IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 9903 of 2008(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. MEETHIAN KUNJU M.M., S/O. K.M.MOHAMMED, MANATH PAZHAYAPURAYIL HOUSE, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI-30. 2. M.I. MEETHIAN KUNJU, S/O. M.M.ISMAYIL, MANATH PAZHAYAPURAYIL HOUSE, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI-30. 3. M.I. PAREED, S/O.M.M. ISMAYIL, MANATH KIZHAKKE PAZHAYAPURAYIL HOUSE, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI-30. 4. M.A. ABOOBACKER, S/O.M.P.AHAMMED, MANATH PAZHAYAPURAYIL HOUSE, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI-30. 5. M.M. ABOOBACKER, S/O.M.P.MOHAMMED, MANATH KIZHAKKE PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI-30. 6. K.P. MOHAMMED, S/O. K.K.PAREED, KAITHA VELIEKKAKATHU HOUSE, KAKKANAD P.O.,KOCHI-30. BY ADVS. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, SMT.SMITHA GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C). NO.9903/2008-D: 2. THE TRIKKAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM. 3. M/S. PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LTD., G-261, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, COCHIN-682 036. 4. THE COMMANDANT GENERAL, FIRE & RESCUE SERVICES, CHENGALCHOOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.M. SURESH BABU R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN, R3 BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH, SRI.JOUSHUA H.SAMUEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON 10/11/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.9903/2008-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PRINT OUT FROM THE WEB SITE OF THE R.3. SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE PROJECT `PURNA MOONREEACH'. EXT.P.2.(SERIES) PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CURRENT STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A4712/08/RTI DTD. 13/03/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 31/12/2007 BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE THRIKKAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 31/12/2007 ADDRESSED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 23/11/2007 ADDRESSED TO THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR LOCAL-SELF GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO.37348/RB1/07/LSG DTD. 03/07/2007. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED TO THE R.4. ON 14/02/2008. EXT.P.9.A: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 6530/10/08/GCDA DTD. 25/09/2008 ALONG WITH ITS ELCLOSURES. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON 31/03/2008 SHOWING THE PRESENT STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 30/01/2006 OF THE R.2. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE R.3. TO THE R.2. DTD. 06/07/06. EXT.R3.C: COPY OF THE CORRESPONDENCES BETWEEN THIS RESPONDENT AND INDIAN OIL CORPORATION DT. 06/12/06. EXT.R3.D: COPY OF THE LETTER OF CONSENT DTD. 16/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.R3.E: COPIES OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND THE RECEIPT DT. 30/01/07. W.P.(C). NO.9903/2008-D: EXT.R3.F: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FOR HEIGHT CLEARANCE FROM THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA DT. 03/04/07. EXT.R3.G: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FROM THE INDIAN NAVY VIDE NOC DTD. 26/02/2007 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE FLAG OFFICER, COMMANDING-IN- CHIEF, HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, KOCHI. EXT.R3.H: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DTD. 19/11/2007. EXT.R3.J: COPY OF THE ERRATUM TO THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DTD. 16/01/2008. EXT.R3.K: COPIES OF THE PERMISSION FROM THE DISTRICT OFFICER FOR SINKING BOREWELLS. EXT.R3.L: COPIES OF THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE R.2. AND THE R.3. EXT.R3.M: DOCUMENT EVIDENCING THE SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITY OF CONSTRUCTION. EXT.R3.N: COPIES OF WORK ORDER NO. 05A/PPL-COCHIN/168/WO/06-07 DTD. 17/02/2006 ALONG WITH BILL ISSUED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND CHEQUE PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR. EXT.R3.O: COPIES OF THE BILL NO. TR 7454 DTD. 05/03/2006 ISSUED BY M/S. LAN-DEC ENGINEERS. EXT.R3.P: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.07/PPL-COCHIN/P-168/WO/06-07, DTD. 07/03/2006 AND BILL ISSUED BY THE CONTRACTOR. EXT.R3.Q: COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY M/S. LARDNER NORTH & CO ON 18/07/2006. EXT.R3.R: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO. 23/PPL-COCHIN/PH/WO/06-07 DTD. 06/07/2006 AND BILL ISSUED BY M/S. BACKER CONSTRUCTION. EXT.R3.S: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO. 25/PPL-COCHIN/PH/WO/06-07 DTD. 03/08/2006 AND BILL ISSUED BY M/S. PAVANA INDUSTRIES AND CHEQUE. EXT.R3.T: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.26/PPL-COCHIN/PH/WO/06-07 DTD. 04/08/2006. EXT.R3.U: COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY THE CONTRACTOR DTD. 31/01/2007. EXT.R3.V: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO. 40B/PPL-COCHIN/PH/WO/06/07, DTD. 25/10/2006. EXT.R3.W: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.44/PPL-COCHIN/PH/WO/06-07, DTD. 31/10/2006. EXT.R3.X: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.48/PPL-COCHIN/PH/WO/06-07, DTD. 10/11/2006. EXT.R3.Y: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.51/PPL-COCHIN/PH/WO/06-07 DTD. 16/11/2006. W.P.