Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15199
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Murali Purushothaman, J
M/S. ADANI VIZHINJAM PORT PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
ARYANADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 35965 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
For the Respondents: SRI.K.SHAJ - SC, SMT.SURYA BINOY – SR.GP
A license application is deemed granted if not acted upon within 30 days of re-submission, making any rejection thereafter jurisdictionally invalid.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Section 236(3) - Validity of deemed license - The petitioner submitted an application for D&O/Trade License which was deemed to be granted after 30 days due to no response from the Panchayat. The rejection after this period was ruled to be without jurisdiction. (Paras 1, 5, 7)
(B) Deemed License - A license is deemed to be granted if no decision is made within 30 days of re-submission of a properly cured application, as per statutory provisions. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The application was re-submitted after curing defects, but the Panchayat did not communicate any order, leading the petitioner to claim a deemed license after the stipulated time.
Findings of Court:
The rejection of the application after the statutory period was held invalid. A valid deemed D&O/Trade License was declared effective from 15.10.2022.
Issues: The core issues were regarding the validity of deemed license under Section 236(3) and the jurisdiction of the Panchayat to reject the application after the prescribed period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that officials must take action within 30 days, and failure to communicate leads to automatic approval, reinforcing procedural compliance in administrative decisions.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application process for d&o/trade license. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. communication of application status and implications. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. validity of deemed license under section 236(3). (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23 rd day of December, 2022.
The petitioner, a private limited company which is selected as the Concessionaire for the Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) of Vizhinjam Seaport Project, submitted Ext.P8 application dated 26.07.2022 before the Aryanadu Grama Panchayat for obtaining D&O/Trade License for conducting quarrying operations in Block No.47, Re-survey Nos.133/2, 133/4, 133/16 and 139/6 of Aryanad Village, Nedumangadu Taluk of Thiruvananthapuram District. The petitioner states that the respondents 1 to 3 did not take any decision on Ext.P8 and when the petitioner made enquiry, it was orally informed by the Secretary of the Panchayat that the petitioner has to produce the certificate issued from the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization (PESO), Government of India. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 PESO certificate on 15.09.2022. According to the petitioner, in spite of re-submission of the application after curing all defects on 15.09.2022, the 2nd respondent did not take any action on the application for D&O/Trade License. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the petitioner has secured a deemed license by 15.10.2022 in terms of Section 236 (3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
2. While so, the Panchayat Committee, by Ext.P13 resolution dated 25.10.2022, took a decision not to grant license to the petitioner for the time being. The petitioner contends that, the rejection of the application for licence after thirty days from re-submission of the application has no consequence when rejection of the application was not communicated to the petitioner within 30 days of re-submission. The petitioner also contends that, by passing Ext.P13, the Panchayat Committee has abdicated the Secretary in exercising his powers under Section 232 of the Act in issuing licence to the petitioner. The petitioner states that, though the petitioner has secured a deemed licence, unless this Court declares so, the 4th respondent will not consider the application of the petitioner for quarrying lease. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court for direction to quash Ext.P13 and to declare that the petitioner has secured a valid deemed licence as on 15.10.2022 by virtue of the application of Section 236 (3) of the Act and for direction to the 4th respondent, the Director of Mining and Geology to grant quarrying lease to the petitioner on the basis of the said declaration and on the basis of Exts.P1 to P7 documents.
3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 wherein it is stated that the application submitted by the petitioner was found to be defective as the petitioner did not submit PESO certificate and the petitioner was asked to cure the defect and the petitioner cured the defect only on 15.09.2022 and the petitioner is not entitled for deemed licence. It is further contended that Ext.P13 is not an order rejecting the application of the petitioner for quarrying license, but it is only an intimation regarding the unanimous decision taken by the Panchayat Committee on 25.10.2022.
4. Heard Sri.Roshen D.Alexander, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.Shaj, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and Smt.Soorya Binoy, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 4th respondent.
5. Sri.Roshen would contend that the application for D&O/Trade License was re-submitted by the petitioner after curing all defects on 15.09.2022. However, the 2nd respondent did not take any action on the application and no order was communicated to the petitioner within 30 days of re-submission of the application and the petitioner has therefore secured a deemed license by 15.10.2022 in terms of Section 236
