IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21790 of 2009(P)
1. ROOPAK CHANDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES & BOILERS,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :03/08/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).21790/2009
--------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is engaged in the business of buying
raw cashew nuts and exports cashew kernels. He has more
than one cashew factory in different parts of the state. He
was desirous of setting up a factory at Neyyattinkara,
Thiruvananthapuram, and filed Ext.P1 application in form
No.1 prescribed under the Factories Rules. Requisite fee
was remitted. By Ext.P3, the application was returned
stating that the same is incomplete. Petitioner rectified the
defects and resubmitted the same. Site approval obtained
from the Chief Town Planner and No Objection Certificate
from the Divisional Officer along with consent letter for
establishing a cashew factory issued by the Pollution
Control Board and building permit from the Local Authority
were also submitted. According to the petitioner, consent
letter from the neighbours, along with the resolution by the
Panchayath, recommending grant of permit was also
submitted.
W.P.(C).21790/09
2
2. By Ext.P8, the petitioner was informed that the
application Ext.P1 is being returned on the ground that the
documents are not complete. Petitioner responded vide
Ext.P9 pointing out that the documents are in order and if
anything further remains, he may be intimated of the same.
The application has again been dismissed vide Ext.P10 and
hence the writ petition challenging Ext.P10 and praying for
appropriate reliefs.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the view
taken by this Court in Shihabudeen Kunju v. State of
Kerala {1984 KLT 474}, wherein this court indicated that
the power exercisable by the licensing authority as per the
Factory Rules is to be so done by the statutory authority
without reference to direction from the Government.
5. It is true that the designated licensing authority under
W.P.(C).21790/09
3
the Factories Rules is to exercise his power without being
influenced by extraneous considerations. I am also not in a
position to discern what exactly are the defects, which
continue to vitiate the application filed by the petitioner. At
any rate, petitioner has sought for a clarification vide Ext.
P9. The applicant is now met with Ext.P10, which does not
say what the defects are. This cannot be stated to be a
proper exercise of power.
6. In the result, there will be a direction to the second
respondent to pass order on Ext.P1 application in
accordance with law within six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. If there are defects in
the application, then he shall specify such defects and issue
notice to the petitioner, giving him an opportunity to rectify
such defects. At least two weeks of time must be granted to
the petitioner to rectify the defects. If there are no defects,
then unless there is any other supervening statutory factors,
the applicant is entitled to a licence, subject to any
condition that can be imposed in terms of the Factories Act
W.P.(C).21790/09
4
and the Rules. Orders shall be passed, as aforementioned,
within the time frame mentioned above. It is made clear
that the applications, which have been returned to the
petitioner under the impugned communications, shall be
taken back to file.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs