THE WEST ELERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT v. NARAYANAN.K

OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 2 THE WEST ELERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BHEEMANADI P.O., KASARAGOD, PIN - 671314 THE SECRETARY WEST ELERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, BHEEMANADI P.O., KASARAGOD, PIN - 671314 BY ADV T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER: 1 NARAYANAN.K S/O. KORAN, RESIDING AT KANDAMKODE HOUSE, MATHAMANGALAM.P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670306 ADDL.R2: KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KASARGOD DISTRICT OFFICE, KANHANGAD, PIN -671 315 *(ADDL.RESPONDENT 2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/03/2025 IN WA..NO.159/2025) BY ADVS. I.V.PRAMOD WA NO. 159 OF 2025 2 AMRUTHA DIWAKAR RESMI SAJEEVAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 159 OF 2025 3 JUDGMENT (Dated this the 27th day of March 2025) NITIN JAMDAR, C.J. The Appellant – Panchayat has filed this appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 27 November 2024 in W.P.(C)No.43072 of 2023 filed by the 1st Respondent – Original Petitioner. By the impugned judgment, the Appellant–Panchayat has been directed to issue a deemed licence in physical form to the Petitioner to operate a granite mining operation for five years.

#2. Heard Mr.T.K.Vipindas, learned counsel for the Appellant - Panchayat, Mr.I.V.Pramod, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Mr.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for additional Respondent No.2.

#3. The Writ Petition filed by the Respondent – Original Petitioner was based on Section 236 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act). Section 236(3) of the Act, which deals with general provisions regarding licences and permissions, states that if orders on an application for any such licence or permission are not communicated to the applicant within thirty days or such longer period as may be prescribed in any class of cases after the receipt of the application by the Secretary, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the period, if any, for which it would have been ordinarily allowed and subject to the laws, rules and bye-laws and all WA NO. 159 OF 2025 4 conditions ordinarily imposed. However, it must conform with the necessary Laws, Rules, and bye-laws.

#4. According to the Respondent – Original Petitioner, he intended to start quarrying activities in Survey Nos. 331/2pt and 332/pt of Beemanadi Village, Kasargod District. The Original Petitioner applied for a trade licence from the Appellant–Panchayat under Sections 232 and 233 of the Act. The application was submitted on 23 June 2023. According to the Petitioner, there was no communication as regards the rejection of the application, and therefore, he filed W.P.(C) No. 43072 of 2023 on 18 December 2023 on the ground that, by virtue of Section 236(3) of the Act, the Petitioner is entitled to a deemed licence. The Appellant – Panchayat filed a reply affidavit, placing on record the developments that had taken place from 23 June 2023 till the filing of the Petition on 18 December 2023 and, subsequently, a resolution dated 8 January 2024 was passed by the Panchayat rejecting the application.

#5. In the present case, though there was no response within thirty days, the Petitioner thereafter participated in the proceedings regarding the consideration of the licence on merits. The application was submitted on 23 June 2023. The Appellant–Panchayat constituted a Sub-Committee on 10 August 2023. The constitution of the Sub-Committee was in the knowledge of the Petitioner. The Sub-Committee submitted a report that there is a need for a specific width of the road, which was informed to the Petitioner, who also responded on 27 November 2023 that he had rectified WA NO. 159 OF 2025 5 the deficiency in the width of the road. No stand was taken that the permission was already deemed to have been granted. It is a settled position of law that an incomplete application with lacunas and shortfalls as required cannot be deemed to be granted by not taking a decision in time. There was a clear acknowledgement of a lacuna by the Petitioner in the application submitted as regards the width of the road. The Petitioner cleared the lacuna and informed the Appellant panchayat on 27 November

#2023. The Petitioner did not approach this Court after the period was over but acted on the shortfalls pointed out by the Appellant – Grama Panchayat, and participated in the decision-making process on the merits of the application. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the Writ Petition, invoking the concept of deemed permission, suppressing these facts, which were brought on record by the Respondent – Panchayat. These developments are not referred to in the impugned judgment.

#6. Therefore, in the facts of this case, since the Petitioner participated in the decision-making process on merits even after the period of 30 days was over and the original application was admittedly not complete and that the Panchayat has now decided the matter on merits, the Petitioner’s remedy would be to challenge the Panchayat’s decision as per law.

#7. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 27 November 2024 in W.P.(C)No.43072 of 2023 is set aside. The remedy of the Respondent–Petitioner to challenge the decision of the Panchayat taken WA NO. 159 OF 2025 6 on 8 January 2024 is left open to be considered on its own merits.

#8. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- NITIN JAMDAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- S.MANU JUDGE