Shaffique, J.

This writ petition has been referred to this Court by the learned Single Judge as per reference order dated 21/1/2016. Petitioner in the writ petition claimed to have a deemed licence for conducting quarrying operations in a property for which he was having quarrying lease. According to the petitioner, though he submitted an application for renewal of licence for conducting the quarry, the application was not disposed of within a period of thirty days as provided under Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, he was entitled for deemed licence. However, the Panchayat after the prescribed period of thirty days issued a communication to the petitioner rejecting his application for renewal of licence. According to the petitioner, the Panchayat had no jurisdiction to reject the application for renewal on account of the fact that the renewal application is deemed to have been allowed for the usual period of renewal, in terms of Section 236(3) of the Act. The petitioner also relied upon judgment of this Court in Rajesh Ramachandran v. Corporation of Trivandrum (2008 (3) KLT 419) wherein it is held that the benefit of deemed licence can be availed for the whole period of the application notwithstanding the subsequent refusal. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the ratio decidendi in Rajesh Ramachandran (supra) and therefore referred the matter to the Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Reference is also made to another judgment of this Court in Siyad Hassan v. Marady Grama Panchayat (2015 (1) KLT 961) wherein it was held that a deemed licence can be issued to the applicant in a physical form. In the reference order, it was observed that when a deemed licence is only a legal fiction wherein certain state of affairs is imagined to exist, the said judgment also requires to be reconsidered. The reference order therefore places doubt on two judgments of this Court, ie., Rajesh Ramachandran (supra) and Siyad Hassan (supra).

2. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri. Bechu Kurian, learned Amicus Curiae Sri. P.A. Mohammed Shah and learned standing counsel for the Panchayat Sri. T.K. Anandakrishnan.

3. Before proceeding further, it will be useful to narrate the facts involved in the present writ petition.

4. Petitioner has been operating a quarry on the basis of a quarrying lease dated 19/3/2010 and licence/permission obtained from various authorities including the Pollution Control Board, the Controller of Explosives, the Panchayat etc,. As per Ext.P4 dated 20/3/2014, the licence was granted for a period of one year upto 31/3/2015 covering all the survey numbers of the property held by the petitioner. By Ext.P5 dated 29/5/2015, the licence was renewed for quarrying operations in Sy.No.271/20/pt alone for a period from 29/5/2015 to 13/11/2015. Petitioner filed WP(C) No. 23389/15 in which an interim order dated 3/8/2015 (Ext.P6) was issued permitting the petitioner to operate the quarry in all the survey numbers.

5. When Ext.P5 licence relating to Sy.No.271/20 was to expire on 13/11/2015, petitioner submitted application for renewal on 12/11/2015. Since the Panchayat did not communicate to the petitioner any order on the said application on or before 11/12/2015, according to the petitioner, he got the benefit of a deemed licence in terms of Section 236(3) of the Act. Subsequently, on 15/12/2015, petitioner was served with a registered letter dated 5/12/2015 stating that his application for renewal of licence has been rejected. Ext.P7 is the said communication and Ext.P7(a) is the postal cover. Petitioner, hence sought for quashing Ext.P7 and for a declaration that he was entitled for a deemed licence for conducting quarry operations in Sy.No.271/20 of Pallichal Village.

6. In Rajesh Ramachandran (supra), the issue involved was relating to an application for licence to run a retail store in a Municipality. The quest