JUDGMENT : P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J. The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers: "i) To issue a declaration that the application, the subject matter of Exhibit P10 and P11, has been allowed in view of the deeming provision contained in sub section (6) of Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 and the petitioner can operate the crusher unit, if otherwise eligible. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 4th respondent to issue a certificate to the petitioner that the petitioner is operating the crusher unit on the strength of deemed license. iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 5th respondent to issue/renew the dealers’ license to the petitioner without insisting production of permission and license under Section 232 or 233 in the physical form and to issue transit passes as required in the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining and Transportation)Rules, 2015. iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 4th respondents to accept property tax from the petitioner with regard to the building, the subject matter of Exhibit P8 and P9, for the financial year 2024-25. v) Dispense the petitioner from producing English translation of the vernacular documents produced in the writ petition. vi) Issue such other writ, order or direction or order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of Kolady Granulator, a granite crusher unit and the same was started functioning in the year 2003 in the territories of the 2 nd respondent, is the submission. The petitioner approached respondents 2 to 4 for the construction of a building for the unit, and the installation of machinery in 1996, which was originally rejected. Later, the Government in Revision directed the Grama Panchayat to issue permission to the petitioner, overruling the objections raised by the Panchayat. Even after the directions from the Government, the Panchayat was reluctant to issue permission under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1994’ for brevity), is the submission. The petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing O.P.No.18477 of 1997, seeking implementation of the directions issued by the Government, is the submission. The petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing O.P.No.18477 of 1997, seeking implementation of the directions issued by the Government, is the submission. This Court, as per the interim order dated 05.06.1998, directed that the Panchayat shall issue license within a period of one week, is the further submission. Thereafter, the Panchayat issued permission under Section 233 of the Act, 1994. After completion of the construction of the building and installation of the machinery, the petitioner again approached the Panchayat for numbering the building and issuance of D & O license for the crusher unit established on the strength of the permission granted by the Panchayat under Section 233 of Act, 1994. The Committee had decided not to issue a license to the unit. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Single Window Clearance Board, Kottayam, taking note of the provisions of the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act , 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 5 of 2000’ for brevity), is the submission. The Board recommended issuance of the license to the petitioner, but the Panchayat did not issue the same. Finally, the Board issued a certificate under Section 10 of Act 5 of 2000 based on its decision dated 31.07.2003. Ext.P1 is the copy of the certificate dated 04.08.2003 issued by the Single Window Clearance Board, Kottayam. The petitioner started functioning of the crusher unit with a Secondary crusher. The Panchayat, though interfered to prevent the operation of the unit at different periods by issuing notices, the petitioner submitted specific replies and was permitted to continue the operation of the unit, is the submission of the petitioner. It is also submitted that, in the meantime, a primary crusher was installed and started producing M-sand after securing consent from the Pollution Control Board, and Ext.P2 is the renewed consent. 3. After the general elections to local bodies in December 2020, and the assumption of charge by the new committee, the petitioner was compelled to stop the operation of the crusher unit. Again, the petitioner and his brother, who is running a concrete brick unit, approached this Court and this Court, as per a common judgment, declared that the Panchayat is not empowered to impose restrictions as far as the transportation of the materials through the road is concerned. Again, the petitioner and his brother, who is running a concrete brick unit, approached this Court and this Court, as per a common judgment, declared that the Panchayat is not empowered to impose restrictions as far as the transportation of the materials through the road is concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner renovated the unit and started operation during March 2022, after complying with the directions issued from the office of the Environmental Engineer, is the submission. 4. Thereafter, there were several rounds of litigation. All the attempts to close down the unit were later dropped by the Panchayat, is the submission. Subsequently, as per Ext.P7 judgment, this Court allowed the petitioner to submit an application for getting a D & O licence and also for the machinery under Sections 232 and 233 of the Act, 1994. Based on the directions in Ext.P7 judgment, the petitioner submitted an application on 29.08.2024. Ext.P8 is the acknowledgement receipt in relation to the application for assessment of property tax submitted at the office of the 2nd respondent. Ext.P9 is the relevant pages of the office notes of the 2nd respondent’s office received by the petitioner under the RTI Act, showing the receipt of the petitioner’s application for assessment of property tax on 29.07.2024, is the submission. Ext.P10 is the acknowledgement receipt in relation to the application for permission and license submitted at the office of the 2nd respondent and Ext.P11 is the relevant page of the office notes of the 2nd respondent’s office received under the RTI Act, showing the receipt of the petitioner’s application for permission and license. The petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing, and as directed by this Court, other parties were also heard on 24.09.2024, is the submission. This Court directed the Panchayat to take a decision within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Panchayat was represented through a Standing Counsel and was aware of the uploading of Ext.P7 judgment on 02.07.2024, is the submission. 5. The 4 th respondent, Secretary was well aware about the judgment when the petitioner met him during the first week of July is the further submission. It is also the case of the petitioner that, based on the directions from the 4 th respondent, the petitioner submitted an application for assessment of property tax, as evident by Exts.P8 and P9. The 4 th respondent, Secretary was well aware about the judgment when the petitioner met him during the first week of July is the further submission. It is also the case of the petitioner that, based on the directions from the 4 th respondent, the petitioner submitted an application for assessment of property tax, as evident by Exts.P8 and P9. Allowing Exts.P10 and P11, a copy of Ext.P7 judgment was also appended is the submission. When there was a violation of directions in Ext.P7 judgment, the petitioner preferred a contempt case; Con.Case(c)No.2644/2024 before this Court. 6. It is the definite case of the petitioner that the time limit prescribed by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment expired on 02.09.2024. It is the case of the petitioner that even if it is not admitted, but assuming that the judgment was made known to the Secretary only on 29.07.2024, by statutory implication, the same should have been finalised before 28.08.2024, and it may be extended to 28.09.2024 in view of two months time extension granted by this Court is the submission. Anyhow, the Panchayat should have granted permission either absolutely or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose, before 28.09.2024, is the submission. Since no orders are passed, the petitioner is entitled for deemed licence under Section 233 (6) of the Act, 1994, is the contention of the petitioner. The petitioner produced Ext.P13, a true copy of the minute of the meeting of the 3 rd respondent held on 28.09.2024. It is also submitted that there are no findings against the petitioner's unit in the report submitted before the Committee. According to the petitioner, for obtaining a licence from the 5th respondent, permission and a licence in physical form are required. The Panchayath is not issuing the same is the submission. The petitioner is having Exts.P14 and P15 consent to operate and a licence from the Factories and Boilers Department. 7. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled deemed licence and therefore, the same is to be issued in physical form. Hence, this writ petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat and also the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents. 9. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat and also the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents. 9. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised by the petitioner. The counsel for the party respondents takes me through Ext.R7(b) resolution of the Panchayat. It is submitted that no regular building number has been assigned to the petitioner's premises and therefore, no licence can be issued. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for deemed licence. It is also submitted that the unit of the petitioner is creating a nuisance to the party respondents, and this Court cannot interfere with the same. The counsel for the Panchayat submitted that since Ext.R7(b) decision has been taken, no further steps are to be taken. 10. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and respondents. Section 236 (3) of the Act, 1994 is extracted hereunder: 236. General provisions regarding licenses and permissions. - xxx xxx (3) Save as aforesaid, 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 law, rules and bye-laws and all conditions ordinarily imposed.” As per the above provisions, if orders on an application for any 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, for which it would have been ordinarily allowed. In this case, admittedly, no orders are passed in the licence application. According to the Panchayat and the party respondents, Ext.R7(b) decision is taken, in which it is stated that there is no authorised building number for the crusher unit. But it is an admitted case that the consequential order is stayed by the tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, as per Ext. P22. 11. According to the Panchayat and the party respondents, Ext.R7(b) decision is taken, in which it is stated that there is no authorised building number for the crusher unit. But it is an admitted case that the consequential order is stayed by the tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, as per Ext. P22. 11. This Court in Abdul Shafeek v. Asamannoor Grama Panchayath and Another [ 2018 (3) KHC 170 ] observed like this: “3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Panchayat would contend that, although there was no formal order rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the dismissal of his appeal by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, the respondent Panchayat had intimated the petitioner by communication dated 07.05.2018 that his fresh application also continued to be defective in the manner indicated by the Tribunal in the appellate order. It is stated that, inasmuch as the application of the petitioner was inherently defective, the same could not be treated as a valid application for issuing a deemed license in terms of Section 236 (3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act . On a consideration of the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, I find that, while it may be a fact that the application submitted by the petitioner was inherently defective, it is also a fact that the respondent Panchayath, which could have rejected the said application of the petitioner on that ground, did not choose to do so, and thereby kept the application alive beyond the statutory period contemplated under the Panchayat Raj Act for attracting the deeming provision. The decisions of this Court in Rajesh Ramachandran v. Corporation of Trivandrum [2008 (3) KLT 419], which was affirmed by a Division Bench in Sudhakaran v. Pallichal Grama Panchayat [2016 (2) KLT 175] would clearly indicate that if no orders of rejection are passed on an application for permission/license, including a defective one, within the statutory period contemplated under the Act, then by virtue of the provisions of Section 236 (3), the permission sought for is to be deemed granted and the only recourse available to the respondent Panchayat thereafter, would be to initiate proceedings against the petitioner for a cancellation of the said deemed permission in the event of their noticing that the activities of the petitioner are being carried on in contravention of the conditions of the permission or in violation of the statutory provisions. Thus, I allow the writ petition by declaring that the petitioner is entitled to a deemed permission in accordance with Section 236 (3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act . The 2nd respondent shall issue the petitioner with a certificate stating that he has obtained a deemed permission in terms of Section 236 (3), within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that nothing in this judgment shall stand in the way of the respondent initiating any action for cancellation of the said permission, in the event of their noticing that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions in the permission or has breached any of the statutory provisions applicable to him.” 12. As I mentioned earlier, no order rejecting or allowing the application is passed by the Panchayat. In the light of the above principle, I think the petitioner is entitled to a deemed licence. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) The 4 th respondent is directed to issue a certificate to the petitioner in physical form stating that the petitioner is having deemed licence, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ii) If there is any violation of the conditions in the licence and permits issued by the statutory authorities, the competent authority can proceed in accordance with the law.