Kerala High Court
Manoj vs Kattappana Municipality on 2 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:47538
WP(C) NO. 17003 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 17003 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MANOJ,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE,
KATTAPANA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685508
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOMY K. JOSE
SHRI.MUHAMMED ANSHIF T.K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 KATTAPPANA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KATTAPPANA P.O.IDUKKI,
PIN - 685508
2 THE SECRETARY,
KATTAPPANA MUNICIPALITY,KATTAPPANA P.O, IDUKKI, PIN
- 685508
BY ADV SHRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT, SC, KATTAPPANA
MUNICIPALITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19.06.2025, THE COURT ON 02.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:47538
WP(C) NO. 17003 OF 2025 2
"C.R"
C.S. DIAS, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.17003 of 2025
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was running a meat and vegetable
stall within the territorial limits of the first respondent
Municipality for the last few years. On 12.3.2025, the
petitioner applied for the renewal of Ext.P1 trade
license. But the second respondent has failed to
communicate any decision, either of approval or
rejection, within 30 days of submitting the renewal
application. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to a
deemed license under Section 447(6) of the Kerala
Municipality Act, 1994 (for short, 'Act').
2. The second respondent has filed a statement
contending that, although the petitioner had submitted
the renewal application on 12.3.2025, it was returned on
2025:KER:47538
24.3.2025 due to certain defects. The petitioner
resubmitted the application only on 27.3.2025.
Consequently, the Health Inspector conducted an
inspection and found that the petitioner has encroached
on the PWD drainage, discharged wastewater into the
drainage, and has maintained his backyard in an
unhygienic condition. In view of the above facts, the
renewal application was rejected on 25.4.2025, i.e.,
within 30 days from the date of resubmission of the
application. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to a
deemed license.
3. Pursuant to this Court's direction, the second
respondent has filed an additional statement producing
Annexure 1 ― the order rejecting the petitioner's
application. It is asserted that, though attempts were
made to serve the order on the petitioner, he refused to
accept the same. Consequently, Annexure 2 letter,
2025:KER:47538
containing the Annexure 1 order, was affixed in the
petitioner's building.
4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit
contending that the Annexure 2 letter was communicated
to him only on 14.5.2025, which is beyond the statutory
period of 30 days. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to
a deemed license.
5. Heard, Sri. Jomy. K. Jose, the learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri. Unnikrishnan V. Alapatt, the
learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that Annexure 1 order was never served on the
petitioner. It is only after this Court directed the
respondents to produce Annexure 1 order, the same was
placed on record. Annexure 2 letter confirms that the
order was passed only on 14.5.2025 and not on
25.04.2025. He also relied on Ext.P4 screenshot of the
2025:KER:47538
petitioner's dashboard on the K-smart portal to
demonstrate that the rejection order was not accessible
to the petitioner. The learned Counsel relied on the
decision of this Court in Koottikkal Grama Panchayath
and Another v. Vazhathara Granites and Aggregates Pvt.
Ltd [2018 KHC 4640] and Jalaludeen K. v. Veliyam Grama
Panchayat [2024 KHC 1108], in support of his contention
that, if an order is not communicated to the applicant
within 30 days from the date of submission/ resubmission
of the application, the applicant is entitled to a deemed
license. In view of the above decisions, the petitioner is
entitled to a deemed license.
7. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the
respondents argued that the K-smart platform is a part of
the Government of Kerala's Digital Kerala e-Governance
initiatives. The Government of Kerala has implemented
the K-smart portal to provide a transparent interface for
2025:KER:47538
submission of applications, tracking the progress of the
applications and viewing all communications and orders
passed on the applications. All communications through
the K-smart portal are legal and valid in view of Sections
4, 6 and 6A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ('IT
Act', for brevity). In view of Annexures A5 to A7
Government Orders, the 1st respondent has adopted
the K-smart platform. The petitioner had applied and
received the previous year's trade license through the K-
smart portal. The petitioner has also cured the defects on
the renewal application and resubmitted the same
through the portal. It is implausible that the petitioner
was unable to access the rejection order. Ext.P4
screenshot shows only the main window of the
dashboard. The petitioner ought to have navigated
further in the dashboard and retrieved the order. If he
faced any technical difficulty, he ought to have
2025:KER:47538
approached the facilitation centre. Moreover, if the
petitioner has any grievance against the K-smart system,
he has to implead the Government of Kerala as an
additional respondent and challenge Annexures A5 to A7
G.Os. Furthermore, the petitioner has an alternative
statutory remedy of appeal under the Act to challenge the
order. Therefore, this Court may not entertain the writ
petition. In light of the implementation of the K-smart
portal, all communications between the first respondent
and its applicants are through the portal, which is a valid
communication under Section 447(6) of the Act. The
petitioner is not entitled to a deemed license. Similarly,
the petitioner has carried out unauthorised construction
in the property. His application for regularisation has
been rejected, and a demolition notice has been issued to
him. On the said ground also, the petitioner is not entitled
to a deemed license.
2025:KER:47538
8. The petitioner was granted Ext.P1 license by the
second respondent to trade vegetables and processed
meat for the period from 1.4.2024 to 31.03.2025. On
12.03.2025, the petitioner submitted the renewal
application. The crux of the petitioner's case is that the
second respondent failed to consider the application
within 30 days from the date of submission. Hence, the
petitioner is entitled to a deemed license as provided
under Section 447(6) of the Act.
9. It is necessary to refer to Section 447(6) of the
Kerala Municipality Act, which reads as follows:
"447. **** (6) If the order on an application for any licence
or permission are not communicated to the applicant within
thirty days after the receipt of the application by the Secretary
or within such longer period, as may be prescribed in any class
of cases the application shall be deemed to have been allowed
for the period required in the application, subject to the Act,
rules and bye-laws and all conditions which would have been
ordinary imposed."
10. Section 447(6) of the Act mandates the Secretary
to communicate the order within 30 days of receiving an
application, failing which the applicant is entitled to a
2025:KER:47538
deemed license.
11. It is germane to also refer to Sections 4, 6 and
6A of the IT Act, which read as follows:
"4. Legal recognition of electronic records.--
Where any law provides that information or any other
matter shall be in writing or in the typewritten or printed
form, then, notwithstanding anything contained in such
law, such requirement shall be deemed to have been
satisfied if such information or matter is-
(a) rendered or made available in an electronic form; and
(b) accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference.
**** **** ****
6. Use of electronic records and [electronic signatures] in
Government and its agencies.- (1) Where any law provides
for--
(a) the filing of any form, application or any other
document with any office, authority, body or agency owned
or controlled by the appropriate Government in a
particular manner;
(b) the issue or grant of any licence, permit,
sanction or approval by whatever name called in a
particular manner;
(c) the receipt or payment of money in a particular
manner, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, such requirement
shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such filing, issue,
grant, receipt or payment, as the case may be, is effected
by means of such electronic form as may be prescribed by
the appropriate Government.
(2) The appropriate Government may, for the
purposes of sub-section (1), by rules, prescribe--
(a) the manner and format in which such
electronic records shall be filed, created or issued;
(b) the manner or method of payment of any fee or
charges for filing, creation or issue any electronic
2025:KER:47538
record under clause (a)
[6A. Delivery of services by service provider.-- (1) The
appropriate Government may, for the purposes of this
Chapter and for efficient delivery of services to the public
through electronic means authorise, by order, any service
provider to set up, maintain and upgrade the computerised
facilities and perform such other services as it may specify,
by notification in the Official Gazette."
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, service
provider so authorised includes any individual, private
agency, private company, partnership firm, sole proprietor
firm or any such other body or agency which has been
granted permission by the appropriate Government to offer
services through electronic means in accordance with the
policy governing such service sector.
