Judgment :- The petitioners are the owners of the buildings situated within the jurisdiction of the Mookkannur Panchayat. The dispute which is sought to be adjudicated relates to revision of the Building Tax under R.6 of the Kerala Panchayats (Buildings Tax) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'). The case of the petitioners is that in view of the circular directions contained in Ext. PI, the Panchayat is not authorised to enhance the rate of Building Tax above 25% of the existing rate while effecting the revision under R.6. 2. The main prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext. P4 to P7 orders passed by the first respondent, State of Kerala. It is also prayed that a direction be issued to the State and the Panchayat to revise the Building Tax in respect of the buildings in the case of the petitioners in accordance with Ext. P1 Ext. P4 to P7 are the orders passed by the Government in revision petitions filed by the petitioners under S.144(3) of the Panchayat Act (for short the 'Act'). The view taken by the first respondent appears to be that what is contained in Ext. P1 is only a guideline and therefore it cannot be said that the said circular shall be enforced in all cases of revision. As 1 am mainly concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the above view adopted by the Government in making the revision under R.6, I am not examining the individual case of the petitioners in particular. Only the general question in so far as it is relevant in the case of the petitioners is only dealt with in this writ petition. 3. Section 68 of the Act authorises the Panchayat to levy tax in all buildings in the Panchayat area at such percentage of the net annual rental value of the buildings as may be fixed by the Panchayat by resolution. R.6 deals with the general revision of tax once in five years by the Executive Authority. It is extracted hereunder: "6. The tax payable yearly to be determined once in every five years by the Executive Authority and the payment to be made by the owner in two half-yearly instalments. R.6 deals with the general revision of tax once in five years by the Executive Authority. It is extracted hereunder: "6. The tax payable yearly to be determined once in every five years by the Executive Authority and the payment to be made by the owner in two half-yearly instalments. - (1) The building tax shall be assessed and the yearly tax determined, once in every five years and shall be payable by the owner of the assessed building in two equal half-yearly instalments within thirty days of the commencement of each half year: (provided that the tax for the first half year in which a fresh assessment or general revision of assessment or general revision of assessment is effected, shall be payable before the last date shown in the bill mentioned in R.11). (2) The value of any building for the purpose of building tax shall be determined by the Executive Authority: Provided that the value of any building tax for which is payable by the Executive Authority shall be determined by the Panchayat." The above rule authorises the Panchayat that the building tax shall be assessed and the yearly tax determined once in every five years. This rule do not indicate the rate at which the building shall be assessed. No principle is laid as to how the general revision in every five years shall be made in respect of the buildings already assessed. No indication is available in the above rule as to whether the Panchayat can, while making the general revision, fix double the amount of existing tax, add equal amount of existing tax etc. The question is whether the Government can issue guidelines to be followed by the Executive Authority in the matter of fixing the rate of tax in general revision under R.6. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat that it is the absolute power of the Panchayat to fix the annual rental value or to revise the tax at the rate that may be fixed by the Panchayat. The stand adopted by the Panchayat is that the Government have no jurisdiction to issue guidelines to the Panchayat as to the manner of fixation of tax in the general revision. Ext. The stand adopted by the Panchayat is that the Government have no jurisdiction to issue guidelines to the Panchayat as to the manner of fixation of tax in the general revision. Ext. P1 circular letter inter alia directs that while effecting the general revision the building tax in respect of the buildings used by the owner for his residence or for carrying on his employment may not be fixed above 25% of the existing rate provided no major improvement is made to the building after the last revision. It is difficult for me to say that the above direction contained in Ext. P1 is in any way opposed to the provisions contained in the Act or Rules. The reasons for issuing such directions are also stated in Ext. P1 circular. It is pointed out therein that the Government have received large number of complaints in regard to the revision of building tax in respect of the buildings in the Panchayat area. On examination of such complaints the Government have satisfied that certain Panchayats had fixed the building tax in general revision in an unreasonable manner without any basis. It has also is came to light that certain Panchayat has fixed tax adding 100% to 200% to the existing rate. In order to prevent the Executive Authority from exercising the power conferred on it under the Rules in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner, it cannot be said the Government have no power to issue circular directions or guidelines in the matter. This is not a function acting against the provisions of the Act or Rules but a function facilitating proper and just implementation thereof. The powers are given to executive authorities to exercise them in a reasonable and just manner and not to misuse it in detrimental to the interest of the general public. In such situations, the Government can step in as they deem fit in the circumstances of the case without doing violence to the provisions contained in the statute, in order to safeguard the paramount interest of the people at large. 4. In such situations, the Government can step in as they deem fit in the circumstances of the case without doing violence to the provisions contained in the statute, in order to safeguard the paramount interest of the people at large. 4. It is no doubt true that R.6 confers power on the Executive Authority to assess the building tax once in every five years determining the net annual rental value of the building in the Panchayat area, ft is argued that when such power is conferred on the Executive Authority, the Government cannot impose any fetter by means of circular directions. I find it difficult to countenance this argument in as much as I see what is done in this case is not imposing any restraint or fetter on the Executive Authority but only bestowing certain directions in respect of matters which are not specifically provided in the Act or Rules. There is no provision in the Act or Rules as to how a building used by the owner either for his residence or for carrying on his employment shall be assessed to building tax in general revisions. It is in that background the directions are given as per Ext. P2 circular. This is not a restraint on the power of the Executive Authority as contended by the learned counsel for the Panchayat. Ultimately it is for the State to maintain the welfare of the people or a section thereof. The local authorities like Panchayat cannot be justified in adopting a posture that they are above the State in safeguarding the interest of the people. There may be cogent and adequate materials for the Government to issue circular directions apart from those contained in Ext. P1 and the Government, are not bound to disclose them in any manner. Of course this court can examine such materials if such a course of action is absolutely necessary in the interest of general public. No such questions arise in this case. In essence what is intended by issue of circular direction is only to supplement the provisions of the Act and Rules and not to supplant them in any manner. The enormous increase in the Governmental action or the complexities of the various decisions that come to the notice of the Government from time to time, may definitely supply adequate reasons for issuing circular directions. The enormous increase in the Governmental action or the complexities of the various decisions that come to the notice of the Government from time to time, may definitely supply adequate reasons for issuing circular directions. Of course, the amendment of the Act or Rules may be desirable in such circumstances but the local authorities cannot argue that they would not obey the circular direction unless the statute is amended as long as such circular directions remaining not in conflict with the provisions of the Act or Rules. Therefore I am not prepared to hold that the Government have no power to proffer general advice by means of circular letters to local authorities when the Government are confronted with live issues concerning interest of the general public. In this case, according to me, Ext. P1 is issued only to supplement the previsions contained in the Act and the rules not to supplant or do away with the provisions thereof. 5. I am really distressed to see while passing Ext. P4 to P7 the first respondent has not given due regard to the circular directions contained in Ext. P1. According to me, there is no proper consideration of Ext. P1 while considering the entire problem involving in this case also by the 2nd respondent. Therefore Ext. P4 to P7 are set aside. I direct the Government to re-examine the whole issue in the light of circular directions contained in Ext. P1. I make it clear that such re-examination is necessary only if it is found by the Government that the general question which I have discussed herein before is relevant in the case of each petitioners. In the result, I direct the Government to consider and dispose of the revision petitions filed by the petitioners on merits and in view of the directions given above. The Original Petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs.