IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 20004 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- TOBIN THANKACHAN, AGED 20, S/O. THANKACHAN, T.N. HOUSE, NELLIKKUNNAM.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM (THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM) 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, O/O. R.D.O, KOLLAM. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE), SQUAD II, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. OFFICER, CASHEW SPECIAL SQUAD, KOLLAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.20004 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims as a licencee under the Micro Small Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, MSMED Act), Petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure of articles from the business premises by respondents 3 and 4. He seeks a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P2 and P3. By Ext.P2, respondents 3 and 4 are alleged to have seized in custody a total quantity of 567 Kgs., of Cashew nuts alleging that the petitioner has no registration under the KVAT Act and no books of account were kept at the time of inspection. 2. The case of respondents 2 and 3 as per the statement inter alia is as follows: Ext.R1 is a notification issued by which the Inspector of Factories and Boilers has been appointed as Inspector under the Unregistered Cahsew Nut Factories Prohibition Act, 1967. The officers made search of the cashew processing shed located inside the premises of residential house belonging to Sri. Thankachan. Annexures R2 and R3 are copies of letter from the Panchayat. Annexure.R2 is produced to show that the house is in the name of Sri. Thankachan (father of the petitioner). WPC.20004/2008. 2 Annexure.R3 is produced to show that there is no licence issued from the Panchayat. It is found during the inspection that ten female workers were working in processing of cashew nuts by peeling of cashew kernels, which is notified under Section 85(1) of the Factories Act without having licence granted by the Director of Factories and Boilers as per Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Factories Rules, 1957. It is their case that the unit is an unregistered Cashew nut factory as defined under Section 2(e) of the Unregistered Cashew Nut Factories Prohibition Act, 1967. Annexure.R4 is the copy of the said Act. Annexure R5 is the copy of the notification issued under Section 85 of the Factories Act, 1948. On the basis of the inspection a complaint has been filed by the Inspector of Factories and Boilers before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottarakkara, which is pending trial. It is alleged that the very same Thankachan was an accused and he was later convicted for carrying out manufacturing process of cashew in the very same place without having a valid licence. Annexure R6 is the judgment therein. 3. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Micro enterprise registered under Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the Micro Small Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. WPC.20004/2008. 3 4. Learned Government Pleader however points out that the fact that Ext.P1 is issued would not exonerate the petitioner from their obligation to seek licence under the Factories Act in view of the clear provisions contained in the 1967 Act. He also relied on Annexure 5 wherein it is stated that if the number of persons is ten or more working with the aid of power, 1967 Act would be attracted. In this case it is found on inspection that ten people were working. In such circumstances, I would think that the petitioner may not be justified in approaching this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and leaving open his contentions, which he may urge before the appropriate forum, if so advised, the writ petition is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb