The Village Panchayat cannot deny permit applications after the statutory period; any rejection must follow due process under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.DIAS, J.

The petitioner had submitted applications for an establishment permit and a trade licence under Sections 233 and 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (‘Act’, for brevity), to operate a granite quarry. Along with the applications, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 letter of intent issued by the Director of Mining and Geology, Ext.P2 environment clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Ext.P3 explosive license from the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Ernakulam and Ext.P4 Consent to Operate from the Kerala Pollution Control Board, as mandated under the Act. Although the applications were submitted on 07.02.2025, no decision has been taken by the 1^st respondent ― Panchayat, within the prescribed 30-day period. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to a deemed establishment permit and trade licence as provided under Section 236 (3) of the Act. However, the 2^nd respondent has now handed over Ext.P5 decision provisionally rejecting the petitioner’s application. Ext.P5 decision is illegal and arbitrary.

2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit through the 3^rd respondent, inter alia, contending that the petitioner is not entitled to a deemed establishment permit and trade licence. Nonetheless, it is admitted that the petitioner had submitted the applications on 07.02.2025. Immediately on receipt of the applications, the Panchayat received numerous complaints from the inhabitants of the locality against the establishment of the quarry. Ext.R3(a) notice was issued to the petitioner to attend a hearing on 24.02.2025. There is another quarry functioning within 500 metres in the Panchayat. The matter has been referred to the District Collector and the Geologist. But no decision has been taken in the matter. The application for the establishment permit was placed before the Village Panchayat on 18.03.2025, which has decided to reject the application since the proposed quarry is situated within 500 metres of the existing quarry. The Village Panchayat has expressed its objections, as there is insufficient distance between the existing quarry's explosive magazine and the proposed quarry. Moreover, there is an acute water shortage in the locality. Hence, by Ext.P5 decision, the petitioner’s applications for the establishment permit and trade licence have been rejected. There is no illegality in Ext.P5 decision. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit refuting the allegations in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

4. Heard; the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted the applications for an establishment permit and trade licence on 07.02.2025, to start a granite quarry within the 1^st respondent-Panchayat.

6. Section 232 of the Act deals with the trade license. As per the said provision, the Secretary of the Panchayat is empowered to decide on such applications. However, under Section 236 (3) of the Act, if a decision is not taken within 30 days from the date of submission of the application, it shall be deemed that the application has been allowed.

7. In the case at hand, the respondents have taken a contention that since there is an existing quarry in the Panchayat, the petitioner’s quarry cannot be permitted. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the District Collector and the Geologist, but no decision was taken in the matter. It is, thereafter, on 18.03.2025, that the Village Panchayat decided to reject the application for the establishment permit and trade licence.

8. It is pertinent to note that, under Section