Relator is the owner of a parcel ■of ground located in an unzoned commercial area of the City оf New Iberia. On October 8, 1948, he made written application to the Mayor and Board of Trustees, in conformity with City Ordinanсe No. 671, for a permit to construct a one-story building on his property for use as a motion picture theatre. The application was denied, relator being advised by the city attorney on October 11, 1948, that the city counсil had directed the Mayor not to issue a permit; hence this suit, in which relator seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the Mаyor and the Board of Trustees of the city to issue the desired permit.
In the lower court, the respondents contеsted the action on various grounds, the main one being that the Mayor was vested with discretionary powers with respеct to the issuance of building permits. After elimination of the members of the Board of Trustees as parties defendant by agreement of counsel, the case proceeded to trial and resulted in the issuance of a writ of mandamus as prayed for by relator. The Mayor has appealed.
The principal contention of the Mаyor in this Court is that the building permit ordinance of the City of New Iberia grants him discretion to issue or withhold permits as he deems proper.
We find no merit in the point. The ordinance provides in substance that no person shall construct, reрair, etc., any building within the corporate limits of New Iberia without first having applied for and received a building permit; that each applicant shall be required to furnish cer
In view of the foregoing limitation of authority, it is clear that, aside from the fact that there is nothing in the ordinance indicating that the Mayor is given discretionary powers, the city council could not have validly provided for the exercise of discretion. Hence, upon relator’s compliance with the provisions of the ordinance, it became the ministerial duty of the Mayor to issue the permit. State ex rel. Calvary Baptist Church v. City of Alеxandria,
Counsel for the Mayor insist that the-building permit ordinance was not enacted under authority of Act No. 237 of 1920. They conclude that this must be so because the charter of New Iberia charges, the Mayor with the duty of issuing all-building permits and imposes on him many obligations inconsistent “with a deprivation of discretion” in such matters.
The short answer to this contentiоn, is that the duty of the Mayor to issue permits is restricted to those permits required by city ordinances and such ordinancеs-cannot clothe him with greater power than that authorized by the statute which enabled their enactment.
Counsel further maintain that the Mayor rightfully refused the permit because there was a petition signed by a majority of proрerty owners in that vicinity requesting that the area be zoned. But,, admittedly, there was no zoning ordinance affecting the аrea in question either at the date of formal application for a permit. or at the time of the judgment below. Hence, the fact that zoning of the area was being contemplated is without pertinence to the -сase. State ex rel. Fitzmaurice v. Clay, supra.
Counsel also assert that the Mayor-had authority to withhold a building permit
Finally, counsel say that relator’s application for the permit was improper in that the contrаctor named therein had not paid the annual license exacted by the city for persons engaged in that оccupation. The point is not impressive; the ordinance merely requires that the building contractor be namеd in the application for the permit. Moreover, the permit was not denied on the ground that relator’s cоntractor had not obtained an occupational license in New Iberia.
The judgment is affirmed.
Notes
. This statute has been declared partially invalid. See Harmon v. Tyler,