in Group I(2)(v) of Rule 30 of the Building Rules. Though, the Building Rules were made applicable to the Panchayat with effect from 06.06.2007, any crusher unit constructed before 16.12.2009 was not required to provide any access width of 7 meters, which was made applicable only with effect from 16.12.2009. 17. The findings of the learned Single Bench that the application for building permit was required to be considered on the basis of the law in force at the time of consideration of the application and not by the rules in force at the time of filing the applications, as held in the judgment of Asset Homes Private Limited v. State of Kerala [ 2011(2) KLT 1 ] , is wrong, for, from the contents of Ext P25(supra), it is relevant that the request was not for building permit, but for regularization and the Secretary was directed to issue the regularization permit after ascertaining the access of width as on the date of application, that is in the year 2008. During the pendency of the appeal, the report of the Panchayat Director was obtained, which has come on record as Ext.R7(g) dated 17.08.2015 and consequent to Ext.P25 dated 30.12.2015, Ext.R7(h) was issued. The report dated 10.12.2010 of the then Senior Town Planner, it was evident that the Senior town planner was under a mistaken belief that Ext.P10 was a building permit, in fact, it was an application for regularization of the construction of the side walls without increasing the plinth area. In fact, all the authorities were under the impression that, under the garb of the submission of application for construction of the machine room, which was later on shelved and not raised, the appellant had increased the plinth area. There was no construction of the crusher building after 23.06.2008. In fact, all the authorities were under the impression that, under the garb of the submission of application for construction of the machine room, which was later on shelved and not raised, the appellant had increased the plinth area. There was no construction of the crusher building after 23.06.2008. Each and every order reveals that there was a construction but, it do not disclose what kind of a construction, its nature, nor there is any photograph, sketch plan, or site inspection by the concerned officers of the department or at the instance of the 1 st respondent/ writ petitioner, to establish that the construction was raised much later, though the orders of 2010 and subsequent, reveals the construction was going on. Thus the learned Single Bench swayed away from such orders in the absence of any material on record. The Pollution Control Board has granted the consent till date for running the crusher unit, which is running on the basis of the consent and permit. The conditions imposed in Ext.P7 providing the access width of 7 meters, were only for the construction of the machine room, which was never provided, yet, there is an availability of 7 meters of space. Learned counsel for the appellant also contented that Single Bench has also swayed away in arriving at a finding that the appellant is running a unit with a load of 238.5 HP motor in a building having more than 3,000 sq. ft. of area, without any material and document on record. 18. The other contention of the appellant is that, against the judgment of the Single Bench, writ appeal was heard by the other bench of this court and disposed of, by permitting the appellant to run the secondary unit and the prayer for primary unit was rejected. However, the review petition bearing number R.P.No.1026 of 2024 was filed and the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 19.02.2025, recalled that order. Along with the review petition, the contention raised was with regard to the fact that there was an increase in the plinth area. However, the documents placed on record reveals that there was no increase in the plinth area. The constructions were made before the crusher units were brought under the ambit of the Building Rules,i.e., with effect from 16.12.2009. Along with the review petition, the contention raised was with regard to the fact that there was an increase in the plinth area. However, the documents placed on record reveals that there was no increase in the plinth area. The constructions were made before the crusher units were brought under the ambit of the Building Rules,i.e., with effect from 16.12.2009. With respect to the access width of the road, it was found that there was no material placed on record to show that the appellant/7 th respondent had ever raised the construction of the machine room. It is in that background, this appeal has been heard by us. 19. On the other hand, Mr.Ranjit Thampan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by T.K.Sajeev, learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, countered the argument of the Senior Counsel for the appellant and submitted that the regularization granted to the building was with respect to building bearing No.X/717, whereas, as per the documents placed on record through information sought under the Right to Information Act, is revealed that in an area measuring 344.3, there is an industrial unit and the remaining areas are having an office and residential purpose, whereas, building No.X/717 only pertains to office purposes, which has been assigned number as 340B in 2010. Thus, there is no regularization of the unauthorized construction of the industrial unit. 20. There is no illegality in the order of the Single Bench, as the appellant, by submitting an application for raising the construction of the machine room along with the layout plan having been granted, did not provide any access and rightly so, there was no compliance of the condition. The building has to be held unauthorized in the absence of any permission and the crusher has to be stopped. It was further contended that no occupancy certificate has been obtained, which is a mandatory requirement of law. The date of submission of the application for regularization cannot be considered but the date on which the application was considered matters, in terms of the judgment in Asset Homes Private Limited v. State of Kerala [ 2011(2) KLT 1 ] (supra). 21. It is next contended that the construction of the machine room was intended to convert the existing secondary metal crusher into a primary crusher unit. 21. It is next contended that the construction of the machine room was intended to convert the existing secondary metal crusher into a primary crusher unit. Therefore Ext.P2 application was for building permit and not for regularization and rightly so, held in favor of the writ petitioner. The order cancelling the layout and approval plan has rightly so been held to have not seen challenged and it has become final and prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal. 22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 23. The order dated 19.02.2025 in the review petition is worth extraction and the same reads thus: “Petitioner seeks to review and recall the judgment dated 16.8.2024 in W.A.No.248/2024. Judgment of the learned Single Judge was broadly upheld by us vide the judgment sought to be reviewed, but we observed that the petitioner may run the crusher unit limiting its activity to secondary crushing. We concurred with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the stipulation regarding access width as per the Building Rules would apply to the crusher unit of the petitioner. 2. In the review petition it is contended that the unit was functioning as a secondary unit, however without primary crushing the secondary unit alone cannot be operated and hence the observation in the judgment sought to be reviewed that it may be permitted to be operated as a secondary unit, was erroneous. It was taking note of the fact that the previous owner applied for installing machinery for primary crushing only in 2008, as stated by the petitioner himself in Ext.P24 representation, we concluded that the unit was functioning with machinery for secondary crushing only from the inception and it sought to install machinery for primary crushing much later. The learned Single Judge in his judgment also held that the unit was basically a secondary crusher and this finding was not specifically disputed by the petitioner by raising any ground in the appeal memorandum. Hence we do not find any error in this regard. 3. We had also made an observation that the plinth area of the constructions has increased. Since the petitioner asserted that there was no expansion of the plinth area we had directed the Panchayat to make available the assessment registers. Secretary of the Grama Panchayat filed an affidavit dated 21.1.2025. Hence we do not find any error in this regard. 3. We had also made an observation that the plinth area of the constructions has increased. Since the petitioner asserted that there was no expansion of the plinth area we had directed the Panchayat to make available the assessment registers. Secretary of the Grama Panchayat filed an affidavit dated 21.1.2025. In the affidavit it is mentioned that there were three buildings in the premises and the one has been demolished. Plinth area of the building wherein the crusher unit is functioning is 344.30 m.sq. The registers were also produced. Records do not reveal that there is any expansion of the total plinth area as of now. Hence the observation in our judgment regarding increase of plinth area appear to be an error on account of misconception of facts. This aspect requires correction. 4. It is also contended that the constructions were made before crusher units were brought to the ambit of the Building Rules and Rule regarding access width became applicable. In support of this contention some documents have been produced as Annexures along with the review petition With respect to the contention raised in the review petition regarding access width and fresh documents produced in support of it, we note that these materials were not produced either before the learned Single Judge or in the appeal. In view of the settled limitations of review jurisdiction, we cannot re- appreciate the factual disputes by referring to the documents produced. Argument of the petitioner is that the documents may be helpful to avoid misconception of actual facts. 5. To enable the petitioner to refer to the additionally produced documents and also to provide opportunity to the respondents to rebut the contentions, so as to obviate possibility of misconception of facts in the adjudication, it is appropriate to recall the judgment under review. 6. In view of the above discussion, this review petition is allowed by recalling the judgment dated 16.8.2024 in W.A.No.248/2024. The writ appeal be listed for hearing as per roster.” 24. On perusal of the same, it is evident that this court, at earlier point of time, was of the view that the appellant has to be granted only the permission for a ‘secondary’ unit but not for the ‘primary’ unit. The writ appeal be listed for hearing as per roster.” 24. On perusal of the same, it is evident that this court, at earlier point of time, was of the view that the appellant has to be granted only the permission for a ‘secondary’ unit but not for the ‘primary’ unit. But there was no increase in the plinth area, as, Ext.P2 application accompanied by a layout plan was for raising the machine room, though accepted with a condition of providing 7 metre access width, but had never been implemented as the appellant had dropped the idea. This fact is proved from the site plan placed on record along with the review petition. On realizing the above fact, this court recalled the judgment. 25. The regularization letter, Ext.P10, is also worth extraction and the same reads as under: APPENDIX-1 [See rule 146(3)] BUILDING FERMIT PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT Sub: Building Construction without Permission-or deviation from Approved Plan-Regularisation Granted-Orders Issued Ref:- Application dated 2/4/2008 from Sri/Smt... Sunny...Varghese M/s.Robest Granities Njaralloor ORDER No.1302/08 Dated Whereas the application submitted by Sri/smt Sunny. Varghese Robest Granities Njaralloor for regularisation of a [constriction or reconstruction for addition of building hut, shed or wall or erection of telecommunication tower or poll structure ar digging of swell, conversion of roof, conversion of erection of shutter or door) commenced, being carried on completed in the land comprised in Sy. No. 539/6.. BL. No....35..... in building bearing No.../7.12... or near the building bearing No......... has been duly considered by me and decision regularise to regularise the same has been communicated in letter No Dated.200...COURT And Sri/Smt.Sunny Varghese Robest Granities Njaralloor remitted Rs 10,329 compounding fee yido receipt No.4/44601.dated 1.10.20 and has complied with the dictions/conditions stipulated in the letter dated.../../200... Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 406 of KMBR 1999, I the Secretary of the Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat hereby order that the said person has been absolve absolved from the liabilities in respect of the [construction or reconstruction or alteration or addition of building, hut, shed, wall or erection of telecommunication tower or pole structure or digging of well, conversion of roof, conversion or erection of shutter or door Secretary Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath 26. The building was assigned a number as X/717. Thereafter, it was granted nos.340A and 340B, i.e., the office area and the residential purpose area. The building was assigned a number as X/717. Thereafter, it was granted nos.340A and 340B, i.e., the office area and the residential purpose area. But the industrial unit has an area of 344.3 square metres. The assessment register placed on record also reveals that the industrial unit has a plinth area of 344.3 square meters. We drew this observation on perusal of the assessment register, Annexure A17, for the year 1993 and subsequent years. It is a matter of record that the Kerala Pollution Control Board, from time to time, has been granting the consent to run the crusher unit, finding that there is no pollution. It is found that, at the instance of the private complainant, the Department is acting and passing orders referring to the alleged construction, which has not been prima facie proved on record neither there is any site plan, photographs or inspection reports proving the same. While granting the license on 30.06.2009, Pollution Control Board had granted the permission for secondary crusher having 30 HP, and vide letter dated 16.12.2010, had granted the permission for primary crusher having 45 HP. The only condition imposed was that the crushers, classifiers, screens and other noise or dust producing units should be housed in buildings with wall of minimum 23 cm thickness and with suitable roofing. The aforementioned conditions are produced below: “3. CONDITIONS AS PER Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act. 3.1 The following pollution control facilities provided shall be maintained. 1. Crushers, Classifiers, Screens and other noise and/or dust producing units housed in buildings with wall of minimum 23 cm thickness and with suitable roofing. One door opening in any side is allowable. 2. Long belt conveyors leading to feed hoppers or product silos enclosed with metal sheets or wooden planks on all four sides if it is difficult to enclose the same with 23 cm brick wall. 3. Screens/Classifiers may be enclosed with wooden planks of minimum 2.5 cm thickness/metallic sheets, if enclosing with 23 cm thick brick wall as mentioned in (1) above is found not practical. 4. Dust suppression system with water sprayers/sprinklers should provided at points inside/outside the building where dust is likely to emanate. 5. Water storage facility of at least 2 days capacity provided. 6. The tarred roads around the crusher and other installations at site should be maintained. 7. 4. Dust suppression system with water sprayers/sprinklers should provided at points inside/outside the building where dust is likely to emanate. 5. Water storage facility of at least 2 days capacity provided. 6. The tarred roads around the crusher and other installations at site should be maintained. 7. Facility for regular cleaning and wetting of the ground should be provided. 3.2. The crusher should not be operated between 6.00 pm and 6.00 am. 3.3. Raw materials and products shall be transported with proper cover and/or after wetting to prevent spreading of dust. 3.4. The suspended particulate matter in ambient air measured at a distance of 40 m away from the centre of the of the crusher shall not exceed 600 microgram per cubic metre. The ambient sound level (Leq) measured at a distance of 1 m away from the boundary of the site shall not exceed 55d? (A). 3.5 The suspended particulate matter at the boundary of the premises shall not exceed 200 microgram per cubic metre. 3.6 The occupier shall at his own cost get the ambient air monitored for the parameters under Condition No.3.4 and 3.5 at least once in a year. Records of such monitoring shall be maintained and shall be made available to the inspecting officers of the Board whenever called for. The monitoring reports are to be submitted to the District Office at Ernakulam once in a year. 3.7. A signboard showing the name of the crusher and its crushing and production capacity should be displayed at the entrance of the site of the industry. 3.8. All the control measures provided should be maintained properly ensure that the system is adequate to control the pollution caused.” 27. It is the said side walls which have been referred to as unauthorized construction, which were raised to prevent the pollution as per the directions of the Pollution Control Board in the year 2010 without any increase in the plinth area. Thereafter, no such construction was made, as, the appellant/7 th respondent had dropped the idea of constructing the machine room measuring 36.00 sq.mt. However, the authorities at the helm of affairs have confused the matter by clubbing the prayer of the appellant/7 th respondent for construction of the machine room vis-a-vis the regularization of the side walls by erecting it up to the roof level to prevent the noise pollution from spreading in neighborhood. However, the authorities at the helm of affairs have confused the matter by clubbing the prayer of the appellant/7 th respondent for construction of the machine room vis-a-vis the regularization of the side walls by erecting it up to the roof level to prevent the noise pollution from spreading in neighborhood. On realizing that there may be any complaint in future for not seeking the pollution, submitted the application for regularization. It is in that context, the Gram Panchayat granted the regularization in 2007 vide Ext.P10 (supra). On perusal of the contents of the letter, Ext.P25 (extracted above), it is evident that the application for regularization was submitted on 23.06.2008. Contents of the letter dated 30.08.2021, Ext.P39 reveals that, the Performance Audit Supervisor had written a letter to the Panchayat Deputy Director on the submission of the enquiry report and stated that the firm has permit from the Pollution Control Board, and no pollution issues have come into attention during the personal checking. The contents of the same reads as under: “No: A2,84/2021/PAU5 Performance Audit Unit Office Puthen Cruz 30/08/2021 Performance Audit Supervisor PAU 5 Puthen Cruz Panchayath Deputy Director Ernakulam Sir, Subject : Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath – Robust Granites – complaint regarding mettle crusher unit – regarding submission of Inquiry Report. Reference : Letter with number DDP-EKM- 1361-2021-C1 dated 29/07/2021 From your Office. The following information is submitted to you on conducting enquiry in the above subject. On examining the Assessment Register of the Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath, it is seen that out of the 3 buildings of the firm Robust Granites, given building numbers IX/340 for industrial purposes, IX/340A for residence of labourers, & IX/340B for office purposes and they are having area of 344.3 sqm, 31/79 sqm, & 52.28 sqm respectively. As per the Assessment Register of the Panchayath, it is seen that buildings IX/340 & IX/340A were given numbers on 11/10/2010. The assessment date of the building IX/340B (old number X/717) is not clear. It is seen that it was assessed before the coming into force of the KMBR Act. The Secretary has informed that as they are old files, the files related to giving of building number in 2010, were not found in the panchayath office. The assessment date of the building IX/340B (old number X/717) is not clear. It is seen that it was assessed before the coming into force of the KMBR Act. The Secretary has informed that as they are old files, the files related to giving of building number in 2010, were not found in the panchayath office. At present, in the building with number IX/340B, the Panchayath has given license to Robust Granites in the name of Mr Subair, Elavumkudy house, Ponjassery, for 218.5 HP till the financial year 2023-2024. The building that were completed construction in the year 2010 and were given building numbers, were not given Usage certificate only because the owner has not requested for the same. After the usage of the buildings are included and the property tax is ascertained, and building number is allotted, there is no need for usage certificate. Moreover, it is impractical, to cause any difficulties to the buildings which were completed in 2010 only because of non receipt of Usage Certificate. The firm Robust Granites has permits from the Pollution Control Board, and no pollution issues have come into attention in the personal checking. Hence it is reported that there is no merit in the said complaint. Office Seal Faithfully S/d Performance Audit Supervisor Performance Audit Unit -5, Puthen Cruz” All these factors, in our considered view, have not been examined by the learned Single Bench on differing with the findings of the Tribunal for Local Self Government in the order Ext.P33, much less there is no material on record or brought to us, during the course of the hearing, by any of the counsels, particularly the counsel representing the party respondent no.1/writ petitioner, to establish that the appellant/7th respondent, at any time, has the power load of 238.5 in area having more than 3000 sq.ft. plinth area. The said observation have been passed without noticing the orders of review court, which prima facie found to be an error apparent on the face of the record. As an upshot of our findings, we thus, allow the writ appeal and set aside the judgment under challenge, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition. Writ Appeal stands allowed.