The statutory authority for trade license applications is the Secretary of the Panchayat, not the Panchayat Committee.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

(I) “Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P14 and P15 communications issued by Respondent No. 2 as well as Exhibit P16 decision taken by the Panchayath Committee, (II) declare that the Petitioner has secured a deemed trade licence, due to the failure on the part of Respondent No.2 in passing orders and communicating the same to the Petitioner within the statutory period of 30 days, (III) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent No. 2, to issue trade licence to the Petitioner as expeditiously, at any rate within a period of 10 days, (IV) Dispense with the production of English translations of the documents produced in vernacular language, AND (V) grant the Petitioner such other appropriate reliefs that his Hon’ble Court may deem and proper including costs .”

[sic]

2. The application seeking to issue trade license was submitted by the petitioner before the 2^nd respondent for the purpose of quarrying, on 01.11.2025. According to the petitioner, the said application was accompanied by all requisite statutory licenses and permissions. But, within the statutory period of 30 days, the orders passed therein have not been communicated to the petitioner, is the submission. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents,the petitioner submitted Ext.P13 representation seeking to acknowledge that the petitioner had obtained the trade license. But, as per Exts.P14 and P15, the 2^nd respondent replied that the application could not be placed before the Panchayat committee and that there was code of conduct of the local body elections and therefore, a claim of deemed trade license is not tenable. It is submitted by the petitioner that the respondents have not pointed out any defect or rejected the application, within the statutory period. It is also submitted that the 2^nd respondent is duty bound to consider the application for trade license without interference of the Panchayat committee. As per the provisions, the Secretary is the authorised person to decide a license application. The petitioner challenged the same before this court by filing W.P.(C.) No. 1098/2026. It is submitted that during the pendency of the same, Panchayat committee passed Ext.P16 decision purporting to reject the trade license citing various reasons which are untenable. It is the definite case of the petitioner that the panchayat committee has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for licence. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat.

3. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 23.02.2026, this Court passed the following order.

“The learned counsel for the Panchayat will get instructions as to why a decision was taken by the Panchayat Committee, when, as per law, the Panchayat Secretary has to consider the licence application. Post on 11/03/26.”

4. Thereafter, when the matter came up for consideration on 11.03.2026, this Court passed the following order :

“The Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that a counter affidavit is being filed.

Post on 30.03.26.”

5. Today, the Standing Counsel again seeks time to file counter. I am not inclined to entertain such a request because the counsel for the petitioner insists for an early hearing. The counsel for the petitioner raised a legal issue before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the principles laid down by this Court inAnish Abraham v. Elappara Grama Panchayat [2023 KHC 9346] and also the judgment dated 30.08.2022 in W.P.(C.) No. 4851/2022. The cou