1. The petitioner, the Managing Partner of Ms. Superior Wires, Muvattupuzha, being desirous of establishing an industry of winding wires, applied to the first respondent, through Ext.P2, for the necessary permit in terms of Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act) and Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules'). In fact, the Grama Panchayath on 25.06.2014 issued Ext.P1(a) building permit to raise necessary structures for the purpose of establishing the industry. The petitioner is said to have secured Ext.P3 NOC from the Pollution Control Board on 08.05.2014, apart from securing Exts.P4 and P4 (a) NOCs from the Health Department and Fire and Rescue Services respectively.

2. Since the respondent Grama Panchayath has neither issued any licence in response to Ext.P2 application, nor has it expressly rejected the said application, the petitioner, taking advantage of Section 236 (3) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act — the deemed provision — went ahead establishing the industry. In course of time, notwithstanding the deemed licence in terms of Section 236(3) of the Act, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application on 26.12.2014 seeking a regular licence. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent Grama Panchayath in considering Ext.P5, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has complied with all statutory parameters, but at no point of time has the Panchayat communicated any proceedings either accepting or rejecting Ext.P2 application. According to him, under those circumstances, because the petitioner has all other requisite permits and licences, he invoked Section 236(3) of the Act and proceeded with establishing his industry.

4. The learned counsel has further submitted that, until the respondent Grama Panchayath filed its counter affidavit along with certain exhibits, the petitioner did not know anything about the steps allegedly taken pursuant to the petitioner's Ext.P2 application. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that, especially in the light of Ext.R1(a) resolution passed by the respondent Grama Panchayath, now the Grama Panchayat cannot be heard saying that there were objections from certain quarters, and that it could not process the petitioner's application only in the face of those objections. He has further submitted that this Court has time and again held that once the Grama Panchayath exercises its power under Section 233 of the Act, the decision thus arrived at is final and that it cannot be whittled down or made nugatory through any extraneous post-decisional considerations.

5. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to Rule 12(3) (c) of the Rules to stress that once a person obtains the necessary NOCs from the Departments concerned, if the Grama Panchayath does not issue the D & O licence within 45 days thereafter, it shall be deemed that the said person has the necessary licence to proceed further. Under those circumstances, the learned counsel has strenuously contended that the respondent Grama Panchayath is statutorily bound to issue the necessary licence. When this Court queried why the petitioner insists on having a paper licence despite his staking claim to deemed licence, the learned counsel has submitted that for the purpose of securing necessary working capital and to meet other eventualities, it is requisite that the petitioner should have the licence in the physical form, lest financial institutions, etc., should not process his request. Accordingly, the learned counsel has urged this Court to allow the writ petition.

6. The learned counsel for the first respondent Grama Panchayath, having taken me through the counter affidavit filed by the Grama Panchayath, has submitted that, though initially the Panchayath decided to issue lic