Wednesday, 15, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Veliyam Grama Panchayat vs Jalaludeen K
2024 Latest Caselaw 10787 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10787 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Veliyam Grama Panchayat vs Jalaludeen K on 12 April, 2024

Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque

Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                                      &
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
         FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
                              WA NO. 529 OF 2024
AGAINST THE    JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2024 IN WP(C) NO.12237 OF 2023 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS:

     1        VELIYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
              VELIYAM P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.,
              PIN - 691537

     2        THE SECRETARY,
              VELIYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VELIYAM P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN
              - 691537

              BY ADV M.R.SASITH



RESPONDENTS:

     1        JALALUDEEN K.
              AGED 65 YEARS
              S/O. KUNJU MAIDEENKUNJU, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VELIYAM
              (WEST) P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691540

     2        1. M.S.BIJU, S/O. C.MURALEEDHARAN
              ASWATHY, VELIYAM WEST P.O., VELIYAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA
              TALUK KOLLAM -691540

     3        SHAJI, S/O.BHASKARAN
              SMRUTHI, VELIYAM WEST P.O., VELIYAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA
              TALUK,KOLLAM -691540 *ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE
              IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5.07.2023 IN I.A.1/23 IN
              WP(C)12237/2023


     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Writ Appeal No.529 of 2024

                                   2



                              JUDGMENT

M.A Abdul Hakhim, J

1. The Grama Panchayat and its Secretary who were the Respondents

Nos 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition have filed this Writ Appeal challenging

the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring that the

Respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner secured a valid deemed license under

S.232 and 233 of the Act by virtue of 233(6) and 236(3) of the Kerala

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, directing the appellant No.1 to issue license in

paper form to the Respondent No.1, within a period of one week from

the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and further declaring that

the Respondent No.1 is entitled to get the license renewed as one

ordinarily allowed, in accordance with law. It is made clear in the said

judgment that in case there is any violation of the provisions of the

Panchayat Raj Act, it will be open to the Appellant No.2/ Respondent

No.2 to revoke the license in accordance with law.

2. The Respondent No.1 filed the Writ Petition for a declaration that

Ext.P6 composite application for permission and license has been

crystallised into a deemed grant by operation of law by virtue of

Section 236(3) and 233(6) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and for other

consequential reliefs.

3. The contentions raised by the appellants before the learned Single

Judge that within thirty days from the date of receipt of Ext.P6

Application for license dated 13.02.2023, the Appellant No.2 had issued

Ext.R1(a) Letter dated 25.02.2023 to the Respondent No.1 sent through

ordinary post asking him to cure certain defects and in view of the said

Communication within thirty days from the date of receipt Ext.P6, the

Respondent No.1 is not entitled for any deemed license.

4. The learned Single Judge considered this matter extensively with

reference to the relevant statutory provisions and precedents. Learned

Single Judge referred to Rule 3 of the Service of Notice Rules and also

the decision of this Court in B.B.P Properties Pvt.Ltd. v. Chengamanad

Grama Panchayat [2010 (1) KLT 306] found that notices which have

bearing on the rights of the parties have to be served by Registered

Post. The learned Judge found that mere despatch of Ext.R1(a) Letter

will not suffice to avoid the consequence of the deeming fiction unless

it is shown that the said Letter was communicated to the respondent

No.1. The learned Judge also referred to the Division Bench decision of

this Court in Koottikkal Grama Panchayat v. Vazhathara Granites and

Aggregates P. Ltd. [2018(3) KLT 410] which held that 30 days time

period mentioned in S.236(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act will require

communication of the decision to the applicant and mere posting of the

communication will not suffice. The learned Judge further referred to

Section 233(2A) and Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of

License to factories,Trades,Entrepreneurship activities and other

services) Rules, 1996 which mandates the Secretary of the Panchayat

or the officer authorised by him, immediately on receipt of the

application to verify the application and all supporting documents on

the support and if any supporting document required is not attached

with the application, the Secretary or the Officer authorised by him

shall immediately inform the applicant regarding the details of the

missing document, if any, and allow the applicant to submit the missing

document at the earliest but not later than three days from the date of

receipt of the application. The learned Single Judge found that there is

nothing on record to show that the Secretary or the officer authorised

by him immediately on receipt of Ext.P6 application verified the same

and supportive documents and informed him of the defects as provided

under Section 233(2A) of the Act and Rule 5A of the Trade Rules. The

learned Judge found that Ext.R1(a) communication was issued after 12

days of submission of Ext.P6 application and the same is not in tune

with the requirements under S.233 (2A) and Rule 5A of the Trade Rules.

Thus the Learned Single judge considered the matter elaborately with

respect to the relevant statutory provision and the binding precedents

on the point as noted above. We find that the judgment of the Learned

Single Judge is based on well founded reasons. We find no merit in this

writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/-

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE jma

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 in WP.C TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-P1 IN W.P.C

Exhibit-P6 in W.P.C TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-P6 IN W.P.C

Exhibit-R1(a) in W.PC TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-R1(A) IN W.P.C.

Exhibit-R1(b) in W.PC TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-R1(B) IN W.PC

Exhibit-R3(a) in TRANSLATION OD EXHIBIT-R3 (A) IN W.PC W.P.C

Exhibit-R3(b) in TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-R3 (B) IN W.PC.

W.P.C

Exhibit-R3 (c) in TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-R3(C) IN W.P.C. W.P.C

Exhibit-R3(d) in TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-R3(D) IN W.P.C W.P.C

Exhibit-R1(d) in TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-R1(D) IN W.PC W.P.C

Exhibit-R3(e) in WP.C TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-R3 (E) IN W.P.C

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter