IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 214 of 1998(A)
1. KUNJUMOL DEVASIA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.MATHEW
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :27/05/2009
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
----------------------------------------------
O.P. No.214 OF 1998
----------------------------------------------
Dated 27th May, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, the proprietrix of St.Thomas Modern
Rice Mill, a Small Scale Unit, preferred this writ petition
challenging Ext.P3 order issued by the Director of
Factories and Boilers, Thiruvananthapuram and P4 order
issued by the Inspector of Factories and Boilers,
Alappuzha. As per Ext.P3 order, the Director of
Factories and Boilers, while dismissing the petition
dated 30.6.1997 filed by the petitioner, the petitioner
was directed to replace the present boiler immediately
with proper boiler designed and constructed as per
provisions of Indian Boiler regulations.
2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is
that the vessel installed in her factory premises is not
using pressure and the same is being worked by using
steam and therefore the direction issued by the Director
of Factories and Boilers, Thiruvananthapuram is not
O.P.No.214/98
-:2:-
sustainable and illegal.
3. A detailed counter affidavit is seen filed by the
2nd respondent in which it is stated that the Ist
respondent, during his inspection on 25.11.95 in the
factory of the petitioner, found that a boiler was installed
in the factory having an approximate volumetric
capacity of 4170 litres generating steam above the
atmospheric pressure. During his inspection it is also
noted that that particular boiler was not designed and
constructed as per the provisions of the Indian Boiler
Regulation 1950. So, necessary instruction was given
to the petitioner to replace the boiler. It is also stated
that on examination of the system of piping, which is
very small compared to the size of boiler, whenever the
boiler is under fire, the pressure is bound to develop and
that there is a steam stop valve in the line. It is also
disclosed that whenever the stop valve is closed fully or
partially, the pressure is bound to rise again. The above
factual assertion is not disputed.
O.P.No.214/98
-:3:-
In the light of the above fact, I find no merit in
the writ petition and, accordingly, the petitioner is not
entitled to get any relief. As there is no merit in the
writ petition, the same is dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE
kvm/-
O.P.No.214/98
-:4:-
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
O.P.No.214 OF 1998
JUDGMENT
Dated: 27.5.2009