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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56113

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
BABU K MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
THRISSUR CORPORATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 21789 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR, SMT.P.K.MINIMOLE, SHRI.A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SHRI.BAPPU GALIB SALAM, SHRI.G.MOTILAL
For the Respondents: SHRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL

Delay in processing a license application entitles the applicant to deemed approval under the Kerala Municipality Act.

Headnote:The petitioner sought to declare his entitlement to a deemed license under section 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, citing the delay in processing his application. The court noted the petitioner had an existing license prior to its cancellation to allow him to apply for a new one. The court found that since the application was not disposed of within the statutory period, the petitioner was entitled to a deemed license. The court concluded that the 2nd respondent must issue a deemed license within 30 days.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's entitlement to a deemed license (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's observation on application processing (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Declare that the petitioner is entitled a deemed license in accordance with section 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act ,1994, on the basis of his application submitted as evident by Ext. P6 acknowledgment.

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the second respondent Secretary of the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation, to grant the petitioner a certificate stating that he has been obtained a deemed permission in terms of section 447 (6) of the Kerala Municipality Act ,1994, without any further delay.

(iii) Issue such other and further writs orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner’s wife has been running a business under the name and style of Sigma Electronics for the last several years on the strength of Ext.P1 certificate of IFTE & OS Licence, as mandated under Section 447 of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994. The business was situated in the building having name Lakshmi Complex situated in Ward No.9 of the 1st respondent Corporation, Thrissur is the submission. The building belongs to one Shylaja and her daughter Pushya. The validity of Ext.P1 licence was from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025 and renewal period of the licence was between 01.01.2025 and 02.03 2026. It is submitted that the business run by the wife of the petitioner was handed over to the petitioner pursuant to his retirement. Therefore, Ext.P1 licence issued in favour of the petitioner’s wife was cancelled to enable the petitioner to apply for a new licence in his name, is the submission. Accordingly, Ext. P2 application was submitted by the wife of the petitioner to cancel the license issued in her favour, which was allowed and an endorsement was made on Ext.P1 licence showing that it is “CANCELLED”, as evident by Ext. P3, is the submission. Accordingly, the petitioner took over the business as permitted by the landlords on the strength of a rental agreement and monthly rent was being paid regularly by transferring the amount in the bank account of Smt.Shylaja, is the submission. While things stood so, Ext.P4 lawyer notice was issued by Pushya to the petitioner herein and 2 other tenants asking to transfer the monthly rent amounts in her bank account. Later, Ext.P5 consent letter was issued stating that they have rented out the shop situated in their building to the petitioner for conducting a business of electronics services & repairing and further expressing their full consent in issuing licence to the petitioner and renewing the same from time to time, is the submission. Pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted an application for the grant of IFTE & SO License through ‘K Smart’, as evident by Ext. P6. Later, Ext. P7 rent agreement was executed by the building owner Pushya in favour of the petitioner leasing out the premises fixing a monthly rent of Rs.6,288/- for a period of 11 months, is the submission. Even though the application for license was submitted, no order was passed within the statutory period and therefore the petitioner is entitled for a deemed license, is the submission.

Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation and the learned Government Pleader.

4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner submitted an application for license as evident by Ext.P6 on 28.01.2025. It is also an admitted fact that, no order was passed in it within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. If that be the case, the petitioner is entitled for deemed license. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporatio

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