JUDGMENT : AMIT RAWAL, J. 1. The present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 02.12.2016 in W.P.(C)No.16368 of 2013 preferred by the respondents - petitioners. Appellant is the respondent No.3 in the aforementioned writ petition. 2. The claim of the respondents - writ petitioners in brief is enumerated hereinbelow: Petitioners are the residents of old Ward No.10 Division No.37 of the Thrikkakara Municipality and were aggrieved of the issuance of building permit under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules to the 3 rd respondent i.e., the appellant herein for undertaking the construction under the name and style "Purava Moonreach Projects limited". The grievance aforementioned was based upon following averments: (i) There was a proposal to construct apartments in two blocks in a parcel of land having an extent of 1.69 Acres with one block of 30 floors excluding the two level basement parking and another block of 22 floors excluding the two level basement parking. The preliminary earthwork at the site started in April-May 2007. The stage of construction was demonstrated from the photographs taken by the respondents in 2008, Ext.P2. (ii) Government of Kerala in exercise of powers conferred under Section 274 of the Panchayat Raj Act extended the applicability of the provisions of Kerala Municipality Building Rules (hereinafter called ' KMBR ' for short) to the Thrikkakara Panchayat by issuing Government order dated 06.11.2006 notified on 15.11.2006. On the basis of the information received under the Right to Information Act, it was informed by the Panchayat that the appellant - 3 rd respondent was in the process of constructing a building having total build up area of 1,75,368.6 sq.ft. upon a place of property having an extent 1.69 Acres and since the KMBR was not in force before 06.11.2006, the permit was issued to the appellant - 3 rd respondent on 31.01.2006 in the shape of NOC and the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permissible under the KMBR at the relevant point of time was 2.5 and the maximum area that can be constructed in a plot having an extent of 1.69 Acre is 1,81,844 sq. ft. (iii) On receipt of the aforementioned information, a representation dated 31.12.207 was submitted to the Secretary, Thrikkakara Panchayat Ext.P4, to the District Collector Ext.P5 and also to the Minister for Local Self Government Ext.P6. ft. (iii) On receipt of the aforementioned information, a representation dated 31.12.207 was submitted to the Secretary, Thrikkakara Panchayat Ext.P4, to the District Collector Ext.P5 and also to the Minister for Local Self Government Ext.P6. (iv) Government had issued a circular dated 03.07.2007 with a clarification regarding the extension of Building Rules to the Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat Ext.P7 and as per the circular, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat was required to verify the stages of construction in respect of the buildings 'under construction' irrespective of whether No Objection Certificate(NOC) was issued by the Panchayat or not. If there were any construction activities going on as on 03.07.2007, the details of the said construction would have to be entered in the register maintained in the manner provided in the circular and in respect of the building for which though NOC had been obtained but construction did not commence, it was required to obtain permission under the KMBR . As per the advertisement published by the appellant – 3 rd respondent, the apartment complex was one of the tallest apartment complexes in the State of Kerala having two blocks. (v) Owing to such act of the Panchayat as well as appellant – respondent No.3, respondents – writ petitioners preferred W.P.(C)No.9903 of 2008 before this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, there was an interim order prohibiting the construction. However, vide order dated 10.11.2010 the writ petition was dismissed by the Single Bench holding that No Objection issued by the Panchayat dated 31.01.2006 was not violated. (vi) The matter was taken up in an intra court appeal, W.A.No.91 of 2011 and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.03.2011 disposed off the same on the premise that the appellant-3rd respondent did not make any application under KMBR , also noticing that the Single Bench of this Court had vide interim order of 2008 permitted the construction not to exceed 1,81,844 sq. fts. and FAR 2.5. As the appellant – 3 rd respondent was entitled to claim the protection of construction of 1,81,844 sq. fts despite the fact that no application for seeking appropriate sanction under KMBR had been submitted, granted the permission to make an application for appropriate sanction under KMBR which was considered by the Thrikkakara Panchayat and sanction accorded for construction of 1,81,844 sq. fts despite the fact that no application for seeking appropriate sanction under KMBR had been submitted, granted the permission to make an application for appropriate sanction under KMBR which was considered by the Thrikkakara Panchayat and sanction accorded for construction of 1,81,844 sq. fts only i.e.,Tower-A. (vii) The aforementioned matter was taken up before the Supreme Court in SLP No.12957 of 2011 and vide order dated 24.04.2012 the petition was dismissed with liberty to the appellant – 3 rd respondent to apply under Rule 15A of the KMBR to the prescribed authority/authorities and the said authorities would decide the same in accordance with law at an earlier date on merits, without being ‘influenced’ by any of the observations made by the Division Bench in the impugned order. Liberty was also granted to move such application within a period of thirty(30) days from the date of the order under intimation to the writ petitioners who were arrayed as respondents in the SLP whereby the prescribed authority would fix the matter for hearing of the parties and original writ petitioners i.e., the respondents would get an opportunity of hearing. (viii) Pursuant to the orders of the Supreme court, appellant – respondent No.3 filed an application under Rule 15A and the committee constituted by the Government passed an order dated 15.02.2013 Ext.P19 thereon and the Municipality after accepting the renewal fee extended the NOC/permit from 25.03.2013 to 24.03.2016 vide Ext.P17 and therefore, commenced the construction after obtaining the permit. Renewal of the certificate by the Thrikkakara Municipality was assailed by the writ petitioners on the ground that the application of the builder – appellant dated 08.05.2012 was not for permit but for renewal of NOC therefore the action of the Municipality was totally illegal, malafide and on extraneous considerations. 3. The Local Self Government Department filed a counter affidavit dated 24.09.2013 and stated in paragraph No.3 that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the appellant - builder – 3 rd respondent submitted an application before the Government with a request to direct the Municipality to whom the application was submitted, to collect the permit fee for the construction under the plans submitted to the Panchayat and NOC be issued by the Panchayat, with a further direction to the Municipality to permit the company in completing remaining construction and issue such certificates. This was done owing to the authorization given by the Supreme Court as evident from the judgment of the Supreme Court. In fact, Government had never renewed or issued the permit, it is the Municipality which had issued the permit. 4. Appellant arrayed as respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit and submitted that in accordance with the provisions of Section 235(f) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994, submitted an application in writing together with the site plan of the land along with ground plan, elevation and sections of the proposed building to be constructed on the land and Secretary of the Panchayat who was the competent authority had issued a No Objection Certificate in favour of the appellant – 3 rd respondent on 30.01.2006 by informing that the KMBR , 1999, was not applicable to the said Panchayat area. The NOC contained a condition of leaving three metres of distance from the boundary adjacent to the PWD road and earmarked Panchayat roads and providing adequate drainage facility. The permission was for construction two basements and two towers of twenty(20) floors and other thirty(30) floor with a total build up area of 4,75,368 sq. ft. Ext.R3(a). As per the Rule 2 (br) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, NOC means a permission or an authorization in writing by the Secretary to carry out the work. Accordingly, commenced the construction and obtained clearance from various other authorities i.e., the Airport of Authority of India, Fire and Rescue Services Headquarters - Thiruvnanthapuram, Kerala state Pollution Control Board, Office of the District Officer, Ground Water Department, Ernakulam, The Command Aviation Officer Head Quarters, Southern Naval Command, Kochi and Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi as evident from R3(c), R3(d), R3(e), R3(f), R3(g) and R3(h) respectively. 5. Government of Kerala vide notification dated 06.11.2006 published on 15.11.2006, extended the provisions of KMBR also to the Panchayat and appellant -3 rd respondent based on the plan approved under the NOC, permissions and clearances obtained from various authorities, commenced and proceeded with the construction. Similarly, various other contractors/builders who had also been issued NOC in the same manner by the Panchayats had also proceeded with construction, but challenged the notification of extension of KMBR demanding the payment of permit fee in respect of the construction where NOC had already been issued by various panchayats. 6. Similarly, various other contractors/builders who had also been issued NOC in the same manner by the Panchayats had also proceeded with construction, but challenged the notification of extension of KMBR demanding the payment of permit fee in respect of the construction where NOC had already been issued by various panchayats. 6. In the meantime, the Government in exercise of powers granted under Rule 161 of KMBR issued various circulars i.e., dated 20.06.2007, 03.07.2007, 25.07.2007 and 03.04.2008. The aforementioned circulars were issued on the premise that on the basis of applicability of KMBR , the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat was directed to collect the details of the buildings constructed with or without NOC from 01.03.2007 and as per the circular dated 03.04.2008, Government noticed that the construction of many multi-storied buildings at the time of implementation of KMBR in Panchayat areas had started, including piling and then clarified that those who have obtained NOC from the panchayat and those who have already got their details (plinth area, plot area, floor area, number of floors, FAR) endorsed in the Panchayat registers and stage of construction along with the photographs recorded as per Government directives, construction of the building can be permitted in terms of NOC obtained from the Panchayat incorporating the changes, if any, on personal inspection and satisfaction of the Senior Town Planner/Town Planner with the caveat that cases where NOC has been revised after the implementation of the Rules cannot be considered. The aforementioned circulars were also challenged for the reason that it empowered the Municipality to charge the permit fee. 7. The plot owners of the vicinity, after lapse of almost two(2) years of obtaining approvals, NOC and substantial construction, preferred W.P.(C)No.9903 of 2008 wherein interim order dated 2.5.2008 was passed permitting the 3 rd respondent to put the construction only to the extent of 1,81,844 sq. ft. After the order of the Supreme Court filed an application Ext.R3(k) on 08.05.2012 under Rule 15A KMBR for granting the permit as per the directions of Supreme court and also made a representation dated 27.06.2012 to the Government as no action was taken on the application dated 08.05.2012. ft. After the order of the Supreme Court filed an application Ext.R3(k) on 08.05.2012 under Rule 15A KMBR for granting the permit as per the directions of Supreme court and also made a representation dated 27.06.2012 to the Government as no action was taken on the application dated 08.05.2012. The Government based on the representation made by the appellant – 3 rd respondent informed the committee consisting of Secretary, Local Self Government, Chief Town Planner and officials from the Town Planning Department and certain Administrative Officers, directed the Municipality to take a call on the pending application for extension of renewal of permit. Accordingly, vide Ext.R3(n) dated 25.03.2013 was granted a permit/NOC for a period of three years upto 24.03.2016. 8. Learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition preferred by respondents - petitioners but noticed that it could not shut its eyes to the injury and distress that would be visited on such innocent purchaser, many of whom would have invested their life savings to provide themselves with a shelter over their heads and directed that an application to be filed in accordance with the provisions of KMBR , 1999, as it existed on the date of the Division Bench judgment, with applicable fees which shall be considered and the permit granted as 2011. 8. As evident from the file, the appellant – 3 rd respondent had submitted a relevant document Ext.R3(p) dated 11.5.2012. 9. Sri.Krishanan Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised the following submissions for assailing the aforementioned judgment: (I) The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in holding that the Supreme Court in the order dated 24.04.2012 directed the authority to consider the application filed by the applicant under Rule 15A of KMBR without being influenced by any of the observation made by the Division Bench in W.A.No.91 of 2011 was an innocuous observation, but held it to be erroneous. (ii) It has been erroneously held that appellant – 3 rd respondent had attempted to misinterpret the reservation recorded in the order of the Supreme Court as it tantamount to subverting the directions issued by the Division bench which is not the import and scope of the judgment of the Supreme Court. (iii) Learned Single judge proceeded on the basis that no permit was issued, therefore, the question of filing of the application under Rule 15A does not arise. (iii) Learned Single judge proceeded on the basis that no permit was issued, therefore, the question of filing of the application under Rule 15A does not arise. Such reasoning is wholly misconceived, for, the liberty had already been granted, therefore, liberty could not be compared with the expression 'innocuous reservation'. (iv) The single Bench overlooked the fact that the Supreme Court had granted the liberty to the appellant to make an application under Rule 15A, treated the NOC/certificate issued by the erstwhile Secretary of Panchayat as a permit under Section 2(bd) of the KMBR , 1999, as such, an application under 15A could be made only in the event of there being a permit and rightly so the application was submitted. (v) Learned single Bench has gravely erred in emphatically relying upon Ext.P19 order of the Government dated 15.02.2013 as it tantamount to issuing the fresh permit, whereas it was only a direction to the concerned Municipality which was seized off the application for extension and renewal of permit in terms of the order of the Supreme Court. In such circumstance, the finding of the Single Bench that the liberty granted to the appellant vide direction issued by the Supreme Court cannot at all efface the directions of the Division Bench is wholly untenable and unsustainable. In fact, the liberty granted by the supreme Court for submitting an application under Rule 15A was on a different tangent. Observation had been made by the Division Bench with regard to the entitlement of the FAR as on the date of coming into force of the notification dated 15.11.2006 (applicability of KMBR to the Thrikkakkara Panchayat) and various circulars issued by the Government clarifying that the construction commenced prior to 15.11.2006 can be protected if it did not exceed 1,81,844 sq. ft. It is the said observation of the Division Bench that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had meant on directing the authorities ‘to be uninfluenced’ while considering the application. (vi) The applications dated 08.05.2012 and 11.05.2012 were filed in pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court within substantial compliance of the application seeking permit and extension of the permit. ft. It is the said observation of the Division Bench that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had meant on directing the authorities ‘to be uninfluenced’ while considering the application. (vi) The applications dated 08.05.2012 and 11.05.2012 were filed in pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court within substantial compliance of the application seeking permit and extension of the permit. (vi) Learned Single Bench failed to note the fact that the circulars after issuance of notification dated 15.11.2006 making the provisions of KMBR 1999 Rules applicable to various Panchayats including Thrikkakara Panchayat, had protected certain constructions raised by the builders in pursuance of the NOCs issued under the provisions of Section 235F of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and would not be considered as illegal construction or without any permission or sanction. (vii) Learned Single Bench over-looked the fact that one of the order dated 23.08.2016 passed in W.P.