Rejection Order Uploaded On K-Smart Portal Valid Communication By Municipality, Applicant Can't Insist On Physical Copy: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently held that an order rejecting a renewal application, which was uploaded on the K-Smart portal, is valid electronic communication in compliance with Section 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (the Municipality Act).Section 447(6) of the Municipality Act provides that an applicant is entitled to a 'deemed license' if the order of accepting or rejecting the application is not communicated by the Secretary of the Municipality within 30 days.K-SMART or Kerala - Solution for Managing Administrative Reformation and Transformation is an e-governance platform for local bodies, enabling them to provide efficient and citizen-centric services. The app can be used to provide various services including online payments and redressal of grievances.Justice C.S. Dias observed that an applicant cannot insist that rejection order has to be served in the physical form in view of the implementation of the K-smart portal and the provisions of the Information Technology Act (IT Act).The petitioner was running a meat and vegetable stall with a trade licence from the Kattappana Municipality. He applied for a renewal license and within 12 days, the same was returned by the municipality noting certain defects. Upon resubmission of the application, the health inspector conducted an inspection and found that the petitioner had failed to maintain hygienic conditions while running the stall. Thereafter, the renewal application was rejected by the municipality within the statutory period of 30 days. Several unsuccessful attempts were made to serve the order to the petitioner until it was finally affixed on the petitioner's building.The petitioner has submitted that he is entitled to a deemed license since he was not communicated after the rejection within 30 days. Though the same was updated on the K-Smart portal, the petitioner stated that he was unable to access the same.The respondent counsel submitted that all communications through the K-Smart portal are legal and valid communication as per Sections 4,6 and 6A of the IT Act. The municipality adopted the K-smart portal as per the government's orders. Moreover, petitioner is knowledgeable about the portal since he had used it to apply for and receive the licence last year, and to cure defects on the renewal application. As per Sections 4 of the IT Act, legal recognition has been given to electronic records. Section 6 provides that if there is a law that states that communication by the government or any of its agencies can be done in the electronic form, then such electronic communication is valid. According to Section 6A, the government may authorise service providers to set up such facilities for efficient delivery of services to the public through electronic means.The respondent also contended that if, as stated by the petitioner, he was unable to access the rejection order, he ought to have approached the facilitation centre. In the alternative, he ought to have exhausted the appeal remedy, it was contended.After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, the Court opined that the petitioner's plea cannot be accepted in view of the fact that petitioner was familiar with the portal. The Court stated that the petitioner ought to have taken steps to obtain the physical form of the order if it was not accessible to him; he cannot insist of physical form.It observed:“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… 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.”The Court thus held that the petitioner was not entitled to a deemed license and dismissed the writ petition.Case No: WP(C) No. 17003 of 2025Case Title: Manoj v. Kattappana Municipality & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 411Counsels for the petitioner: Advocates Jomy K. Jose, Muhammed Anshif T.K.Counsels for the respondent: Unnikrishnan.V.Alapatt, SC - Kattappana MunicipalityClick to Read/Download Judgment

Rejection Order Uploaded On K-Smart Portal Valid Communication By Municipality, Applicant Can't Insist On Physical Copy: Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

Tags