IMPORTANT POINT
Electronic communication via the K-smart portal is valid under statutory requirements for license renewal, negating the claim for a deemed license.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.DIAS, J.

The petitioner was running a meat and vegetable stall within the territorial limits of the first respondent Municipality for the last few years. On 12.3.2025, the petitioner applied for the renewal of Ext.P1 trade license. But the second respondent has failed to communicate any decision, either of approval or rejection, within 30 days of submitting the renewal application. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to a deemed license under Section 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for short, ‘Act’).

2. The second respondent has filed a statement contending that, although the petitioner had submitted the renewal application on 12.3.2025, it was returned on 24.3.2025 due to certain defects. The petitioner resubmitted the application only on 27.3.2025. Consequently, the Health Inspector conducted an inspection and found that the petitioner has encroached on the PWD drainage, discharged wastewater into the drainage, and has maintained his backyard in an unhygienic condition. In view of the above facts, the renewal application was rejected on 25.4.2025, i.e., within 30 days from the date of resubmission of the application. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to a deemed license.

3. Pursuant to this Court’s direction, the second respondent has filed an additional statement producing ― the Annexure 1 order rejecting the petitioner’s application. It is asserted that, though attempts were made to serve the order on the petitioner, he refused to accept the same. Consequently, Annexure 2 letter, containing the Annexure 1 order, was affixed in the petitioner’s building.

4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit contending that the Annexure 2 letter was communicated to him only on 14.5.2025, which is beyond the statutory period of 30 days. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a deemed license.

5. Heard, Sri. Jomy. K. Jose, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Unnikrishnan V. Alapatt, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexure 1 order was never served on the petitioner. It is only after this Court directed the respondents to produce Annexure 1 order, the same was placed on record. Annexure 2 letter confirms that the order was passed only on 14.5.2025 and not on 25.04.2025. He also relied on Ext.P4 screenshot of the petitioner’s dashboard on the K-smart portal to demonstrate that the rejection order was not accessible to the petitioner. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Koottikkal Grama Panchayath and Another v. Vazhathara Granites and Aggregates Pvt. Ltd [2018 KHC 4640] and Jalaludeen K. v. Veliyam Grama Panchayat [2024 KHC 1108], in support of his contention that, if an order is not communicated to the applicant within 30 days from the date of submission/ resubmission of the application, the applicant is entitled to a deemed license. In view of the above decisions, the petitioner is entitled to a deemed license.

7. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the K-smart platform is a part of the Government of Kerala’s Digital Kerala e-Governance initiatives. The Government of Kerala has implemented the K-smart portal to provide a transparent interface for submission of applications, tracking the progress of the applications and viewing all communications and orders passed on the applications. All communications through the K-smart portal are legal and valid in view of Sections 4, 6 and 6A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’, for brevity). In view of Annexures A5 to A7 Government Orders, the 1st respondent has adopted the K-smart platform. The petitioner had applied and received the previous year’s trade license through the K- smart portal. The petitioner has also c