JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. 1. The Chottanikkara Grama Panchayat is the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed for framing a Scheme to rehabilitate the residents of Saphalyam flat complex in Chottanikkara Panchayat. 2. The petitioner states that the 5 th respondent-Kerala State Housing Board issued Ext.P1 letter dated 29.10.2011 informing the petitioner that the Ministry of Revenue and Housing has directed to submit proposals for constructing houses for economically backward houseless people. The petitioner was required to confirm availability of suitable land and the number of beneficiaries within its local limit. On 26.06.2012, the petitioner was required to furnish necessary details if interested in the project. 3. The petitioner-Panchayat acquired 33.9 Ares of land in Survey No.324/2 of Kanayannur Village for the purpose of constructing flats for 54 landless poor families in the Panchayat. The 5 th respondent was informed accordingly. Requisite documents including a sketch and copy of sale deed was submitted. 4. By Ext.P3 letter dated 01.01.2014, the 5 th respondent required the petitioner to handover ?54 lakhs for the project along with ?27 lakhs, which is the contribution to be collected from the selected beneficiaries and interested organisations. Ext.P4 agreement was executed by the petitioner with the 5 th respondent for implementation of the housing project, on 11.03.2014. Ext.P5 Building Permit was issued on 11.06.2014. 5. The 5 th respondent constructed 24 flats.The keys were handed over to the beneficiaries on 27.07.2016. Possession were handed over to the allottees and licence deeds were also executed. However, due to serious faults in construction of the building, cracks developed and became visible in the building. Concerned by the deteriorating condition of the flats, the petitioner informed the Assistant Engineer highlighting the pathetic condition of the building. They were required to conduct an inspection and submit report. 6. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Local Infrastructure Development and Engineering Wing issued letter dated 21.09.2023 informing the Panchayat that the building is in a dangerous condition. The Panchayat was directed to conduct a structural stability test engaging a Government agency or Structural Engineers from Government Engineering College. Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau directed the petitioner to ensure safety of the inhabitants. 7. The report given by the Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Government Engineering College disclosed severe structural defects and hazards in respect of the building. The sunshades of the building were heavily damaged. Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau directed the petitioner to ensure safety of the inhabitants. 7. The report given by the Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Government Engineering College disclosed severe structural defects and hazards in respect of the building. The sunshades of the building were heavily damaged. Dampness and water stains inside the flat were severe. There were cracks in the roof slabs. Ext.P9 report concluded that it is practically impossible to restore the existing building to its original condition. The report also cautioned that the lives of the inhabitants are in danger. 8. By Ext.P10, the petitioner required the 5 th respondent-KSHB to take immediate necessary action to ensure safety of the inhabitants. Representations were submitted to various other authorities. There was no positive response. In the circumstances, on 06.02.2025, the Panchayat Committee decided to get the flats vacated, temporarily shifting the inhabitants to rented premises. Considering the poor financial background of the families, the Panchayat decided to meet rental expenses on humanitarian grounds. The Panchayat is meeting monthly rent at the rate of ?5,000/- for the 24 families which were temporarily shifted. 9. The Panchayat prays to direct the respondents to ensure that the residents are housed in a reasonable accommodation and to share the expenditure with the Panchayat for housing them till completion of structure. 10. The 7 th respondent-Kerala State Disaster Management Authority filed a statement. The 7 th respondent stated that faulty construction and its consequences do not fall under the category of notified disasters eligible for assistance under the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF). As per the SDR guidelines, financial assistance cannot be extended for the rehabilitation of private individuals or flat owners. The Kerala State Disaster Management Authority (KSDMA) does not have a mandate or rule in framing rehabilitation schemes for residents affected by structural deficiencies arising from construction activities. 11. Matters related to construction do not come under the purview of KSDMA. General directions in such matters have already been issued by the Government as per Circular No.DMBI/82/2023/DMD dated 18.12.2023. The Kerala State Disaster Management Authority (KSDMA) does not have a mandate or rule in framing rehabilitation schemes for residents affected by structural deficiencies arising from construction activities. 11. Matters related to construction do not come under the purview of KSDMA. General directions in such matters have already been issued by the Government as per Circular No.DMBI/82/2023/DMD dated 18.12.2023. However, considering the concerns raised in the spirit of public safety and invoking the provisions of Section 22 (2) (m) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 which empowers the State Executive Committee to examine constructions in local areas and to ensure compliance with prescribed standards, the Chairperson, District Disaster Management Authority, Ernakulam and the Secretary, Chottanikkara Grama Panchayat were requested as per letters dated 21.05.2025 and 26.06.2025 to constitute a technical committee comprising qualified structural engineers to assess the condition of the Saphalyam Flat Complex and furnish a report. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and 6 and 7 and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 4, 5 and 8. 13. It is evident from the pleadings that the 5 th respondent-KSHB initiated projects at the instance of Ministry of Revenue and Housing, Government of Kerala for construction of houses for economically backward houseless people. The initiative was in the year 2011. The petitioner- Panchayat acquired 33.9 Ares of land for the purpose of constructing flats for 54 landless poor families. ?54 lakhs was to be raised by the Panchayat and 27 lakhs were to be collected as contribution from the beneficiaries and interested organisations. 14. The 5 th respondent constructed 24 flats which were handed over to the beneficiaries executing licence deeds. The flats were handed over in the year 2016. 15. Soon, due to the faulty construction of the building, the structure of the building started accelerated deterioration. The inspection conducted by the competent authorities revealed serious structural defects. The sunshades were heavily damaged. There were cracks in the roof slabs. There were dampness and water stains inside the flats. The authorities reported that the lives of the inhabitants are at risk. 16. The Panchayat was therefore forced to get the inhabitants vacated from the premises. The inspection conducted by the competent authorities revealed serious structural defects. The sunshades were heavily damaged. There were cracks in the roof slabs. There were dampness and water stains inside the flats. The authorities reported that the lives of the inhabitants are at risk. 16. The Panchayat was therefore forced to get the inhabitants vacated from the premises. Taking into account the poor financial condition of the families, the Panchayat is meeting the monthly rental of houses where the inhabitants are accommodated, paying at the rate of ?5,000/- per family. Though the petitioner-Panchayat submitted representations for permanent rehabilitation of the inhabitants to respondents 1 to 8, serious efforts are not forthcoming. 17. The facts as stated above narrates the pathetic condition of the housing projects initiated by the Government. The petitioner-Panchayat has acted at the instance of Government of Kerala and the Kerala State Housing Board in mobilising land and capital for construction of flats for the homeless in the Panchayat. The apartment structure constructed by the 5 th respondent is rendered uninhabitable due to poor construction quality. 18. Now, the Panchayat is burdened with imparting ?7,20,000/- every six months meeting the amounts from Panchayat funds. The respondents being State / Instrumentalities of the State have a duty to ensure that justice is done to the Panchayat as well as the 27 owners of the flats, who have invested money on the basis of a Scheme / Project launched at the instance of the Government and Kerala State Housing Board. In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2 nd respondent to cause convening of a meeting of respondents 3 to 8 and the Panchayat authorities immediately and take appropriate decision to frame a Scheme to rehabilitate the residents of Saphalyam flat complex in Chottanikkara Panchayat. The first meeting shall be convened within a period of two months and a final decision in this regard shall be taken as expeditiously as possible.