(2) The appropriate Government may also
authorise any service provider authorised under sub-
section (1) to collect, retain and appropriate such service
charges, as may be prescribed by the appropriate
Government for the purpose of providing such services,
from the person availing such service.
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2),
the appropriate Government may authorise the service
providers to collect, retain and appropriate service charges
under this section notwithstanding the fact that there is no
express provision under the Act, rule, regulation or
notification under which the service is provided to collect,
retain and appropriate e-service charges by the service
providers.
(4) The appropriate Government shall, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify the scale of
service charges which may be charged and collected by the
service providers under this section: Provided that the
appropriate Government may specify different scale of
service charges for different types of services.]
12. The above provisions under the IT Act
2025:KER:47538
empower the appropriate Government to authorise
service providers to set up such facilities for efficient
delivery of services to the public through electronic
means, and have enabled the statutory authorities to
communicate any information in electronic form through
an electronic platform.
13. It is in the above backdrop that the Government
of Kerala has implemented the K-smart platform and
issued Annexures 5 to 7 G.Os directing the statutory
authorities to implement its e-Governance initiatives.
14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had applied
and received Ext.P1 license through the K-smart portal, and
that he submitted the renewal application, that the second
respondent had pointed out defects in the application and
the application was resubmitted all through the same
portal.
15. According to the second respondent, Annexure 1
2025:KER:47538
order, rejecting the renewal application, was posted in the
petitioner's dashboard on 25.04.2025, which is a valid
communication.
16. The petitioner now contends that, although Ext.P4
screenshot shows that the renewal application was
rejected, the order was not accessible in the dashboard.
This allegation is made for the first time in I.A. No.1/2025
and finds no mention in the writ petition or the reply
affidavit.
17. The petitioner's contention that Annexure 2 letter
was received by him only on 14.5.2025, thus entitling him
to a deemed license, cannot be accepted on its face value.
Given the petitioner's familiarity with the portal and that he
has successfully navigated the dashboard to obtain Ext.P1
license and also submit the renewal application and cure
the defects in the application, it is difficult to comprehend
that the Annexure 1 order was not accessible. If that was
2025:KER:47538
the case, the petitioner ought to have taken timely action to
obtain the order. It is at this belated stage that the
petitioner has raised the above plea, which cannot be
accepted. In view of the implementation of the K-smart
portal and the provisions of the IT Act, the petitioner
cannot insist on being served with the rejection order in the
physical form.
In the above conspectus, I hold that Annexure 1
order was validly communicated to the petitioner through
the K-smart portal and such electronic communication is
sufficient compliance with Section 447(6) of the Act.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to a deemed
license. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS,
JUDGE
rmm/26/6/2025
2025:KER:47538
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17003/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO. BFIF02-
M060200-00581-2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 01.04.2024
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE RENEWAL
APPLICATION NO. BFIF-00095195-2025 DATED
12.03.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF LICENSE NO. 11323006000327
ISSUED BY THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS
AUTHORITY OF INDIA (FSSAI) DATED
26.08.2023
A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT SHOWING THE
Exhibit P4 CURRENT STATUS OF THE PETITIONER'S
APPLICATION AS VISIBLE ON THE K-SMART
PORTAL
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICTING
THE SHOPPING COMPLEX AND FISH STALL OF
THE PETITIONER
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-4-2025
ISSUED BY THE CLEAN CITY MANAGER, PUBLIC
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT WING,
LSGD, KATTAPPANA MUNICIPALITY
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
AFFIXTURE OF NOTICE
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7-5-2025
ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KATTAPPANA
MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONER, WITH
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE SAME
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27-7-2023 ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY, KATTAPPANA MUNICIPALITY
ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.EG1/30/2023
DATED 21-12-2023
ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.2545/2023/LSGD
2025:KER:47538
DATED 22-12-2023
ANNEXURE 7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.66/2025/LSGD DATED
10-4-2025
