JUDGMENT :

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.

1. The petitioner submitted Ext.R1(a) application on 26.08.2022 for D&O license before the 2nd respondent, the Secretary of the 1st respondent Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has not communicated any orders on the said application within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the application and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for deemed D&O license under Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short).

2. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein it is stated that after the receipt of the application for D&O license, since the application was found to be defective, the 2nd respondent addressed Ext.R1(d) letter to the Village Officer seeking certain clarifications with regard to the survey number of the property of the petitioner. It is stated that a copy of Ext.R1(d) was also served on the petitioner. It is contended that the same shall be construed as a communication within the ambit of Section 236(3) of the Act. It is further stated that the Panchayat committee as per Ext.R1(f) resolution dated 26.10.2022, has resolved to reject the application of the petitioner for D&O license. Accordingly, respondents 1 and 2 contend that the petitioner is not entitled for D&O license.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader.

4. Apart from Ext.R1(d) communication which is addressed to the Village Officer seeking certain clarifications regarding the survey number of the property of the petitioner, nothing is placed on record to show that the 2nd respondent has considered the application for D&O license and communicated an order to the petitioner, within a period of 30 days as provided under Section 236(3) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Sudhakaran vs. Pallichal Grama Panchayat and Another, 2016 (2) KHC 481. Paragraph 14 of the said decision reads as follows:

“The consideration of an application for permission or licence or renewal thereof is available only during the period prescribed for the same and unless the order is communicated within the specified time, either granting the renewal or rejecting the same, the Panchayat cannot exercise jurisdiction to reject the same at a later occasion. Thereafter, the remedy of the Panchayat is only to verify whether the licensee complying with the conditions imposed under the licence as per the rules, bye-laws etc.”

5. Going by the dictum laid down in the above decision, Ext.R1(d) cannot be construed as an order coming within the scope of Section 236(3) of the Act. Admittedly, no order is communicated to the petitioner as provided under Section 236(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for deemed D&O license under the Act. 6. As regards Ext.R1(f), it is for the Secretary of the Panchayat to consider and pass orders on an application for license and the Panchayat Committee has no jurisdiction to take a decision in the nature of Ext.R1(f).

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of declaring that the petitioner has a deemed D&O license under Section 236(3) of the Act. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue a D&O license in paper form to the petitioner within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this declaration is without prejudice to the right of the 2nd respondent to revoke the license, if it is found that there is breach of provisions of the Act or the Rules.