(C). NO.9903/2008-D: EXT.R3.Z: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.PPL/COC/PHTS/CWO/001, DTD. 17/11/2006. EXT.R3.AA: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO. 62A/PPL-COCHIN/PH/WO/07-08, DTD. 10/01/2007. EXT.R3.AB: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.62B/PPL-COCHIN/PH/WO/07-08, DTD. 10/01/2007. EXT.R3.AC: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.66A/PPL-COCHIN/PMR/WO/07-08 DTD. 12/03/2007. EXT.R3.AB: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.67/PPL-COCHIN/PMR/WO/07-08, DTD. 12/03/2007. EXT.R3.AE: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.73/PPL-COCHIN/PMR/07-08, DTD. 03/04/2007. EXT.R3.AF: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.73/PPL-COCHIN/PMR/WO/07-08, DTD. 07/04/2007. EXT.R3.AG: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.74A/PPL-COCHIN/PM/WO/07-08, DTD. 09/05/2007. EXT.R3.AH: COPY OF THE REPORT OF SALES OF FLATS. EXT.R3.AI: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.87/PPL-COCHIN/PMR/WO/07-08 DTD. 17/08/2007. EXT.R3.AJ: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.92A/PPL-COCHIN/PMR/WO/07-08,D TD. 05/09/2007. EXT.R3.AK: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.PPL-COC/PHTS/CWO/001A, DTD. 29/11/2007. EXT.R3.AL: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.117/PPL-COCHIN/PMR/WO/07-08 DTD. 14/12/2007 EXT.R3.AM: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.123/PPL-COCHIN/PMR/W.O/07-08, DTD. 19/01/2008. EXT.R3.AN: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PPL/IOC/06-07/P. HEIGHTS/101 DTD. 01/12/2006. EXT.R3.AO: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.23548/R.D. 2/08/LSGD DTD. 03/04/2008. EXT.R3.AP: COPY OF THE PLAN. EXT.R3.AQ: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 06/06/2006 FILED FOR NOC FROM CAVO. EXT.R3.M. SERIES: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.9903 of 2008-D - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioners herein who are residing in Ward No.10 of Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat, have raised their grievances against the construction of residential apartments by the third respondent in the writ petition. Mainly it is contended that as the Kerala Municipality Building Rules have been extended to Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat, they are bound to obtain a building permit under the said rules. 2. The proposal shows that the extend of land available is 1.69 acres and the construction of apartments are in two blocks, the first one block will have 30 floors excluding the two level basement parking, while the other block will have 22 floors excluding the two level basement parking. 3. The petitioners are relying upon the notification issued by the Government as per G.O.(Ms) No.250/2006/LSG dated 6.11.2006 extending the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, to the Panchayat. It is contended that since the construction has not started up to the said date, the third respondent is bound to obtain a permit under the rules. The petitioners are relying upon Ext.P2 series of photographs and contend that wpc 9903/2008 2 the construction actually started only in April/May, 2007. They have been sending various representations, Exts.P4 to P6 seeking immediate action to prevent the alleged illegal construction. Ext.P7 is the circular dated 3.7.2007 issued by the Government clarifying certain aspects regarding the extension of Kerala Municipality Building Rules to Grama Panchayats. It is pointed out that even the stipulations therein will show that in respect of constructions which have not started till then, will have to obtain permission under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. The constructions which had not progressed beyond the ground level, will also be covered by the above rules. 4. One of the issues pointed out is that the site in question is adjacent to a huge petrol pump and therefore the No Objection Certificate under the Petroleum Rules is mandatory. 5. Heard Shri K. Ramakumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Shri K.G. Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent, Shri C.M. Suresh Babu, learned Special Govt. Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Shri Shanavas Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat. 6. The contention raised by Shri K. Ramakumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is based on the notification issued by wpc 9903/2008 3 the Government in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 274 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The notification shows that the Government extended the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 to be enforced in Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Gazette. The same has been published in the Kerala Gazette Volume LI, dated 15.11.2006. My attention was invited to sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules which prohibits any person from developing or redeveloping any parcel of land or cause the same to be done without obtaining a permit for each such development or redevelopment from the Secretary. Sub-rule (2) obliges a person to obtain a separate building permit and any construction or reconstruction or addition or extension or alternation can be done only after obtaining such a building permit. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ext.P2 series of photographs taken on 17.3.2008 show the stage of construction at that point of time. It is contended that even going by Ext.P7 circular issued by the Government dated 3.7.2007 it can be seen that in respect of buildings of which construction is yet to be started, a permit is required to be obtained under the Rules. Even in cases where construction has started and has not reached above ground level, a permit is required, going by para 4 of the wpc 9903/2008 4 said circular. My attention was invited to the averments in the counter affidavit of the third respondent to contend that the third respondent has no consistent case with regard to the starting of construction and the level of construction, etc. and such contrary stand will only substantiate the contention raised by the petitioners. It is further argued that the provisions of the statutory rules cannot be set at naught by a circular issued by the Government and reliance is placed on various decisions of this Court and that of the Apex Court in that regard. It is therefore pointed out that the construction which was started by the third respondent, is in violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and hence appropriate directions have to be issued in that regard. 8. Shri K.G. Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that this Court cannot be expected to decide any disputed questions of fact in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pointed out that the third respondent was granted No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the Panchayat long prior to the notification issued by the Government extending the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, to the Panchayat and has started construction well before 15.11.2006, the date of the Gazette notification. Learned Senior Counsel explained the averments contained in the counter affidavit, after referring to wpc 9903/2008 5 the various stages of the construction, which have been given in a chart produced as Ext.R3(m) along with I.A. No.5656/2008. It is further argued that the permission granted by the Panchayat as per Ext.R3(a) gives a vested right to the third respondent to make the construction. The notification issued by the Government which is published in the Gazette dated 15.11.2006 is not evidently retrospective. Hence, the said notification will not have any impact on the No Objection Certificate issued by the Panchayat. The plan and other details were furnished before the Panchayat for issuing the No Objection Certificate and they have verified the same. It is therefore contended that in the light of the well settled principles, an amendment for bringing into effect any enactment or statutory rules unless it is expressed to be retrospective, cannot affect the vested right and reliance is placed on various decisions of the Apex Court in that regard. Further, it is pointed out that Ext.P7 circular has been modified by the Government by issuing a revised circular dated 3.4.2008 (Ext.R3(ao) and the third respondent is entitled for the benefit of the same. It is pointed out that the circular does not go against the stipulations of the Municipality Building Rules. My attention was also invited to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7775/2008 wherein the validity of the circulars have been upheld and therefore it is pointed out that the third respondent is wpc 9903/2008 6 entitled for the benefit of the said judgment. 9. Before going into the contentious issue raised, it is relevant to note the interim orders passed by this Court. By the interim order dated 25.3.2008, this Court directed the third respondent to maintain status quo as on that day regarding the construction proposed by them. After hearing parties and extensively considering the contentions, the above interim order was modified by order dated 2.5.2008 permitting the constructions of a total built up area of 1,81,844 sq. ft. subject to the result of the writ petition. 10. The first question is with regard to the applicability of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules to the constructions herein. The No Objection Certificate issued by the Panchayat has been produced as Ext.R3(a). It is stated therein that “Since the Kerala Building Rules, 1984 have not been enforced within the Panchayat area, the permission from this office is not necessary for the construction of residential flats in Sy. Nos.325/4, 5, 326/1, 4, 5 of Kakkanadu Village, subject to the condition that three meters distance should be left from the boundary adjacent to P.W.D. roads and earmarked panchayat roads and adequate drainage facilities should also be provided.” The only condition therefore is that three meters distance should be left from the boundary adjacent to P.W.D. roads and earmarked panchayat roads and to provide adequate drainage facilities. The distance wpc 9903/2008 7 clause therein is in tune with Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The circular Ext.P7 was issued by the Government to clarify certain positions regarding the applicability of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules after it was extended by the Govt. Order dated 6.11.2006. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said circular insists for obtaining permit under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules in cases where NOC has been obtained and no construction was started and in cases where NOC has been obtained and construction has not reached beyond the ground level. The subsequent circular is Ext.R3(ao) dated 3.4.2008. The said circular shows that the rigours of Ext.P7 have been relaxed further, after noticing that even at the time when the Kerala Municipality Building Rules were made applicable in respect of multi storied buildings, already constructions have started including piling works. Government felt that in the circular dated 3.7.2007 it was insisted that in respect of construction which has not reached above ground level it could be done only in terms of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, but there are practical difficulties to enforce the same where constructions have started. Therefore, constructions have to be permitted after satisfying that the security provisions, emergency staircase, parking, etc. are provided and after conducting an inspection. 11. The argument raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the wpc 9903/2008 8 petitioners is that the circular goes against the express statutory provisions and therefore it cannot be sustained. My attention was invited in this regard to the well settled principle that a circular cannot override the statutory provisions, by relying upon the decisions of this Court and that of the Apex Court in Kunhikrishnan v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT 13), Ramakrishnan v. District Collector (1986 KLT 976), Kerala Financial Corporation v. Commissiioner of Income Tax {(1994) 4 SCC 375}, Amina v. State of Kerala (2004 (1) KLT 657), Municipal Corporation, Amritsar v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Amritsar Division and another {(2004) 3 SCC 92}, V.B. Prasad v. Manager, P.M.D. Upper Primary School and others {(2007) 10 SCC 269}, Anandavally M. and others v. President, Alappuzha District Co-op Bank and others (2008 (3) KHC 878) and Sasidharan P.P. v. State of Kerala and others (2010 (2) KHC 856). 12. The principle is well settled that a circular cannot go against the express statutory provisions and that an executive order cannot survive in case of a conflict. The question is whether, herein, the circulars will go against the express statutory provisions. 13. The circulars have been considered by a Division Bench of this wpc 9903/2008 9 Court in the decision reported in Mather Projects (P) Ltd. v. Government of Kerala (2009 (4) KLT 986) which was relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent. Therefore, the contention regarding the validity of the circulars will have to be addressed in the light of the above decision of the Division Bench and the other statutory provisions. 14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent also invited my attention to Rule 161 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 which specifically empowers the Government to clarify any doubt with regard to the interpretation of the rules or if any difficulty arises in the implementation of a provision. The said rule reads as follows: “161. Removal of doubts, etc.-- The Government shall have power, if any doubt arises with regard to the interpretation or otherwise of any provision or if any difficulty arises in the implementation of any provision, to clarify the doubt or to issue necessary direction for removing the difficulty.” It is therefore pointed out that both the circulars were issued by the Government when the Government found that there are difficulties in the implementation of the provisions of the rules and therefore it is not a case where the Government has acted illegally in issuing the circulars. 15. Now, I will consider the effect of the decision of the Division wpc 9903/2008 10 Bench in Mather Projects (P) Ltd.'s case (2009 (4) KLT 986). The writ petition therein was filed by certain builders challenging the circulars after the extension of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules to Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat as well as the collection of permit fee under the circular. The power of the Government under Section 274 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, to extend the Kerala Municipality Building Rules to Grama Panchayats, was upheld in para 8 of the judgment. The next aspect considered in para 9 relates to the collection of permit fee. In the circular dated 3.7.2007 it was specified that permit fee is liable to be remitted by the builders. It was found by the Division Bench that the circulars are beneficial to the builders and the power was traced out from Chapter XVIII of the Panchayat Raj Act. The relevant findings contained in para 9 of the judgment are as follows: “Normally the builders have to apply and obtain a building permit and further construction can be proceeded with only in accordance with the same. If that be so, they would have to pay the permit fee, and also modify the plan wherever necessary and they cannot build beyond the FAR and coverage permitted. But, in this case, we notice that while the Government issued instructions to the local authorities, no such stipulations were made. The Government was wpc 9903/2008 11 very liberal, beyond the requirement of law, in issuing instructions to the officers of the Grama Panchayat. But, the Government told that there cannot be any waiver of permit fee. We think, the Circulars issued by the Government are, in fact, full of concessions granted to the builders who are facing serious difficulties as a result of the enforcement of the Building rules in the Panchayat area. We feel that, they have no reason to demur against them. Apparently, the above directions have been issued, invoking the power of the Government under Chapter XVIII of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. But, in the case of certain builders, who have exceeded the FAR beyond three, there is some grievance. But that grievance cannot be a ground to interfere with the directions issued by the Government, most of which, we feel, are heavily in favour of the builders. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the directions of the Government to the Panchayats to collect permit fee.” 16. Thus, it is evident that this Court upheld the validity of the circular. The issue was considered in the light of the NOC issued by the Panchayat. The Panchayat was issuing NOCs during the relevant period, is clear. Both the circulars refer to the NOC issued by the Panchayat. The provision for filing application before the Panchayat in such cases, is governed by Section 235F of the Panchayat Raj Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 235F provides that “where any person intends to construct or re- wpc 9903/2008 12 construct a building other than a hut within a Village Panchayat area he shall send to the Secretary - (a) an application in writing together with a site plan of the land for the approval of the site and; (b) an application in writing together with a ground plan, elevation and sections of the building and specification of the work for permission to execute the work.” Therefore, before the extension of the Municipality Building Rules to the Panchayat, evidently the applicants were being issued NOCs by the Panchayat. The permission regarding the construction leaving a distance of 3 meters from the boundary of land adjacent to roads is in accordance with Section 220 (b) of the Panchayat Raj Act. The Panchayats have been notifying various roads for the application of the above provision and the learned counsel for the Panchayat, during the course of arguments, also submitted that such a notification is in force in the Panchayat. Therefore, evidently the NOC was required for the third respondent for starting the construction and hence Ext.R3(a) was issued in the light of the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act. Even though learned Senior Council for the petitioners Shri Ramakumar submitted that it is a mere certificate, the contents of the certificate evidently voice the fact that it is a No Objection Certificate. Both Ext.P7 circular and Ext.R3(ao) circular refers to NOC issued by the Panchayat prior to the extension of the Municipality Building Rules in the wpc 9903/2008 13 Panchayat in question. Therefore, the issuance of NOC was the statutorily regulated and recognised method before the extension of the Building Rules to the Panchayat herein. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ext.R3(a) is not a NOC issued by the Panchayat with regard to the construction proposed. 17. In the counter affidavit of the Panchayat, para 5 states that the third respondent obtained a No Objection Certificate from the Panchayat on 20.1.2006 which is prior to the date on which the building rules was enforced, for constructing multi-storied apartment. The Panchayat permitted the third respondent to construct 4,75,368 sq. ft.. It is explained in para 7 that certain provisions in Ext.P7 circular were clarified by Ext.R3 (ao) circular and as per the said circular, starting of the piling work amounts to commencement of construction. The files maintained by the Panchayat have been made available before this Court which shows that the plans have been produced before the Panchayat by the third respondent and the certificate Ext.R3(a) was issued after endorsing it in the plan with the signature of the Secretary of the Panchayat. Along with I.A. No.15011/2010, the third respondent has produced Ext.R3(ap) plan submitted to the Panchayat for Fire NOC and Ext.R3(aq), true copy of the application dated 6.6.2006 for NOC from CAVO. These have been wpc 9903/2008 14 produced to show that those NOCs have also been obtained after making application through the Panchayat. Therefore, Ext.R3(a) has been issued by the Panchayat in terms of the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, evidently. It cannot therefore be said, in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in Mather Projets (P) Ltd.'s case (2009 (4) KLT 986), that the circulars are invalid. Their Lordships have held that the directions under them have been issued invoking the power of the Government under Chapter XVIII of the Panchayat Raj Act. 18. Apart from the same, the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, viz. Rule 161 enables the Government to clarify doubts with regard to the interpretation of any provision and issue direction if any difficulty arises