SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ker) 385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
Jimmichan Mathew – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By The Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government Institutions - Respondent
WP(C) NO. 38496 of 2024
Decided On : 18-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri.K.C.Vincent
For the Respondent: Shri.Sunil Cyriac, Sc, Kozhuvanal Grama, Panchayath, Shri.Georgekutty Mathew, Shri.Babu Raj K., Sri Renjith Thamban, Sr, Sri T Naveen, Sc, GP. Sri K Janardhana Shenoy

A license application is deemed granted if not decided within the statutory period, ensuring compliance with the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

Headnote:(A) Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Section 233(6) - License Application - Petitioner, proprietor of a granite crusher unit, claimed entitlement to a deemed license due to failure by Panchayat to communicate a decision on his license application within the specified period - The court reaffirmed that when no orders are passed on a license application within stipulated time, the application is deemed allowed under Section 236(3) of the Act 1994. (Paras 10 and 11)

(B) Deemed License - The court established that an application for a license should be treated as granted if there is no communication of approval or disapproval within the specified period set by the Act - Courts emphasized procedural compliance by local governance bodies in adhering to statutory timelines. (Paras 11 and 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner initiated a granite crusher unit in 2003 and faced multiple challenges from the local panchayat regarding licensing and operational permissions. Despite court interventions, the panchayat failed to communicate any formal response to the petitioner’s recent application for a license.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner was deemed entitled to a license due to the lack of response from the panchayat, in compliance with the statutory provisions.

Issues: The principal issue revolved around whether the petitioner's application for a license was deemed allowed given the lack of timely communication by the panchayat.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an absence of timely approval or rejection makes a license application automatically permitted under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, thereby acknowledging the legal principle of deemed licenses.

Result: Writ petition allowed; the panchayat directed to issue a certificate of deemed license.

Table of Content
1. background of petitioner's application and court history. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. contender's arguments regarding deemed license. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court's analysis on statutory provisions and precedent. (Para 10 , 11)
4. entitlement to a deemed license under specific conditions. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT :

P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) To issue a declaration that the application, the subject matter of Exhibit P10 and P11, has been allowed in view of the deeming provision contained in sub section (6) of Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 and the petitioner can operate the crusher unit, if otherwise eligible.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 4th respondent to issue a certificate to the petitioner that the petitioner is operating the crusher unit on the strength of deemed license.

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 5th respondent to issue/renew the dealers’ license to the petitioner without insisting production of permission and license under Section 232 or 233 in the physical form and to issue transit passes as required in the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining and Transportation)Rules, 2015.

iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 4th respondents to accept property tax from the petitioner with regard to the building, the subject matter of Exhibit P8 and P9, for the financial year 2024-25.

v) Dispense the petitioner from producing English translation of the vernacular documents produced in the writ petition.

vi) Issue such other writ, order or direction or order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The petitioner is the proprietor of Kolady Granulator, a granite crusher unit and the same was started functioning in the year 2003 in the territories of the 2nd respondent, is the submission. The petitioner approached respondents 2 to 4 for the construction of a building for the unit, and the installation of machinery in 1996, which was originally rejected. Later, the Government in Revision directed the Grama Panchayat to issue permission to the petitioner, overruling the objections raised by the Panchayat. Even after the directions from the Government, the Panchayat was reluctant to issue permission under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1994’ for brevity), is the submission. The petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing O.P.No.18477 of 1997, seeking implementation of the directions issued by the Government, is the submission. This Court, as per the interim order dated 05.06.1998, directed that the Panchayat shall issue license within a period of one week, is the further submission. Thereafter, the Panchayat issued permission under Section 233 of the Act, 1994. After completion of the construction of the building and installation of the machinery, the petitioner again approached the Panchayat for numbering the building and issuance of D & O license for the crusher unit established on the strength of the permission granted by the Panchayat under Section 233 of Act, 1994. The Committee had decided not to issue a license to the unit. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Single Window Clearance Board, Kottayam, taking note of the provisions of the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act , 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 5 of 2000’ for brevity), is the submission. The Board recommended issuance of the license to the petitioner, but the Panchayat did not issue the same. Finally, the Board issued a certificate under Section 10 of Act 5 of 2000 based on its decision dated 31.07.2003. Ext.P1 is the copy of the certificate dated 04.08.2003 issued by the Single Window Clearance Board, Kottayam. The petitioner started

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top