JUDGMENT : The petitioner, a Telecom Infrastructure Company, has approached this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P11 and P13 and to direct the respondent Panchayat to renew Ext.P1 building permit for a further period of one year from the date of issuance of renewed permit. 2. The petitioner submitted an application for constructing a Telecommunication Tower in Kallikadu Village, Kattakada Taluk of Thiruvananthapuram District. After inspection of the site, the Panchayat issued Ext.P1 building permit on 28.03.2018. Some residents of the locality made complaints to the District Telecom Committee against construction of the Telecom Tower. By Ext.P2 proceedings dated 14.11.2018, the District Telecom Committee dismissed the complaint. 3. While the construction was being proceeded with, the 1st respondent Panchayat issued Ext.P3 stop memo dated 01.12.2018. Ext.P3 proposed to constitute a Technical Expert Committee under Rule 12 (9) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. The petitioner would submit that the Rule 12 would not apply to the construction being carried out by the petitioner for the reason that it is applicable only in cases where depth of the excavation made is more than the horizontal distance from the plot boundary to the said excavation cutting. 4. The petitioner therefore filed Appeal No.810/2019 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal however, without considering the specific contentions raised in the appeal, dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P5 order. On 12.03.2019, the petitioner made an online application before the respondent for renewing the building permit as per Rule 130(7) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. The application was necessitated since Ext.P1 permit was to expire on 27.03.2019. The Panchayat did not consider the application and therefore the petitioner was forced to file WP(C) No.10935/2019. This Court set aside Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to reconsider Appeal No.810/2018. 5. The Tribunal reconsidered the appeal and set aside the stop memo as per Ext.P8 Order. The Panchayat was directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. On 22.09.2020, Ext.P11 communication was issued by the Panchayat stating that the Government has already sanctioned Technical Committee and as and when nomination is received for the same, the petitioner will be intimated. In Ext.P11, it was further stated that the petitioner has failed to produce soil test report. The petitioner would state that Ext.P11 has been passed without complying with the directions of the Tribunal. 6. In Ext.P11, it was further stated that the petitioner has failed to produce soil test report. The petitioner would state that Ext.P11 has been passed without complying with the directions of the Tribunal. 6. On 27.10.2020, the Panchayat issued Ext.P13 communication along with a report of the Technical Expert Committee and directed the petitioner to take steps in accordance with the Report. The report required that the Structural Design of the tower and its foundation submitted by the petitioner has to be checked for structural stability, by a Government Agency. 7. The petitioner argues that in Ext.P8 order, the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions had held that Rule 12 warranting report by Technical Expert Committee would apply only in cases where the depth of the excavation made is more than the horizontal distance from the plot boundary to the excavation cutting. This finding has been ignored by the Panchayat. 8. As regards checking of plan for Structural Stability by Government Agency, the petitioner would argue that as per Rule 130(3) of KPBR, the Structural Stability Certificate shall be one issued by an Engineer registered under the Rules having Post Graduate Degree in Structural Engineering or Head of the Department concerned of any Government or Quasi Government institutions offering Post Graduate Degree in Structural Engineering. Therefore, the requirement made in Ext.P13 in that regard is illegal. Ext.P13 therefore cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 9. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed a counter affidavit in opposition. Rule 12(6) will not dis-empower the Panchayat from acting upon public complaints and the Panchayat can insist for checking plan for structural stability through a Government Agency. The issue was placed before a Technical Expert Committee. The suggestions of the Committee have to be respected. The attempt of the petitioner is to circumvent the report of a duly engaged Technical Committee, which shall not be permitted, contended the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 11. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P11 which proposes to appoint a Technical Committee. The petitioner is aggrieved by the recommendations of the Technical Committee which requires further deepening of foundation and which forces the petitioner to obtain approval of structural design by a Government/ Quasi-Government agency. 12. 11. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P11 which proposes to appoint a Technical Committee. The petitioner is aggrieved by the recommendations of the Technical Committee which requires further deepening of foundation and which forces the petitioner to obtain approval of structural design by a Government/ Quasi-Government agency. 12. It may be noted that the issue of applicability or otherwise of applicability of Rule 12 was agitated before the Tribunal in Appeal No.810/19 and the Tribunal in Ext.P8 Order, held as follows: “It is pertinent to note that the same matter was agitated before the DTC and final decision was taken by the District Collector through its order dated 20.10.2018. On going through rule 12 of KPBR, it is seen that it is applicable only in cases where the depth of excavation made is more than the horizontal distance from the plot boundary to the said excavation cutting. On perusal of the building permit and plan (annexure P3) it is seen that in this case the construction is being carried in 20.3 cents of property. So in such a situation rule 12 does not apply. On the basis of an apprehension through a complaint, the Secretary proceeded and initiated u/r 12 and 6 of KPBR. Without ascertaining the real material facts how the secretary arrived such a finding. It is also not evident from the file. If there is any chance for soil erosion and the site contain loose earth are the matters to be considered in detail. Without ascertaining all these aspects Secretary arrived a finding under rule 12.” Exts.P11 and P13 have been passed without adverting to the findings of the Tribunal on the applicability of Rule 12 of the KPBR. 13. Rule 12 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules reads as follows: “12. Approval of site and plans and issue of permit where excavations to a depth of more than 1.5 metres is involved.-(1) In the case of constructions/land developments which involve any earthwork excavation to a depth of more than 1.5 metres, if the depth of cutting is more than the horizontal distance of such cutting from the plot boundary, the following provisions shall apply: Provided that, such provisions are not necessary in cases where such excavation is carried out for construction of structures such as wells, septic tank, recharge pits, drainage works, compound walls and the like. (2) The application for Development and/or building permit shall be submitted by the applicant as per the provisions of these rules, along with a certificate of the Architect, Building Designer, Engineer, Town Planner, Supervisor as the case may be, who has prepared and signed the plans, drawings, statements etc as to whether permit as envisaged under rule 12 is required. (3) The application for permit shall also include sufficient copies of.- (i) dimensioned plan(s) and sectional drawing(s) showing the levels and depths of cutting at all places in respect of excavations for building construction and land development works; (ii) drawings, specifications and details of temporary and permanent protective measures proposed; and (iii) drawings, specifications and details of slabs, beams, columns, retaining walls etc. proposed at the ground floor level and below; (iv) details of piles if any, including their drawings, specifications, erection methods and the like. (4) The Secretary shall issue permit as laid down in these rules. Provided that, if any changes or deviations are to be made, it shall satisfy the provisions of these rules and the same shall be intimated to the Secretary with revised drawings, specifications and details as the case may be. (5) The Secretary shall supply copies of the details specified in sub rule (3) above and the permit to the adjoining land owners. (6) Any written complaint received after the date of issue of the permit(s) from owners or occupants in the adjoining properties on the actual or possible damages to their life and property shall be acted upon by the Secretary as per the provisions in this rule. (7) Once the earthworks and/or constructions upto the ground level are completed as per the approved plans, the applicant may in writing intimate the same to the Secretary and request for concurrence for carrying out rest of the works. No construction shall be carried out above the ground level until the Secretary issues such concurrence as in Appendix C1. (8) The Secretary shall, if convinced that the works are carried out satisfactorily as per the permit(s) and provisions of this rule and no written complaint is received as in sub rule (6), issue concurrence as in Appendix C1 for carrying out the remaining works above the ground level as per approved plans within 7 days. (8) The Secretary shall, if convinced that the works are carried out satisfactorily as per the permit(s) and provisions of this rule and no written complaint is received as in sub rule (6), issue concurrence as in Appendix C1 for carrying out the remaining works above the ground level as per approved plans within 7 days. (9) If any complaint is received as in sub rule (6), the Secretary shall,-(i) refer the matter within 5 days to the Technical Expert Committee constituted as per sub rule (13) and convene a meeting of the Committee, (ii) intimate the nature of complaints to the applicant and call for details and explanation if so desired by the Committee, (iii) arrange for site inspections, hearing of the applicants and/or petitioners, verification of records and arrange for tests if so required by the Committee and (iv) take up further action as per the recommendations of the Committee. (10) The applicant(s) and/or the petitioner(s) shall attend the hearing and shall also produce any details called for within the time specified, if so required by the Committee or the Secretary on its behalf. (11) The Committee shall evaluate the damages and fix the compensation and/or suggest further protective measures, if any, to be taken by the applicant to solve the issues raised by the petitioner(s). The amount of compensation shall include the actual cost of restoration as decided by the Committee and an additional 30% as solatium. (12) Concurrence shall be issued by the Secretary, after ensuring that the protective measures are carried out to the satisfaction of the Committee and the compensation is paid by the applicant as per the decision of the Committee. The actual expenses of the Committee as intimated by the Secretary shall be paid by the applicant.” 14. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 would indicate that it is intended to apply for approval of site and plans and issue of permits where excavations are to a depth of 1.5 meters, if the depth of cutting is more than the horizontal distance of such cutting from the plot boundary. To apply Rule 12, not only the depth of earth work excavation should be more than 1.5 meters but the depth cutting should also be more than the horizontal distance of such cutting from the plot boundary. To apply Rule 12, not only the depth of earth work excavation should be more than 1.5 meters but the depth cutting should also be more than the horizontal distance of such cutting from the plot boundary. In this case, the depth cutting does not appear to be more than the horizontal distance of such cutting from the plot boundary. The respondents have not adverted to this aspect, in spite of the findings in that regard contained in Ext.P8 Order. Exts.P11 and P13 orders are therefore unsustainable. 15. As regards the requirement of checking of plan for Structural Stability by a Government Agency, as per Rule 130(3) of KPBR, the Structural Stability Certificate shall be one issued by an Engineer registered under the Rules having Post Graduate Degree in Structural Engineering or Head of the Department concerned of any Government or Quasi Government institutions offering Post Graduate Degree in Structural Engineering. The petitioner would submit that they have submitted Ext.P4 Structural Stability Certificate issued by a Chartered Engineer who satisfy the requirements under Rule 130(3). In that event, the requirement of the Panchayat, of approval by a Government Agency also cannot be justified. 16. For the afore reasons, Exts.P11 and P13 communications are unsustainable. They are accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to renew Ext.P1 Building Permit for a further period of one year from the date of issue of renewed permit. The writ petition is allowed as above.