16. Suspension and Revocation of permit.

 The Secretary shall suspend or revoke any permit issued under these rules if it is satisfied that the permit was issued by mistake or that a patent error has crept in it or that the permit was happened to be issued on misrepresentation of fact or law or that the construction if carried on will be a threat to life or property: 

Provided that before revoking permit, the owner of the permit shall be given sufficient opportunity to explain and the explanation shall be duly considered by the Secretary.

 Notes:-

      Application for building permit :-An application for permission to put up a building field by a tenant has to be signed by the owner of the land also, otherwise the Commissioner cannot grant permission. (Sreenivasan v. Calicut Corporation, 1980 KLT 930: 1980 KLN 722). Under rule 7(ii) site plan shall be signed by the owner applicant also in all cases.
      A person intending to construct a boundary wall abutting on any public street has to make an application and get permission to execute the work, even if its height is less than eight feet. The word 'building' as used in section 244 is intended to bear the meaning of that word as defined in the explanation to sub- section (1) of Section 242 of the Municipal Corporations Act. (Vilsy Daniel v. Corporation of Trivandrum, 1967 KLT 572: 1967 KLJ 625: 1967 KLR 641).
      Section 244 of the Municipal Corporations Act categorically prohibits construction of a building unless and until the Commissioner has granted permission for the execution of the work. It is only after making an application under Section 247 and waiting for 30 days that the applicant could execute the work. (0. P. No. 1523 of 1977: 1977 KLT SN 19).
      Refusal of permit:- It cannot be said that once the Commissioner refuses to approve the building site he becomes functus officio in regard to the subject matter and cannot grant approval subsequently. Approval of the site can be refused on several grounds, such as defective Plan incorrect particulars, failure to produce relevant documents, etc. If these discrepancies are corrected by the applicant, there is no reason why the Commissioner should not go back on his earlier decision and grant approval. It does not really matter whether he passes the subsequent order on the same application or on a fresh application. (Lakshmikutty Amma v. Badagara Municipality, 1982 KLN 498: 1982 KLT SN 44).
      Permit granted under 1968 Rules :- The period of a building permit granted under the 1968 Rules to construct a three storeyed building was extended upto October 13, 1987. Within that period the construction of ground and first floors was completed. Application for further extension of the permit for completing the second floor was rejected on the ground that the construction would violate the new rules. The petitioner challenged that order. The Court held that rule 41 applied to all cases where a permit issued under the 1968 Rules was in force on May 15, 1984 when the 1984 Rules came into force, whether by original grant or by extension. The rejection of request for extension was illegal. (Ashalata v. Commissioner, Cannanore Municipality 1989 (2)KLT 681: 1989 (2) KLJ 579).
      Transfer of permit:- Some time after obtaining permit for construction of a building the owner sold the property to another. The municipality objected to the construction of the building by the purchaser on the ground that building construction license was not transferable. It was held that in the Municipalities Act there was no embargo on transfer of a permission to construct a buildings' (Ramankutty v. Municipal Commissioner 1989 (1) KLJ 739).
      Obstruction in public street :- Neither the Government nor the Corporation has any right to create any obstruction or use it in any manner other than as a public street. (Govinda Rao v. District Collector, 1983 KLT328).
       The proper use of the highway is for passing and re passing and user for any other purpose may amount to a trespass. The public have a right to use every part of public street and not merely the metal led portion in the centre. Members of the public using the footpaths have a legal right of unobstructed user thereof, and there is a legal liability on the part of the municipal and police authorities to see that such a right is being maintained. If the Corporation grant license to bunks on foot paths it will be illegal. (Achuthan v. District Collector, 1982 KLT 113).
      Municipality has no right to construct building on public street vested in the Municipality. If such illegal construction is attempted the owner of the adjoining land has a cause of action against the infringement of his right of access to the public street. (Godavari Bhat v. Cannanore Municipality, 1984 KLT 1103.-1984 KLJ 694: ILR 1985 (1) Ker 258).
      Suit a against unlawful construction ..- A citizen has a right to institute a suit against the construction of a building in violation of Municipal Building Rules. (Saina v. Konderi, 1984 KLT428)

Building Rules are intended for the benefit of all residents in the municipal area. A construction made in violation of the Building Rules is a direct infringement on the rights of the neighboring owner recognized and provided for in the rules itself. A neighboring owner can claim an injunction to prevent a construction in contravention of the Rules. (Girijadevi Kujnamma v. Hormis Thaliath, 1983 KLJ 377).

     Demolition of building :- Municipal Commissioner served the accused with a notice requiring him within 7 days to demolish his building as it was in a dilapidated and ruinous condition. The accused having failed to comply with the notice a complaint was failed to penalize him. It was held that it is not open to the Criminal Court to acquit the accused on the ground that the order is not proper and is not lawful. What the court has only to see is whether the provisions of law have been complied with and the question whether the discretion has been reasonably and properly exercised cannot be the subject of the scrutiny by the Criminal Court. (Health Officer v. Kelappan, 1965 KLT 409 : 1965 KLJ 485).

       Unlawful Construction :- Under Section 262 of the Municipal Corporations Act it is open to the owner to show that the construction or reconstruction alleged to have been carried out by him was not a work of that nature but only a necessary repair within the meaning of the proviso to Section 262 (1). The owner of the building has to be given reasonable opportunity to show cause why the provisional order to demolish the unlawfully commenced work should not be confirmed. His explanation to the provisional order has to be duly considered by the commissioner before a final order is passed. (Salim v. Corporation of Cochin, 1981 KLT 636).
       A provisional order passed under Section 247 (1) of the Municipalities Act asking the owner to show cause within three days against the proposal to demolish the structure does not give reasonable time. When the owner in his explanation claim that the addition or alteration is a necessary repair not affecting the position or dimension of the building, the question has to be referred to the Municipal Council for its decision. (Kuriakose v. Municipal Council Sherthallai, 1980 KLN 267).
      Removal of encroachment:- The procedure laid down in section 263 of the Municipal Corporations Act need be complied with only if the structure involved is situated in a private property. That need not be followed for removing encroachment on property vested in Corporation. (Corporation of Cochin v. Janardhanan, 1982 KLT 386: 1982 KLN 208).
      Rent cannot be assessed to profession tax :- Investing money in purchasing or constructing building with a view to derive rent there from and collecting rent there from cannot be said to be exercising a profession or calling or transacting a business or holding an appointment. So profession tax cannot be assessed in such cases . (Corporation of Calicut v. Subhadra Kovilakom, 1971 KLT 445: 1971 KLJ 435: 1971 KLR 307).
      The Municipality cannot reject an application for permission to construct a building on the ground that the area is proposed to be acquired. Under S. 393  of the Municipality Act permission can be refused only where the land is under acquisition proceedings. (Padmini v. State of kerala, 1999 (3) KLT465)