IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22231 of 2009(Y) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.A.K.CASHEWS, KAKKANIKARA NALUMUKKU, VATTAKARIKAM P.O., BHARATHANOOR, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 562. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR A.MOHAMMED RAFI, NIZAR MANZIL, NETTAYAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 537. BY ADVS. MR.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SMT.LALIZA.T.Y. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO LABOUR & REHABILITATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES & BOILERS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES & BOILERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).22231/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 6th 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 under the name and style “MAK Cashews” at Kakkanikara nalumukku, Vattakarikam P.O, Nedumangadu, Thiruvananthapuram, and filed Ext.P3 application in form No.1 prescribed under the Factories Rules. Requisite fee was remitted. By Ext.P4 the application was returned stating that the same is incomplete. Petitioner rectified the defects and resubmitted the same. Petitioner had obtained consent letter to establish the cashew factory from the State Pollution Control Board, as evidenced by Ext.P9. According to the petitioner consent letter from the neighbours, along with the resolution by the Panchayath, recommending grant of permit was also submitted. 2. The petitioner was later informed that the application is being returned on the ground that the documents are not W.P.(C).22231/09 2 complete. Petitioner re-submitted fresh application, Ext.P6, in Form No.2 along with a covering letter, Ext.P5. Writ petition has been filed alleging delay on the part of the 2nd respondent in not granting registration and licence for the cashew factory. 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. At W.P.(C).22231/09 3 any rate, petitioner has sought for a clarification. No decision has been taken on Exts.P5 and P6. 6. In the result, there will be a direction to the second respondent to pass order on Exts.P5 and P6 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. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs