IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2879 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.K.SABU, PROPRIETOR, M/S.THOTTATHIL BRICKS THOTTATHIL HOUSE MEVELLOOR PO., KOTTAYAM. BY Mr. V.PHILIP MATHEW, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEVELLOOR PO., KOTTAYAM, REP. BY THE SECRETARY 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLOOR VILLAGE. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN FOR ADDL.R5-10 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1 MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.2879 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a brick manufacturer. He is aggrieved by Ext.P8 issued by the 2nd respondent requiring the petitioner to stop further manufacturing activities in his unit. 2. A reading of Ext.P8 shows that the same was issued on the assumption that the petitioner's unit is functioning without licences and such an order was issued pursuant to the direction issued by the District Collector, Kottayam. 3. Since Ext.P8 has been issued on the assumption that the petitioner does not possess the required licences and as the petitioner asserts that he has all the licences, I direct the petitioner to appear before the District Collector himself and produce the licences that he has, in which case, the District Collector will examine the same, and if warranted, shall pass orders clarifying the position, so that the petitioner can resume his manufacturing activities. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner complained that though Ext.P6 licence application was made to the WP(C) No.2879/2009 -2- 1st respondent Panchayat as early as on 21/11/2008, as is acknowledged by the Panchayat itself as per Ext.P7, the Panchayat has not passed any order on Ext.P6. The learned counsel contends that in view of the failure on the part of the Panchayat in passing orders as above, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 236 (3) of the Panchayat Raj Act, a deemed licence has accrued in his favour. 5. The learned counsel for the Panchayat, though has his own explanation for the delay, the fact remains that so far order on Ext.P6 has not been passed. As per Section 236(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act, on receipt of an application, if orders have not been passed or communicated to the applicant within 30 days, the applicant is entitled to have a deemed grant of licence. 6. In this case, Ext.P7 receipt shows that Ext.P6 application was received on 21/11/2008. If that be so, by lapse of time, the petitioner is entitled to have deemed grant of licence as contemplated under Section 236(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act. 7. In view of the above, the petitioner will approach the District Collector as directed above, in which case, the District Collector shall peruse the licences and examine the findings in this WP(C) No.2879/2009 -3- judgment, and issue such clarificatory orders as are necessary in the matter. 8. Orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 10 days of the petitioner approaching the District Collector. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg