JUDGMENT : These writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners, challenging the demand of supervision charges on the basis of a circular issued by the Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions as culled out from W.P.(C) No.10699 of 2019, are as under: The petitioners in these writ petitions are stated to be the Managers of various schools affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). They contend that they constructed the school buildings years back and after obtaining the necessary occupancy, etc., have been in occupation of the school buildings since then. The petitioners point out that, since they require renewal of the affiliation with the CBSE every year, and since the CBSE norms require them to obtain fitness certificates, they need to approach the Governmental authorities/Local Self Government Institutions (LSGIs) for getting fitness certificates. The petitioners lament that, now when they seek the fitness certificates for the purpose of renewal of the affiliation as above, the Governmental authorities/LSGIs insist on the payment of the supervision charges at 1.25% as laid down by Ext.P9 circular dated 12.09.2011, issued by the Secretary, LSGI Department. It is in such circumstances that the captioned writ petitions are filed by similarly placed schools having recognition from the CBSE seeking to challenge the demand of supervision charges. 3. I have heard Sri.T.P.M.Ibrahim Khan learned Senior counsel, Dr.George Abraham, Sri.K.B.Gangesh, Smt.P.J.Razia Beevi, Sri.Jomy George, Sri.P.Anoop, and Sri.T.T.Muhamood, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri.Rajesh S.Subrahmanian, learned Standing Counsel for the Edathala Grama Panchayat, Sri.Vinod Singh Cheriyan, learned Standing Counsel for the Thalakalathur Grama Panchayat and Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior Government Pleader, in these writ petitions. 4. The short issue arising for consideration in these writ petitions is with respect to the sustainability or otherwise of the demand for supervision charges on the basis of Ext.P9 circular issued, as above. A reference to Ext.P9 circular would show that schools like petitioners are directed to pay the supervision charges at 1.25% of the estimated cost of construction with specific reference to the Government Order dated 11.11.1974, issued by the Government. The afore Government Order has been produced as Ext.P8. The Government Order at Ext.P8 is one issued seeking to levy fees/other departmental charges for the services rendered by the Public Works Department (PWD). The afore Government Order has been produced as Ext.P8. The Government Order at Ext.P8 is one issued seeking to levy fees/other departmental charges for the services rendered by the Public Works Department (PWD). Among other things, the afore Government Order speaks about the issuance of “fitness certificate after supervision and test check for construction undertaken by private parties”, for which the fee of 1.25% of the “estimated cost” can be demanded. 5. With respect to Ext.P8 Government Order, I notice two aspects. Firstly, the said Government Order visualizes the issuance of the fitness certificate in a situation where the authorities of the PWD “supervises” and “test check” a particular construction. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have specifically averred that the constructions have already been completed, and they are in occupation of the buildings, and no “supervision” or “test check” has been sought to be conducted by the officials of the PWD and that they have not carried out any such activity. Secondly, I also notice that the Government Order visualizes such fitness certificates to be issued after “supervision” or “test check” in a situation where the construction is carried out by “private parties.” This can only mean that it is only when a private party carries out a construction and desires to obtain the “supervision” and “test check” by the officials of the PWD that the question of demand of 1.25% towards supervision charges arises. I am of the opinion that, since the petitioners herein have not sought for any supervision/test check during the time of construction or just after the completion of construction, there cannot be any demand of 1.25% towards supervision charges. 6. Apart from all that, the fallacy in Ext.P8 is writ large since the demand of 1.25% towards supervision charges is on “estimated cost.” For instance, if a particular building of a school is constructed in 1970, the estimated cost of construction during 1970 may be a particular amount. However, if the school requires a fitness certificate, to be issued in 2025, the “estimated cost” can be only the estimated cost during 2025. In such circumstances, if literal interpretation is being extended, to demand supervision charges, as is sought to be done by Ext.P9 circular, that will lead to absurd situations. 7. Furthermore, Ext.P8 is in two parts. However, if the school requires a fitness certificate, to be issued in 2025, the “estimated cost” can be only the estimated cost during 2025. In such circumstances, if literal interpretation is being extended, to demand supervision charges, as is sought to be done by Ext.P9 circular, that will lead to absurd situations. 7. Furthermore, Ext.P8 is in two parts. The first part is with reference to the demand for fees and other departmental charges, as already noticed. The second part is with reference to the issuance of fitness certificates for “schools.” In other words, Ext.P8 Government Order contains a specific portion covering the issuance of fitness certificates for schools, added by G.O.(P) No.84/97/PW&T [sic] dated 19.08.1997, which reads as under: “3. FEE FOR FITNESS CERTIFICATE FOR SCHOOLS (G.O.(P)No.84/97/PW&T [sic] dated 19-08-1997) Types of School Aided Unaided High Schools Rs.500.00 Rs.1,000.00 Upper Primary Schools Rs.150.00 Rs.300.00 Lower Primary Schools Rs.100.00 Rs.200.00” Thus, the notification issued in 1997, by which a separate treatment is visualised with reference to the issuance of fitness certificates to schools speaks about a lump-sum payment to be effected when fitness certificates are sought for by the institutions like the petitioners herein. It is settled principle that when a Statute/delegated legislation provides for specific as well as general clauses, the specific provision would override the general provision. In view of that principle also, insofar as the fitness certificates are being sought for by “schools”, I am of the opinion that reference can only be made to the Government Order dated 19.08.1997, referred to above. 8. Furthermore, I notice that Ext.P9 is only a “circular.” The supervision charges, if at all payable, are being fixed by the notifications of 1974/1997. There cannot be a demand for supervision charge, through a circular issued by an officer of the Government. It can only be made by virtue of the Statutory provisions or by exercising the power of the Government through the issuance of separate Government Orders, as has been the case with the notifications of 1974 and 1997. 9. In such circumstances, the demand for supervision charges on the basis of the circular issued at Ext.P9 cannot be sustained. 10. It can only be made by virtue of the Statutory provisions or by exercising the power of the Government through the issuance of separate Government Orders, as has been the case with the notifications of 1974 and 1997. 9. In such circumstances, the demand for supervision charges on the basis of the circular issued at Ext.P9 cannot be sustained. 10. However, I take note of the submissions made by Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior Government Pleader, with reference to the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.38302 of 2017, that the officers of the Government Departments are required to “ensure stability and safety” and it is for that reason that the supervision charges are being demanded for carrying out inspection of the buildings in question. But the fact remains that the buildings, as stated earlier, have been constructed years back and there is no question of carrying out “supervision” of the construction activity after the same is already carried out. 11. At worst, what can be visualised is only an increase in the rates fixed as per the notification issued on 19.08.1997, that too, after taking into consideration the relevant facts and after having a consultation with the various stakeholders in this matter. In the result, these writ petitions would stand allowed as under:- (i) The circular dated 12.09.2011, produced as Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No.10699 of 2019 is set aside. (ii) It is declared that the schools, like the petitioners herein, would be liable to satisfy the charges for obtaining fitness certificates only as per G.O.(P)No.84/97/PW&T [sic] dated 19.08.1997. (iii) It will be open for the Government to move for increasing the charges for the issuance of fitness certificates as per the Government Order dated 19.08.1997, after a proper deliberation with the stakeholders.