Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice C.S. Dias has dismissed a writ petition seeking the grant of a deemed trade license under Section 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The Court held that the rejection order of the petitioner’s application for license renewal was validly communicated through the state government's e-Governance platform, the K-SMART portal. The judgment stated that once the order is posted on the portal, such communication satisfies the statutory requirements for informing the applicant. In doing so, the Court upheld the legality and adequacy of digital communication under the Information Technology Act, 2000, in the context of municipal licensing procedures.

The final directive of the Court categorically denied the petitioner’s entitlement to a deemed license, affirming that the communication effected through the K-SMART portal constituted valid and lawful notice within the statutory time limit. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed in its entirety.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Railway’s Right To Levy Penal Charges After Delivery | Section 66 Permits Demand For Misdeclared Goods Irrespective Of Timing

The petitioner, a 56-year-old individual residing in Kattappana, Idukki District, Kerala, had been operating a meat and vegetable stall within the jurisdiction of the Kattappana Municipality for several years. On 12 March 2025, he submitted an application for the renewal of his trade license issued by the second respondent. The license had originally been granted for the period from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.

The petitioner alleged that the Secretary of the Municipality failed to either approve or reject the application within the 30-day statutory period prescribed under Section 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, thereby entitling him to a deemed license. The primary contention was that the rejection order was not served upon him within the required timeframe.

Conversely, the second respondent argued that while the petitioner submitted the renewal application on 12 March 2025, it was returned on 24 March 2025 due to certain defects. The petitioner resubmitted the corrected application on 27 March 2025. Following this, an inspection was conducted by the Health Inspector, who noted several issues including encroachment on PWD drainage, discharge of wastewater into the drainage, and unhygienic maintenance of the backyard.

Based on these findings, the application was rejected by an order dated 25 April 2025. The Municipality claimed that efforts were made to serve the order to the petitioner, but he allegedly refused to accept it. Subsequently, the order was affixed on the petitioner’s building, and the same was evidenced by photographs marked as Annexure 2.

The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, stating that he became aware of the rejection only on 14 May 2025, which is beyond the statutory 30-day period. He claimed the rejection order was not made accessible on the K-SMART portal and submitted a screenshot (Ext.P4) to show that the order did not appear on the dashboard.

The respondents countered that the K-SMART platform, implemented under the Kerala government’s e-Governance initiatives and supported by Annexures A5 to A7, serves as the lawful medium of communication. The petitioner had earlier used the same platform to apply for and obtain the original license and to submit the renewal application. Thus, it was asserted that he was familiar with the portal's functions and could have accessed the order by navigating further through his dashboard.

Further, the respondents stated that the petitioner had carried out unauthorised construction on the premises, and that an application for regularisation had been rejected. A demolition notice was issued based on this, providing another ground for rejecting the renewal application.

Justice C.S. Dias extensively analysed the provisions of Section 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act and Sections 4, 6, and 6A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

"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 deemed license."

The Court acknowledged that electronic communication is legally recognised under the IT Act: "Where any law provides that information or any other matter shall be in writing or in the typewritten or printed form, then...such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such information or matter is rendered or made available in an electronic form."

On the K-SMART portal's implementation: "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."

The Court noted that the petitioner had successfully used the K-SMART portal previously and had resubmitted his application and addressed defects through the same portal.

"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... all through the same portal."

On the petitioner’s claim of not receiving the order, the Court observed: "The petitioner’s contention that Annexure 2 letter was received by him only on 14.5.2025... cannot be accepted on its face value."

Regarding the dashboard screenshot submitted by the petitioner: "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."

The Court also noted that the petitioner's argument regarding inaccessibility was raised belatedly: "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."

On valid service of the order: "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."

"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."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Upholds Minimum Wage Order Against Private Hospital | Cleaners Entitled To Housekeeping Pay Scale Under Sector Notification | Court Rejects Equal Pay Challenge By Contract Employers

The High Court issued the following directives:

"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."

Accordingly, the Court held: "Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to a deemed license. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed."

The Court did not entertain the request to set aside the rejection order or grant the deemed license. No orders were issued on costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Sri. Jomy K. Jose, Sri. Muhammed Anshif T.K.

For the Respondents: Shri. Unnikrishnan V. Alapatt, Standing Counsel, Kattappana Municipality

Case Title: Manoj v. Kattappana Municipality and Another

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:47538

Case Number: WP(C) No. 17003 of 2025

Bench: Justice C.S. Dias