The main prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct the respondent, the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, not to prevent the petitioner from carrying on the retail store "Big Bazaar" in the building "Kalpana Heights" Pattom, in Sy.No.1548/6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in Ward No.2 of the respondent Corporation. Petitioner is seeking this relief on the basis that a deemed licence as provided under sec.447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereafter referred to as the Act, for short) has accrued in its favour.

2. To decide this controversy, the short facts to be noticed are that: on 13.2008 petitioner submitted an application for licence in terms of sec.447 of the Act. Ext.P1 is the receipt issued by the respondent acknowledging the receipt of application on 13.2008. On receipt of the application as above, the respondent by Ext.P2 communication dated 4.2008 informed the petitioner that there are certain inadequacies in the application submitted and that unless they are rectified, the respondent will not be in a position to take further action on the application. It was also informed that without obtaining licence, the petitioner should not proceed to start business and that in the event the business is started, the Corporation will be forced to take action against them. Petitioner submits that Ext.P2 was received on 4.2008 and that in response, it submitted Ext.P3 on 9.4.2008 offering satisfactory explanation to the queries raised in Ext.P2. It is stated that there was no response to Ext.P3 and that as, on the expiry of thirty days of application, they were entitled to have deemed licence as contemplated in sec.447(6) of the Act, they commenced the business on 28.4.2008. Petitioner apprehended that the respondent will force it to close down the shop and on that basis, this writ petition was filed.

3. Therespondent accepts receipt of the application on 13.2008, but only submits that as the application was defective, although it had the freedom to reject the application, in fairness, it issued Ext.P2 requiring the petitioner to rectify the defects in the application. It is also contended that though Ext.P3 reply was received, the defects were not cured, and hence the Corporation issued an order on 24.2008 declining licence to the petitioner. According to the respondent, when the order dated 24.2008 was delivered to the petitioner in the manner specified in sec.525 of the Act, that was declined to be accepted and thereupon it was sent by registered post and was also affixed in the premises of the petitioner. According to the Corporation, there is no question of any deemed licence as the communication dated 24.2008 is an order declining licence to the petitioner. It was further contended that the petitioner commenced business on 28.4.2008 without a licence attracting the consequences enumerated in sec.532 and 545 of the Act.

4. As already stated, the issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to a deemed licence as contemplated in sec.447(6) of the Act. Sec.447 deals with the purposes for which places cannot be used without a licence. Once an application for licence is received by the Municipality, the manner in which it has to be dealt with is provided in sec.447 (3A) of the Act and sec.447(6) provides for deemed licence. These sub-sections, being relevant, are extracted below for reference:-

"447(3A). The Secretary shall, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the application, by order and subject to such terms and condition as he deems fit, either grant licence for using a place to conduct a common trade or in the interest of the public refused to grant such licence."

"447(6). If the order on an application for any licence or permission are not communicated to the applicant within thirty days after the receipt of the application by the Secretary or within such longer period, as may be prescribed in any class of cases, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the