IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22879 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JASSIM JALEEL, S/O.K.A.JALEEL, MACHU VEEDU, MYLACADU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.A.RAZZAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).22879/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 12th 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 submitted Ext.P1 application for permission under Rule 3 of the Kerala Factories Rules to construct a Cashew Processing Unit. Requisite fee was remitted. By Ext.P2 the application was returned stating that the same is incomplete. Petitioner rectified the defects and resubmitted the same. Ext.P5, Site approval obtained from the Chief Town Planner and Ext.P4, No Objection Certificate from the Pollution Control Board were also submitted. 2. By Ext.P6, the petitioner was informed that the application Ext.P1 is being returned on the ground that the documents are not complete. Petitioner re-submitted Ext.P1 application after curing all the defects required to be cured in Ext.P6 reply of the 1st respondent vide Ext.P7. The application has again been dismissed vide Ext.P8 and hence W.P.(C).22879/2009 2 the writ petition challenging Ext.P8 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 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. The applicant is now met with Ext.P13, which does not say what the defects are. This cannot be stated to be a proper exercise of power. W.P.(C).22879/2009 3 6. In the result, there will be a direction to the 1st 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 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