K. Surend Mohan, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs.

"i. Issue a writ of mandamus and direct to the respondent to receive the fee for renewal of the licence for the year 2012-13 forthwith.

ii. Issue such other writ or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass in the circumstances of the case."

2. According to the petitioner, she is conducting the jewellery shop by name K. P. Kalyan Jewellery at Pulpally town from the year 2004 onwards. Ext.P-1 is the licence issued to the petitioner in the year 2004. According to the petitioner the licence was thereafter being renewed from year to year. Ext.P-2 is the receipt for payment of the licence fee for the year 2011-2012. The petitioner has already submitted an application for renewal of her licence for the current year 2012-2013. Ext.P-3 is the receipt issued by the Panchayat for receiving the said application. The petitioner complains that her application has not been considered so far. Though she has tried to remit the application fee, the same has also not been received. Therefore she has filed this Writ Petition.

3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent Secretary of the Panchayat. It is stated that the building bearing No.PP/IV/446 that is occupied by the petitioner, is owned by one Sri. Thomas Mappanadiyil. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P-3 application dated 9.3.2012 for renewal of the licence on 9.4.2012. Since the petitioner's licence has already expired, she has to apply for a fresh licence, producing the consent of the owner of the building. It is also submitted that as per provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (Kerala) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short), the petitioner has to submit an application for renewal of licence 30 days prior to the commencement of the relevant financial year. In the present case, an application for renewal was submitted only on 9.4.2012. For the above reason, the petitioner's application can be treated only as one for the issue of a fresh licence. Therefore, consent of the owner of the premises is necessary.

4. According to the Counsel for the petitioner there is no necessity of producing a consent of the owner. Such consent has already been produced before issuing Ext.P-1. Since the petitioner has sought for renewal of her earlier licence, production of a fresh consent is not necessary and such conditions are being insisted upon only to harass the petitioner.

5. According to Sri. Manoj Ramaswamy, the Counsel for the 1st respondent, since the petitioner has not applied for renewal of the licence within the period stipulated by the Rules, her application can be treated only as one for a fresh licence. Therefore, production of a consent of the landlord is necessary.

6. I have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties. Rule 10 of the Rules reads as follows :

"10. Period for submitting application for renewal of licence and that for submitting fresh application for licence.-- An application for renewal of licence shall be submitted thirty days before the end of an year and application for licence for fresh openings shall be submitted thirty days before the openings thereof."

7. Though a time limit has been stipulated by Rule 10 of the Rules, the consequence of not submitting an application within the time stipulated, is not mentioned anywhere in the Rules. However, an indication is offered by Rule 19, which reads as follows.

"19. Additional Fee.-- The maximum fee specified in Schedule III appended to these rules shall be applicable only for the application submitted in due time. In the case of belated applications an additional fee of 25 percent of the fee for licence payable under the Schedule may be charged."

8. Therefore, what is evident from a conjoint reading of the Rules is that the only consequence that is made mention of therein for not submitting an application wi