The petitioner, a unit of a Private Limited Company, is running a Three Star Hotel. In the course of time, with a view to establishing a Beer and Wine Parlour, the petitioner has desired to obtain an FL-11 licence from the Excise Department. Since one of the stipulations for obtaining the said licence is to have a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the fourth respondent, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P2 application before the fourth respondent on 10.09.2014. That apart, the petitioner is also said to have submitted Exhibit P6 application to the same authority for the grant of a 'hygiene and sanitation certificate' for the Hotel.

2. For considering the applications submitted for the purpose of obtaining any licence or permission the time limit is thirty days as per Section 447 (6) of the Kerala Municipality Act (`the Act' for brevity). The respondent authorities have, however, not taken within the stipulated time any decision on the applications made by the petitioner; on the other hand, they issued to the petitioner Exhibit P3 notice on 01.11.2014, informing that the 'No Objection Certificate' could not be granted to it. It was beyond the stipulated time.

3. After Exhibit P3 notice, there is, nevertheless, no further correspondence, much less rejection concerning Exhibit P6 application for sanitation certificate. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing Exhibit P3, apart from seeking a declaration that the NOC is deemed to have been granted in terms of Section 447(6) of the Act.

4. Mr. T. A. Shaji, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that sub-section (6) of Section 447 has incorporated the deeming provision and that since thirty days has elapsed from the date of petitioner's making an application, the advantage of the said deeming provision has to be applied with full vigour in petitioner's favour. The learned counsel has also pointed out that though sub-sections (6) to (8) of Section 447 had been deleted through Act No.14 of 1999 with effect from 24.03.1999, they were, later, again reintroduced in the statute book with effect from 09.07.2013, through Ordinance No.39/2013. He has also submitted that the ordinance has been replaced later by Kerala Municipality (second amendment) Act, 2014.

5. Summing up his submissions the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in terms of the deeming provision in Section 447 (6) of the Act, both the certificates -- the NOC and the Sanitation Certificate--are, as a matter of legal fiction, given to the petitioner. According to him, the requirement of the petitioner to produce those certificates before the excise authorities stands dispensed with.

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has strenuously opposed the claim of the petitioner as regards the deeming provision. Adverting to the merits of the matter, the learned Standing Counsel would contend that the petitioner had not fulfilled any of the norms prescribed for obtaining the NOC.

7. The learned Government Pleader, on his part, has submitted that sub-section (3) of Section 447 deals with the granting of licence or permission for conducting dangerous or offensive trade within the municipal limits. According to him, the time limit of thirty days prescribed is only concerning the dangerous and offensive trades, but not all other trades. In expatiation of his submissions, the learned Government Pleader would contend that Schedule I appended to the Kerala Municipalities Dangerous and Offensive Trade Licensing Rules, 2011 does not include Beer and Wine under any category of the dangerous and offensive trades. Referring to Item 154 in Schedule I, the learned Government Pleader would contend that it only enumerated spirit, toddy and foreign liquor, but not beer or wine.

8. The learned Senior Counsel in reply has, however, countered the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that the Beer and Wine have not been included under dangerous and offen