(C)No.3367 of 2007 recognized the NOC issued by erstwhile Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat and permitted the construction to be completed and the said order continued to remain in tact. Even the said order was assailed before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in a judgment dated 02.08.2023 in various Civil Appeals with lead case No.2023 of 2010 upheld the issuance of NOC issued by the Grama Panchayat by noticing that the circulars issued by the Government had been upheld. In other words, the concession granted by the Government with regard to the commencement of construction with the NOC would not be said to be in violation of KMBR being without permit, except that the builders were required to pay the permit fee. Learned Single Bench did not rely upon the aforementioned judgment on the premise that it was not confronted with Rule 7 of the KMBR which prescribed that the application for issuance of permit has to be made in writing in the Form available in Appendix A together with plan and statements in duplicate and documents to prove the ownership of land. 10. On the other hand, Sri.K.Ramakumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners submitted that NOC cannot be equated with permit and in the absence of any permit and any submission of the application by the appellant – 3 rd respondent, all construction is illegal and rightly so, was under stay during the pendency of the writ petition before the Single Bench. The expression ‘extension’ given under Rule 15A would only mean extension of permit but issuance of NOC cannot be equated with permit and therefore was not applicable. Thus the liberty granted by the Supreme Court was against the provisions of the Act but fact remains no application was submitted by the builder for correction of the same. In such circumstances, neither the Government nor the Municipality could have exercised the jurisdiction in issuing the permit. Thus application, if any, submitted by the appellant was to be treated as fresh application as per Rules 143 and 144 of KMBR 1999. 11. The judgment reported in Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, (2025) 4 SCC 111 was cited to contend that the role of the intra court appeal is limited; the appellate court must retrain itself from interference with the judgment passed by the Single judge unless the judgment is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law. In the instant case, there is no error or illegality or judgment cannot be said to be perverse as it is based upon the factual aspects. 12. Sri.Krishnan Venugopal raised an argument with regard to the locus standi of the writ petitioners that except bald pleadings, no proof of their residence or, ward or area has been placed on record. In rebuttal, Sri.K.Ramkumar submitted that no objection was taken at any point of time in the earlier round of litigation and therefore, this objection cannot be raised. The Single Bench, Division Bench and Supreme Court in the previous round of litigation had acknowledged that the petitioners have a grievance. Even resident of the area can always raise a plea in case there is violation and the authorities are not taking action. In support of the contention relied upon paragraph No.28 of AIR 1974 SC 217. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 14. Even resident of the area can always raise a plea in case there is violation and the authorities are not taking action. In support of the contention relied upon paragraph No.28 of AIR 1974 SC 217. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 14. The order dated 24.04.2012 passed in SLP No.12957 of 2011 preferred by the appellant - respondent No.3 against the judgment dated 29.03.2011 passed in W.A.91 of 2011 titled as Meethian Kunju M.M. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, 2011 (2) KLT 185 (previous round of litigation) is extracted hereinbelow: "After having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and after having heard learned counsel for respondents at length and after perusing the record, we are of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out against the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Special accordingly dismissed. Leave Petition is However, we would only like to clarify that the petitioner herein would be still at liberty to apply under Rule 15-A of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 1999 to the prescribed Authority/Authorities. Once such an application is moved by the petitioner, the prescribed Authority/Authorities then will decide it in accordance with law at an early date on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Division Bench in the impugned order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file such an application within a period of 30 days from today under intimation to the respondents. Prescribed Authority/Authorities thereafter would fix the matter for hearing parties. of the In that event, the original petitioners would also get an opportunity of hearing." 15. On perusal of the aforementioned order, it is evident that the concerned authority/authorities was directed to consider the application submitted by the appellant - respondent No.3 under Rule 15A of the KMBR , 1999, without being influenced by any of the observations of the Division Bench i.e., the judgment impugned before the Supreme Court. Rule 15A of the KMBR reads as under: 15A. Extension and renewal of period of permits.- (1) A development permit or a building permit issued under these rules shall be valid for three years from the date of issue. Rule 15A of the KMBR reads as under: 15A. Extension and renewal of period of permits.- (1) A development permit or a building permit issued under these rules shall be valid for three years from the date of issue. (2) The Secretary shall, on application submitted within the valid period of the permit, grant extension twice, for further periods of three years each. (3) The fee for extension of period of permits shall be ten percent of the development permit fee or building permit fee as the case may be, in force at the time of granting extension. (4) The Secretary shall, on application submitted within one year of the expiry of the permit, grant renewal, once, for a period of three years. (5) The fee for renewal of permits shall be fifty per cent of the development permit fee or building permit fee as the case may be, in force at the time of renewal. (6) The application for extension or renewal of a development permit or a building permit shall be submitted in white paper either typed or written in ink, specifying the name and address of the applicant, the number and date of issue of the permit, the stage of development or construction, if already commenced. (7) The application shall be affixed with necessary court fee stamp and shall contain the original of the permit and approved plan sought to be extended or renewed (8) The development work or construction work shall be commenced and completed within the valid period of the permit. Note. - Non commencement of any work within the period specified, if any, in a permit issued before the commencement of these rules shall not be considered as a ban for extension or renewal of permit. (9) A development permit or a building permit issued before or after the commencement of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 1999 or these rules or under the Kerala Building Rules, 1984 including that under the orders of Government or District Collector granting exemption from rule provisions, shall be extended or renewed, on proper application, on like terms and for like periods as a permit issued under these rules. (10) In case the period of validity stipulated in permit issued before the commencement of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 1999 is different from that stipulated in sub rule (1), then the extension or renewal of the permit shall be granted in such a way that the total valid period of the permit shall not exceed nine years. (11) The application for extension or renewal of a development permit or a building permit shall be signed and submitted by the original owner of the permit or his legal heir to whom the site devolves or legally authorized representative and in case the plot concerned has been transferred by the original owner, the transferee or his legally authorized representative . Provided that if the plot or a part of the plot concerned has been transferred, the application for extension or renewal of permit shall not be accepted and acted upon until provisions of rule 21 has been fully complied with." 16. On perusal of Sub-Rule (9), it is evident that a development permit or a building permit issued "before and after" the commencement of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 1999, or these Rules or under Kerala Building Rules, 1984, including that under the orders of the Government or District Collector granting exemption from rule provisions, shall be extended or renewed, on proper application on like terms or like periods as a permit issued under these rules. As per definition 2(bd) of the KMBR , a 'permit' means a permission or an authorisation in writing by the Secretary to carry out the work. 17. It is matter of record that before the promulgation of KMBR , vide Government order dated 06.11.2006 notified on 15.11.2006, appellant- respondent No.3 had been issued an NOC on 30.01.2006 by the erstwhile Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat, which, at the relevant time, was not having the advantage of the aforementioned KMBR . 18. Rule 161 of the KMBR , 1999, empowered the Government in case of any doubt with regard to the interpretation or otherwise of the provisions of the Act or for removal of the difficulties in implementation of the provisions to issue a clarification removing the doubt or necessary directions for removing the difficulties. The same reads as under: 161. Removal of doubts, etc. The same reads as under: 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." 19. The first circular in this regard was issued on 20.06.2007. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: 1. Till the enactment of the Panchayath Building Rules in Kerala, all Panchayath shall issue building permits only as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules 1999-(KBMR). Clauses 2 to 30 details the procedures which have to be complied by the Panchayath while issuing building permits as per the provisions of the KMBR . II. Buildings Under Construction: 1. This Act came in to force on 06-06-2007. The secretary shall exhibit this on the notice board and for the information of the public in general It shall be published in the newspapers. 2. The Secretary shall collect the details of the buildings, constructed with or without NOC from 01-03-2007, along with the Location Plan, Site Plan, Building Plan, Sections, Elevation, Plinth Area, Number of floors, FAR and Coverage. Apart from this the Secretary shall collect the Photographs from different angle to know the present position of the building. 3. The Secretary shall record the details of the buildings under construction with or without NOC from 01-03- 2007, in the register assigned for it and the Investigation Officer (Engineer/Overseer) shall certify the current status of the building after inspecting the building. These details shall be sent to the Secretary - Local Self Govt. Dept, Panchayath Director, District Town Planner and Deputy Director within 15 days from the collection of the same. 4. In the case of the building not started construction after getting the NOC, it shall start construction only after getting the Permit as per the provisions of the KMBR . 5. In the case of buildings obtained NOC but the construction not reached above the Ground Level, it shall be permitted to construct only after getting the Building Permit as per the provisions of the KMBR . 6. Fees shall be applicable to the buildings those completed the construction of the Structure but number was not yet issued. 7. 5. In the case of buildings obtained NOC but the construction not reached above the Ground Level, it shall be permitted to construct only after getting the Building Permit as per the provisions of the KMBR . 6. Fees shall be applicable to the buildings those completed the construction of the Structure but number was not yet issued. 7. The Secretary shall ensure the provisions for Emergency Stair Case, Parking and Rain Water Harvesting in the building while he conducts the inspection on the buildings partly constructed. 8. If the building is connected with public, provisions for Ramp for Physically Handicapped, Toilet and Car parking shall be made in the building. 9. Based on the details mentioned in the Clause 2, Secretary shall collect the Scrutiny fee for the remaining construction of the building. 10. If any additional construction, apart from the NOC obtained, is required, the Secretary may issue building permit for such additional construction only if the said construction is as per the provisions of the KMBR . 11. Notice shall be issued to the Land owners who make constructions in large scale and Land Development without obtaining the Layout Permit. They shall be directed to continue such constructions only after getting the Development and Building Permits. Approach District Town Planner for clarifications of any doubts regarding the Building Rules." 20. Clauses (4) and (5) of the aforementioned circular deciphered that in case the construction of the building after getting NOC had not started, it shall start construction only after getting the permit as per the provisions of KMBR and in cases of the buildings having obtained NOC but the construction had not reached above the ground level, it shall also have to obtain a building permit as per the provisions of the KMBR for the purpose of the remaining construction. 21. There were various other doubts regarding the building in which the construction had already started as per the NOC issued by the erstwhile Panchayat, particularly Thrikkakara Panchayat. Another circular dated 03.07.2007 was issued, the same is extracted hereinbelow: “Kerala Municipality Building Rule has been implemented in Thrikkakara Panchayath as per the Govt Order, GO (MS) NO.250/2006/LSGD. Dafed. 06-11-2006. But. It came to the notice of the Govt. that the Public and Panchayath Authority had lot of doubts regarding the buildings in which the constructions are already started. Another circular dated 03.07.2007 was issued, the same is extracted hereinbelow: “Kerala Municipality Building Rule has been implemented in Thrikkakara Panchayath as per the Govt Order, GO (MS) NO.250/2006/LSGD. Dafed. 06-11-2006. But. It came to the notice of the Govt. that the Public and Panchayath Authority had lot of doubts regarding the buildings in which the constructions are already started. Therefore decision has to be taken in case of the building in which construction already started, according to the specifications mentioned hereunder. 1. Since the Order for implementation of KMBR are effective from 06-11-2006, the Panchayath Secretary shall collect the details such as, NOC issued, NOC not obtained, all details of the building where constructions already started, Location Plan, Site Plan, Building Plan, Section, Elevation, Plinth area, Number of flours, FAR and Coverage. 2. All details of construction of building, where the construction is started from 01-08-2006 with or without obtaining NOC, shall record in the register and the status of the construction shall be certified, with date, by the Inspecting officer (Engineer/Overseer) after Inspecting the construction site. All these details shall be sent to the Secretary- LSGD, Director of Panchayath, District Town Planner and Deputy Director of Panchayath for their information within 15 days of collection of such details of building. 3. Those who obtained the NOC but construction is not started, shall start their construction works only after obtaining permit as per the provisions of KMBR . 4. Those who obtained the NOC, but the constructions is not reached above the Ground Level shall be permitted construction only after obtaining building permit as per the provision of KMBR . 5. Permit fee shall be applicable to the buildings where construction of structure is completed but not numbered. 6. While inspecting the partially completed buildings, Secretary shall implement the arrangement for Safety Measures (Emergency Stare Case) and Parking facility. Special arrangement for Rain Water harvesting shall also be provided. 7. If the building is related to the public, ramp for physically handicapped, toilet and car parking facility shall also be provided. 8. In the case of partly constructed building, if they want to construct more than what allowed as per the NOC, it can be allowed only if it is permissible as per the provision of the KMBR . 9. If the building is related to the public, ramp for physically handicapped, toilet and car parking facility shall also be provided. 8. In the case of partly constructed building, if they want to construct more than what allowed as per the NOC, it can be allowed only if it is permissible as per the provision of the KMBR . 9. Notice shall be issued to the land owners those who started the construction works and land development works without obtaining layout approval and they may be directed to continue the construction works only after obtaining the Development and Building Permit. If any clarification required in connection with the KMBR , can contact the Sr. Town Planner- Ernakulam." 22. Clause 4 also protected the builders who had obtained NOC but the construction had not reached the ground level, to continue the construction after obtaining the building permit under the provisions of KMBR . 23. Few days after the issuance of the circular of 03.07.2007, another circular dated 25.07.2007 was issued specifying that KMBR have been made applicable to all the Panchayats in the State with effect from 06.06.2007. The aforementioned circulars basically confined to the buildings having an area in excess of 150 sq. metre or more than two floors as indicated in paragraph No.2 of the circular dated 25.07.2007. The same reads as under: 1. Building rules have been made applicable to all Panchayats in the state with effect from 6.6.2007. In case of the Panchayats where the rules have been newly introduced, rules shall be applicable only for buildings commencing construction 6.6.2007. after 2. In case of buildings that have completed construction before 6.6.2007 and those which have commenced construction before 6.6.2007 and where construction is under way, (subject to complying with the requirements of Town Planning Scheme and Coastal Zone regulation, in places where applicable), there is no need to prepare plan and submit to Panchayat and the rules need not be made applicable. The Panchayat Secretary shall inspect such buildings and issue numbers. However in case of buildings having area in excess of 150 square meter or more than two floors, particulars as stated at paragraph II (2) of Circular No. 24136/AR1/07LSGD dated 20.6.2007 shall have to be collected by the Panchayat Secretary. Further, for buildings falling in the above category, matters stated in paragraph II (7) have to be insisted upon. However in case of buildings having area in excess of 150 square meter or more than two floors, particulars as stated at paragraph II (2) of Circular No. 24136/AR1/07LSGD dated 20.6.2007 shall have to be collected by the Panchayat Secretary. Further, for buildings falling in the above category, matters stated in paragraph II (7) have to be insisted upon. Numbering of buildings shall not be delayed for the reason that collection of particulars has not been completed. 3. Persons, who have received financial assistance under Government approved scheme prior to 6.6.2007, do not have to separately submit plans and obtain. approval. For buildings constructed after 6.6.2007, submission of a sketch showing the outline of the building would suffice. provide the same. Panchayats shall provide such sketches free or arrange assistance to provide the same 4. Possession certificates need not be insisted upon when persons belonging to Schedule Tribes undertake construction within their traditional areas. There is no need to submit plan for such constructions until Kerala Panchayat Building rules are made applicable. Secretaries have to collect and record information regarding such constructions. 5. Rain harvesting arrangements need not be insisted upon for houses and huts (including adhivasi areas) being constructed assistance. with Government financial 6. At the time of site inspection, the inspecting official has to himself collect the survey sketch of the plot and the inspection has to be based on such sketch. 7. For buildings that are completed permit fee as stipulated under the building rules realized. need only be 8. Particulars relating to buildings under construction are to be intimated in writing to the Panchayat Secretaries before 31 August 2007, as otherwise it shall be deemed that construction has commenced after 6.6.2007. However in adivasi areas, the Panchayat Secretary shall ascertain details and report as to the buildings constructed and shall number them. 24. In order to remove further difficulties and doubts much less the practical difficulties in the implementation of Rules, a circular dated 03.04.2008 was issued by the department of Local Self Government. The same reads as under: "At the time of implementation of KMBR in the Panchayath areas, the Government had noticed that construction of many multistoried buildings had been started (including piling) As per the above referred circulars, those constructions which had not reached above ground level, further construction would be permitted only as per the provisions of KMBR 1999. The same reads as under: "At the time of implementation of KMBR in the Panchayath areas, the Government had noticed that construction of many multistoried buildings had been started (including piling) As per the above referred circulars, those constructions which had not reached above ground level, further construction would be permitted only as per the provisions of KMBR 1999. However, for those constructions which had already started, the Government has noticed practical difficulty in its implementation of the Rules. Under this circumstances, those who have obtained NOC from the Panchayath, and those who have already got their details (Plinth Area, Plot Area, Floor Area, number of floors, FAR) endorsed in the Panchayath registers, and stage of construction along with photographs recorded as per the Government directives, and in such cases where the provisions like safety aspects, emergency staircase and parking are provided, giving due consideration to the above, Officer not the below the rank of Senior Town Planner/Town planer to personally inspect the premises to ensure that the zone is as per the structural plan of the town planning scheme, and to ensure that present provisions (safety aspects, emergency staircase and parking) are satisfied, the construction of the building can be permitted as per the terms of the NOC obtained from the Panchayath incorporating the changes, if any, as directed by the Senior Town Planner/Town Planner. But in cases where the NOC has been revised after the implementation of the Rules cannot be considered." 25. The aforementioned circular basically was confined not to houses but the multi storied buildings. It revealed that the Government realised that the construction of many multi-storied buildings had started including piling and noticing that in some cases the construction had already started and the builder was finding difficulty in implementation of the Rules, therefore clarified that the builders who have obtained NOC from the Panchayat and those who have already got the details like plinth area, plot area, number of floors, FAR endorsed in the Panchayat Registers as also the stage of construction along with the photographs recorded as per the Government directives, and the provisions like safety aspects, emergency staircase and cars parking are provided, should be given due consideration and the officer not below the rank of Senior Town Planner or Town Planner shall personally inspect the premises and ensure the zone is as per structural plan. 26. 26. We would not be referring to the earlier round of litigation i.e., the order dated 10.11.2010 rendered in W.P.(C) No.9903 of 2008 resulting into dismissal and thereafter, order dated 29.03.2011 in W.A.No.91 of 2011 as the matter had reached the Supreme Court in the aforementioned SLP and the order of the SLP has already been reproduced. 27. Rule 15A extracted above deals with two stages; extension and renewal of the permits and Sub-Rule (9) as extracted above deals with two situations before and after the commencement of Kerala Municipality Building Rules . In the instant case, for the sake of repetition, appellant-respondent No.3 was granted the NOC by the erstwhile Panchayat on 30.01.2006. 28. For the sake of repetition, the aforementioned circulars were assailed by the builders but were not successful and all the builders for obtaining the permit under Building Rules, 1984, were required also to deposit the permit fee prescribed under the provisions of Rule 15A. There are various other sub provisions of Rule 15A for which we are not concerned as there is no dispute. 29. Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the counter affidavit filed before the Single Bench on behalf of under Secretary, Local Self Government is worth extraction. The same reads as under: "3. It is submitted that in the light of this judgment the 3 rd respondent submitted an application before the Government with a request to direct the Municipality to collect the permit fee for the construction under the plan submitted to the Panchayat and NOC be issued by the Panchayat and further direct the Municipality to permit the company in completing the remaining construction and issue such certificates in respect of the construction already completed. It is submitted that the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is an indication that the 3 rd respondent already had permission or authorisation evidenced by the 'No Objection Certificate' granted by the Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat to develop the land in question and the said permission or authorisation could be extended/renewed as provided in Rule 15 A. The application permitted to be filed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is, therefore, to be considered as an application under Rule 15A of KMBR and to consider the application on merit is without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Division Bench in the impugned order. 4. 4. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner is against the facts. Government had not renewed or issued a permit/NOC owned by the 3 rd respondent. Considering the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Government have issued direction vide order Exhibit P19 to the Secretary, Thrikkakara Municipality, 2 nd respondent to consider the application filed by the Puravankara Project Ltd., 3 rd respondent as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and renew the NOC/Permit for a further period of 3 years after obtaining required fee for renewal of NOC/Permit. As such 2 nd respondent is to renew the permit/NOC on submission of an application by the 3 rd respondent as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondents acted only on the basis of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore there is no irregularity in issuing order Exhibit-P19 only on the basis of the Supreme Court order Exhibit-P19 happened to be issued by the Government. The respondent has not given any special privilege to the 3 rd respondent as alleged by the petitioner. In the circumstances Ext. P19 is in order and sustainable." 30. The aforementioned averments reveal that in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court, appellant - respondent No.3 submitted an application dated 08.05.2012, on 14 th day of the order of the Supreme Court, under Rule 15A of the KMBR , for granting the permit Ext.R3(k) enclosing the demand draft as per the calculation sheet attached with the letter. Vide order dated 27.03.2013 Ext.R3(n) i.e., proceedings of the Thrikkakara Municipal Secretary,the validity of the building permit for the proposed building construction in Survey No.325/4,5, 326/1,4,5 in Kakkanad Village, Kanayannur Taluk within the limits of Thrikkakara Municipality was extended from 25.03.2013 to 24.03.2016 on the basis of application dated 08.05.2012. The order reads as under: "The validity of the building permit for the proposed building construction in Sy. Nos. 325/4,5, 326/1,4,5 in Kakkanad Village, Kanayannur Taluk within the limits of Thrikkakara Municipality is hereby extended from 25-03-2013 to 24-03- 2016 on the basis of the application referred above and upon the receipt of renewal fees of Rs. 1,54,660/- vide receipt No. 1/11201116337 dated 25/03/2013 NOC Number A4-1/2000 dated 30-01-2016 Renewed as per Order No. GO(Rt)No. 412/2013/LSGD dated 15/2/2013." 31. We cannot remain oblivious not to extract the contents of the NOC issued by the erstwhile Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat dated 30.01.2006. 1,54,660/- vide receipt No. 1/11201116337 dated 25/03/2013 NOC Number A4-1/2000 dated 30-01-2016 Renewed as per Order No. GO(Rt)No. 412/2013/LSGD dated 15/2/2013." 31. We cannot remain oblivious not to extract the contents of the NOC issued by the erstwhile Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat dated 30.01.2006. The same reads as under: “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/re- construction of a dwelling house residential Flats in Sy. No. 325/4,5, 326/1,4,5. of Vazhakkala/Kakkanad Village to Sri / Smt. Ranjit Thomas, General Hanager, Puravankara Prajeck Limited 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." 32. The NOC dated 30.01.2006 was issued by the Panchayat under the provisions of Section 235F of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Sub-Section (1) thereof provides that any person who intends to raise construction or re-construct a building other than a hut within a village Panchayat area, he or she shall send to the Secretary; (1) an application in writing together with the site plan of the land for the approval of the site, (2) an application in writing together with ground plan, elevation and sections of the building and specification of the work for permission to execute the work. The issuance of NOC under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act was the statutorily regulated recognised method before the extension of the Building Rules to the Panchayat. 33. As noticed above, the aforementioned circulars were already under challenge in this Court in Mather Projects (P) Ltd. v. Government of Kerala , 2009 (4) KLT 986 . The same was again attempted to be re-agitated in the present case in the previous round of litigation ie., Meethian Kunju M.M. and Others v. State of Kerala and Another wherein the appellant - respondent No.3 was also arrayed as respondent No.3 and this Court, vide judgment dated 10.11.2010 in W.P (C) No. 9903 of 2008, by noticing the findings in paragraph No.9 of the judgment in Mather Projects (P) Ltd. (supra) and followoing the decision therein, held that the circulars cannot be held to be invalid. Paragraph No.9 of the judgment rendered in Mather Projects (P) Ltd. with regard to the validity of the circulars issued under Rule 161 of KMBR reads as under: “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 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.” 34. It is the contention of the appellant - respondent No.3 that various orders of this Court in various writ petitions had recognised the NOC issued by the erstwhile Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat and permitted the construction to be completed. Vide judgment dated 23.08.2016 titled as C.P. Mohan and Others v. Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat , W.P. (C) No. 3367 of 2007, the court had recognised the NOC issued by the erstwhile panchayat and permitted the construction. Without obeying the orders passed in the other writ petitions, placed the appellant-respondent No.3 on a different platform/ footing, causing a discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The aforementioned contention has been dealt with by the learned Single Bench in the following manner: 24. Without obeying the orders passed in the other writ petitions, placed the appellant-respondent No.3 on a different platform/ footing, causing a discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The aforementioned contention has been dealt with by the learned Single Bench in the following manner: 24. It has already been held by this Court that the NOC issued by the erstwhile Panchayath is not a building permit and the Division Bench of this Court, found the NOC not creating any vested right on the 3 rd respondent to carry out a construction after the KMBR ,1999 was made applicable. Yet again, the mere production of the plan for the building would not substitute the need for an application under the KMBR ,1999. The requirement to file an application for building permit is available in the rules under Rule 7, which has to be made in writing in the form available in Appendix A together with plans and statements in duplicate and documents to prove ownership of land, payment of application fee along with copy of the certificate of registration of the designer of the building who has prepared and signed the plans etc:. The application hence has to be in the manner prescribed under the rules and the consideration would also be as provided under the rules. Exhibit R3(p) cannot be a substitute to an application as prescribed under the rules. 25. However, in this context it has to be noticed that there were a number of other cases posted before this Court, wherein the very same Municipality was the respondent; in which an identical situation of issuance of NOC and commencement of construction and continuance of the same on interim orders issued came up for final hearing. The writ petitions were those numbered as W. P. (C) Nos: 37363/2007, 3367/2007 and 38058/2007. This Court, unfortunately, was not apprised of the decision in Meethian Kunju, despite the same Municipality having been involved. This Court relied on the decision in Mather Projects (P) Ltd V. Government of Kerala - 2009 (4) KLT 986 which was also considered by Meethian Kunju, and distinguished. This Court directed the constructions to be regularised on the basis of the circulars, which in Meethian Kunju was found to be executive instructions, inconsistent with the law as found in the building rules. This Court directed the constructions to be regularised on the basis of the circulars, which in Meethian Kunju was found to be executive instructions, inconsistent with the law as found in the building rules. Though the decision would have been otherwise, if Meethian Kunju was pointed out to the Court, the only concession therein conceded to the petitioners was the relaxation in FAR. It is a matter of little consolation, to this Court, which rendered final decision therein that the FAR, though at the time of coming into force of the building rules, was 2.5, which has now been enhanced to 4. Even if the petitioners therein were directed to make applications on the basis of the FAR as available in the rules at the time of its enforcement; the subsequent enhancement of FAR would have enabled a further application for permit at the enhanced FAR and, at worst, a regularisation application. Be that as it may; it cannot be said that there could, at any event, be a different conclusion arrived at in the present case; for reason of the parties being regulated by the directions in the decision of the Division Bench, in the earlier round. 35. By relying upon Rule 7 noticed by the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation i.e., W.A.No.91 of 2011 ( Meethian Kunju M.M . supra) i.e., previous litigation inter-partes, distinguished the findings rendered in Mather Project (P) Ltd. (supra) on the premise that application has to be made under Rule 7 in the Form available in Appendix A together with plans and proof of ownership. In Paragraph No.16 of W.A.91 of 2011 had rendered the finding in the following manner: 16. We may state here that the language of either Exhibit P7 or Exhibit R3(ao) does not confer any right in unequivocal terms on any person who has obtained a No Objection Certificate from the Grama Panchayat. Those Circulars are executive instructions issued by the Government and the same cannot confer rights inconsistent with the express provisions, either of the statute or the statutory rules. The reliance placed by the learned Judge on the Division Bench judgment in 2009 (4) KLT 986 also, in our opinion, is not well founded. Those Circulars are executive instructions issued by the Government and the same cannot confer rights inconsistent with the express provisions, either of the statute or the statutory rules. The reliance placed by the learned Judge on the Division Bench judgment in 2009 (4) KLT 986 also, in our opinion, is not well founded. In the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a batch of writ petitions, wherein the legality of the application of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules to the Thrikkakara Panchayat was in question. The second issue was regarding the legality of one of the conditions imposed by a Circular dated 20.7.2007 purportedly authorising the collection of “permit fee” with respect to the buildings whose construction was completed but which had not been numbered before the Kerala Municipality Building Rules were applied to the Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat. It appears from the above mentioned judgment that only a limited challenge was raised to the legality of the above mentioned Circular. At para 5 of the said judgment, the submission in this behalf is extracted, which reads thus: “The construction was undertaken only with the permission of the Panchayat, issued in the form of NOC. So, the builder has a vested right to complete the construction in accordance with the plan, submitted at the time of grant of NOC. There is no justification, therefore, to demand the permit fee payable as per the Building Rules, it is pointed out”. The question whether a Circular (executive instructions) inconsistent with law could be validly issued was not the subject matter of discussion in the said judgment. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the reliance placed on the said judgment is wholly misconceived." 36. On perusal of the above, it is evident that by giving a passing reference, this Court mentioned that the circulars are executive instructions issued by the Government, cannot confer rights inconsistent with the express provisions, either of the statute or of the statutory rules and therefore, the reliance of the Division Bench Judgment in Mether Project (P) Ltd. (supra) was wholly misconceived. It is settled law that the findings of a Division Bench cannot be overruled by the same set of Division Bench, it has to be referred to a larger Bench. It is settled law that the findings of a Division Bench cannot be overruled by the same set of Division Bench, it has to be referred to a larger Bench. Once the circular had already been upheld in Mather Projects (P) Ltd. as evident from the extracted portion (supra) and in the absence of any challenge by the respondents - writ petitioners to the said circular before the Single Bench in W.P.(C)No.9903 of 2008, the Division Bench in W.A.No.91 of 2011 dated 29.03.2011 which was taken to the Supreme Court, could not have given that findings as the said findings have been given without referring to provisions of Rule 161. 37. Rule 161 empowers the Government to issue clarifications, they cannot be treated to be executive instructions. Rule 161 reads as under: 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." 38. For the sake of repetition, the findings extracted (supra) in Mather Project (P) Ltd. came into being only on examination of Rule 161 of KMBR , 1999. Thus, the circulars were issued by deriving the powers from the statute, therefore, cannot be said to be inconsistent with the express provisions of the statute. 39. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment, by following the judgment in Meethiyan Kunju (supra) disagreed with the contention of the appellant - respondent No.3, by relying upon the aforementioned circulars as well as the fact that various other orders in various writ petitions, referred to in paragraph No.25 (cited supra) have been passed. 40. During the course of hearing, Sri.Krishnan Venugopal learned senior counsel handed over us three orders recognising the issuance of NOC by the erstwhile Panchayat and also in judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2023 of 2010 in Abad Builders Private Limited v. Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat in similar circumstances, the builder had, on the strength of NOC, commenced construction of a multi-storied residential apartment. Thereafter, vide Government order dated 06.11.2006 notified on 15.11.2006 extended the provisions of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 1999 to the Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat. Thereafter, vide Government order dated 06.11.2006 notified on 15.11.2006 extended the provisions of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 1999 to the Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat. The aforementioned Government Order was issued in exercise of powers under Section 274 (1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act . The Supreme Court in the judgment aforementioned, by noticing the various circulars i.e., dated 20.06.2007, 25.07.2007 and 03.04.2008 upheld the demand of charging of the permit fee and in paragraph No.15 had given a nod to the issuance of the circular by noticing that the Municipality Building Act and Municipality Building Rules will not be applicable to such ongoing construction as it only permitted the Panchayat Secretary to inspect such building and issue numbers, bearing in mind the paragraphs II(2) II(7) of circular dated 20.06.2007. Paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the judgment in Abad Builders Private Limited reads as under: "15. In so far as the direction to the Secretaries of the Gram Panchayats to collect permit fee for the under- construction building, it is necessary to bear in mind the real implication of the Circular dated 25.07.2007. This Circular made it very clear that for those incomplete buildings, which have commenced construction before 06.06.2007, there is no need to prepare plan and submit the same to the Panchayat. Most significantly, the Municipality Building Act and the Municipality Building Rules need not be made applicable to such ongoing construction. However, the Panchayat Secretary is required to inspect such buildings and issue numbers bearing in mind the particulars as stated in paragraph II(2) and II(7) of the Circular dated 20.06.2007. The builders were therefore made free to complete their ongoing construction, without having to follow the Municipality Building Rules which were extended otherwise to the Panchayat areas by the concerned government Circulars. When the Municipality Building Rules stood extended to panchayat areas, anyone proposing to construct a building within such areas will have to by implication apply and obtain a building permit and further r construction constru can commence only in accordance with such building permit. When the Municipality Building Rules stood extended to panchayat areas, anyone proposing to construct a building within such areas will have to by implication apply and obtain a building permit and further r construction constru can commence only in accordance with such building permit. If the authorities would have insisted on scrupulous adherence to the Building Rules, even those who have commenced construction with the permission of the Panchayat Authority, will be obliged to first pay permit fee and then modify the plans as may be needed and they must also adhere to the FAR and permitted coverage, under the Municipality Building Rules. 16. But, the Government decided to exempt this category of building in the Gram Panchayat areas from the rigors of the municipality building Rules. Instead, it was stipulated that the builders will have to pay the permit fee. The arrangement made by the Government through the aforenoted Circulars was intended to facilitate the builders to complete their ongoing construction without having to adhere midway with the requirement of the Municipality Building Act and the Rules. In a way the builders were relieved of adhering to the Municipal Building Rules by the steps taken by the Government. The instruction to the Gram Panchayat Authorities for facilitating the completion of the ongoing construction must therefore be seen as a concession and not a penalty." 41. The Single Bench was thus not correct in following the decision in Mather Project (P) Ltd. (supra) The cumulative effect is that the findings recorded by the Division Bench in intra partes litigation i.e, Meethian Kunju (supra) would not have a binding or overriding effect on the judgment rendered already by co-ordinate Division Bench in Mather projects (P) Ltd. as well as in view of the latest finding of the Supreme Court in Abad Builders Private Limited. Thus, the argument of Sri.Krishnan Venugopal merit acceptance. 42. We would also be failing in duty in not noticing certain findings rendered by the Single Bench while allowing the writ petition in favour of respondents - writ petitioners, that the appellant had attempted to misinterpret the reservation made by the Supreme Court to subvert the direction of the Division Bench. Thus, the argument of Sri.Krishnan Venugopal merit acceptance. 42. We would also be failing in duty in not noticing certain findings rendered by the Single Bench while allowing the writ petition in favour of respondents - writ petitioners, that the appellant had attempted to misinterpret the reservation made by the Supreme Court to subvert the direction of the Division Bench. Therefore, even if the liberty has been granted by the Supreme Court to submit an application under Rule 15A of the KMBR , it cannot be said that the directions of the Division Bench in the judgment dated 29.03.2011 in W.A.No.91 of 2011 stood effaced on such reservation and the liberty granted would be treated as if there was an application for permit which, if issued should be extended or renewed under Rule 15A. Paragraph No.12 of the judgment reads as under: "12. This Court is of the opinion that the allegation of the 3 rd respondent having attempted to misinterpret the reservation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to subvert the directions of the Division Bench is to be upheld. The SLP filed by the 3 rd respondent was dismissed finding no reason to cause interference to the decision of the Division Bench. A liberty sought for by the respondents under Rules 15A of the KMBR was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was directed that if such an application is filed then, the same would be decided in accordance with law, on merits and without being influenced by the observations in the Division Bench judgment. It cannot at all be said that the directions in the Division Bench judgment stood effaced on such reservation being made. The Division Bench judgment was on 29.03.2011. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP was dated 24.04.2012, after about a year. The subject matter related back to the year 2006. The liberty granted to make an application under Rule 15A would only have been on the impression that there was an application for permit; which if issued could be extended or renewed under Rule 15A." 43. The subject matter related back to the year 2006. The liberty granted to make an application under Rule 15A would only have been on the impression that there was an application for permit; which if issued could be extended or renewed under Rule 15A." 43. The aforementioned findings in our considered view cannot be permitted to sustain for, once the permission has been granted and acknowledged by the Municipality by issuing the permit on receipt of permit fee, there cannot be any quarrel that the previous NOC issued by the Panchayat stood extended or renewed as per the provisions of Rule 15A of the KMBR . 44. The reasoning assigned by the Single Bench in paragraph No.15 that the NOC did not have any validity period therefore, it cannot be extended or renewed as per Rule 15A in view of the liberty granted, is extracted hereinbelow: "15. When no permit was issued under the KMBR 1999 there is no question of an application under Rule 15A. The attempt of the 3 rd respondent is to say that an NOC issued prior to the enforcement of KMBR 1999, has to be renewed under Rule 15A of the rules. The primary fallacy is in the fact that there is no validity period prescribed for a NOC. The NOC itself is of no consequence since the claim of vested right, based on that document, raised by the 3 rd respondent, was negatived by the Division Bench which decision has acquired finality. Sub-Rule (9) of Rule 15A, specifically speaks of a development permit or building permit issued before or after the commencement of the KMBR 1999 or under the Kerala Building Rules, 1984 ('KBR 1984' for short); which is not issued to or even applied for by, the 3 rd respondent. The sub-rule also includes the orders of the Government or District Collector granting exemption from the rule provisions, which also the 3 rd respondent is not in possession of. It does not include a NOC which was granted by the Panchayat, prior to the enforcement of the KMBR 1999. The NOC, at the risk of repetition, is no permit since a permit would be issued on the basis of the sanctioned plan, which has to comply with the provisions of the building rules." 45. In this regard, we are of the prima facie view that NOC was not valid for a particular period. The NOC, at the risk of repetition, is no permit since a permit would be issued on the basis of the sanctioned plan, which has to comply with the provisions of the building rules." 45. In this regard, we are of the prima facie view that NOC was not valid for a particular period. There is no provision in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act to prescribe the period. Therefore, the NOC cannot be said to be in violation of provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act applicable at the time of issuance of NOC. Paragraph No.13 of the judgment impugned reads as under: 13. Rule 15A only permits extension or renewal of permits already issued and only if such extension or renewal was possible, could the consideration be made untrammeled by the observations of the Division Bench. Based on the reservation it cannot be held that the 3 rd respondent was permitted to carry on the construction on the strength of the NOC issued by the Panchayat, in which event there would definitely have been interference caused to the Division Bench judgment. 46. Accordingly, the aforementioned findings in our considered view are also not sustainable. Construction of Tower-A is already over as per the judgment in W.A.No.91 of 2011 and occupancy certificate dated 18.10.2014 Ext.R3(r). The controversy is only with regard to tower-B where only piling has been done as evident from the photographs shown to us during the course of hearing. The entire focus was on the fact that there was some permit. We cannot remain oblivious of the fact that in the year January, 2006, there was no provision of issuing the permit, only NOC under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act . Applicability of KMBR came only on 06.11.2006 notified on 15.11.2006 and as per the aforementioned provisions, the builders were required to deposit the permit fee to carry on with the construction and that has already been acknowledged in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court dated 02.08.2023 in Civil Appeal No.2023 of 2010. 47. Applicability of KMBR came only on 06.11.2006 notified on 15.11.2006 and as per the aforementioned provisions, the builders were required to deposit the permit fee to carry on with the construction and that has already been acknowledged in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court dated 02.08.2023 in Civil Appeal No.2023 of 2010. 47. As an upshot of our finding, we thus set aside the judgment under challenge, allow the intra court appeal and dismiss the writ petition by upholding the permission dated 27.03.2013 with a direction to the Municipal Secretary to extend the validity of the aforementioned permit in view of the fact that during all these period there was a litigation pending in different courts, subject to deposit of any permit fee, if permissible in accordance with law.