ABDUL SHAFEEK Vs. ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who proposes to start a plywood industry, had obtained a layout approval from the Chief Town Planner and on the basis of the said approval, proceeded to construct a building for the plywood industry proposed by him. It is stated that he has obtained the necessary certificates from the District Medical Officer, the No Objection Certificate from the Assistant Divisional Officer, Fire & Rescue Services, integrated consent to establish from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, a certificate from the District Industry Centre as also a building permit as a prelude to starting the industry. It is stated that the respondent Panchayat had also granted permission to the petitioner to fix a 100 HP motor in the establishment of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that, after the completion of construction of the building, the petitioner had submitted an application dated 25.04.2017 for installation of machinery in the building. The said application was rejected by the Panchayat and against the said order of rejection the petitioner approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, which by Ext.P13 order rejected the appeal on account of certain technical irregularities noticed in the application submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter, submitted a fresh application before the 1st respondent Panchayat on 21.03.2018 as evidenced by Exts.P14 and P15 produced in the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that, thereafter, nothing was heard from the Panchayath, within the statutory period granted to the Panchayat under Sec. 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act for considering the application of the petitioner, and communicating its acceptance or rejection. The petitioner contends therefore that, by virtue of Sec. 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act he is entitled to a deemed permission as contemplated under the said provision.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Panchayat would contend that, although there was no formal order rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the dismissal of his appeal by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, the respondent Panchayat had intimated the petitioner by communication dated 07.05.2018 that his fresh application also continued to be defective in the manner indicated by the Tribunal in the appellate order. It is stated that, inasmuch as the application of the petitioner was inherently defective, the same could not be treated as a valid application for issuing a deemed license in terms of Sec. 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. On a consideration of the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, I find that, while it may be a fact that the application submitted by the petitioner was inherently defective, it is also a fact that the respondent Panchayath, which could have rejected the said application of the petitioner on that ground, did not choose to do so, and thereby kept the application alive beyond the statutory period contemplated under the Panchayat Raj Act for attracting the deeming provision. The decisions of this Court in Rajesh Ramachandran Vs. Corporation of Trivandrum [2008 (3) KLT 419], which was affirmed by a Division Bench in Sudhakaran Vs. Pallichal Grama Panchayat [2016 (2) KLT 175] would clearly indicate that if no orders of rejection are passed on an application for permission/license, including a defective one, within the statutory period contemplated under the Act, then by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 236(3), the permission sought for is to be deemed granted and the only recourse available to the respondent Panchayat thereafter, would be to initiate proceedings against the petitioner for a cancellation of the said deemed permission in the event of their noticing that the activities of the petitioner are being carried on in contravention of the conditions of the permission or in violation of the statutory provisions. Thus, I allow the writ petition by declaring that the petitioner is entitled to a deemed permission in accordance with Sec. 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The 2nd respondent shall issue the petitioner with a certificate stating that he has obtained a deemed permission in terms of Sec. 236(3), within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that nothing in this judgment shall stand in the way of the respondent initiating any action for cancellation of the said permission, in the event of their noticing that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions in the permission or has breached any of the statutory provisions applicable to him.