IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25517 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- R. MADHAVA KUMAR, PUTHEN VEEDU, TASS ROAD, ALUVA, PIN - 683 101. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BARTON HILL BUNGALOW, KUNNUKUZHI, VANCHIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. 2. ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ALUVA, PIN - 683 101. 3. THE SECRETARY, ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ALUVA - 683 101. 4. T.K. JOHN, S/O. KURIAN, THOPPIL HOUSE, RAIL ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICTG - 683 101. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R2 & 3 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON 02/09/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.25517 OF 2008 K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of deemed licence as provided in the Kerala Municipality Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, facts of the case are that Ext.P17 is an application made by the petitioner on 2.6.2008 for grant of licence for a private cart stand, as per Section 475 of the Act. The Standing Counsel for the Municipality does not dispute receipt of Ext. P17 nor does he contend that Ext. P17 is defective for any reason. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though Ext. P17 application was made by him as early as on 2.6.2008, orders were not passed or communicated to him so far. According to him, if orders are not communicated within 30 days of receipt of the application by the Secretary, a deemed licence as W.P.(C) No.25517/2008 (K) - 2 - provided either under Section 447(6) or under Section 492(15) , will accrue in his favour. Therefore, he seeks a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to deemed licence under the provisions of the Municipalities Act for running his cart stand in Sy. No. 226/6B and 226/6B3 of Aluva Village. 4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is contradicted by the Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent on the ground that Section 475 of the Act is a self contained code and that in the absence of a provision for deemed licence incorporated in the section itself, petitioner cannot claim deemed licence. He would refer me to Sections 447(6) and 492(15) and argue that there is no such provision in Section 475. 5. I have considered the submissions made by counsel on both sides and I must confess my inability to accept the plea raised on behalf of the respondent Municipality. 6. Though it may be possible to argue that the scope of Section 447 of the Act is restricted to the activities mentioned in sub-section (1) thereof, in my view, the general provisions regarding licenses and permissions as provided in Section 492 should apply to Section 475 of the Act. Section 492(15) reads as W.P.(C) No.25517/2008 (K) - 3 - follows: “The acceptance by the Municipality of the prepayment of the fee for a licence or permission or for registration shall not entitle the person making such prepayment to the licence or permission or to registration, as the case may be, but only to refund of the fee in case of refusal of the licence or permission or of registration, but an applicant for the renewal of a licence or permission or registration shall until communication of orders on his application be entitled to act as if the licence or permission or registration had been renewed, and save as otherwise specially provided in this Act, if orders on an application for licence or permission or for registration are not communicated to the applicant within thirty days after the receipt of the application by the Secretary, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the year or for such less period as is mentioned in the application, and subject to the law, rules, bye-laws, regulations and all conditions ordinarily imposed.” 7. Going through the averments in this writ petition, petitioner had filed Ext. P2 application for licence for the year 2007-08 and Ext. P17 application has been made for 2008-09. The Municipality has no case that orders were passed on either of these applications. If that be so, since orders on the application of the petitioner for licence have not been communicated to him within 30 days of receipt of the application, his application shall be deemed to have been allowed by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 492 (15). W.P.(C) No.25517/2008 (K) - 4 - 8. The purpose of the provision for deemed grant is to make it obligatory that the applications made by the citizen are considered by the designated authority with due expedition. It is to ensure such expedition the statute has incorporated the consequence also, as otherwise the citizen will be left at the mercy of the designated authority. If I accept the contention raised by the Standing Counsel for the Municipality, I will be leaving the petitioner at the mercy of the Secretary of the respondent Municipality who has abdicated his statutory duty to pass orders on Ext. P17. In my view, this is precisely what the legislature wanted to avoid and if I accept the argument of the counsel for the Municipality, that will run counter to the object of the legislation. 9. This being the only contention raised I reject the same and hold that since orders on Ext. P17 were passed within 30 days of its receipt, deemed licence under Section 492(15) of the Kerala Municipality Act has accrued in favour of the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-