IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18927 of 2009(I) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ S.SARJU, SEALAND, EDAVATTOM,KARUVELIL PO EZHUKONE, KOLLAM 691 505. BY ADV. MR.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN 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, PADMAVILASAM ROAD, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) Nos.18927 & 18928 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Almost identical contentions have been raised in these writ petitions and therefore they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to the facts in W.P.(C) No.18927/09, which will suffice, in so far as the other writ petition is concerned. 2. 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 Mandiram Mukku, Thengaman P.O., Adoor and filed Ext.P1 application in form No.1 prescribed under the Factories Rules. 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. Site approval obtained from the Chief Town Planner and No Objection Certificate from the Divisional Officer along with consent letter for W.P. (C) Nos.18927 and 18928 OF 2009 :: 2 :: establishing a cashew factory issued by the Pollution Control Board and building permit from the Local Authority as evidenced by Ext.P5 to P10 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. 3. By Ext.P11, 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.P12 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.P13 and hence the writ petition challenging Ext.P13 and praying for appropriate reliefs. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 5. 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 W.P. (C) Nos.18927 and 18928 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 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. 6. 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 any rate, petitioner has sought for a clarification vide Ext. P12. No decision has been taken on Ext.P12. 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. 7. 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, W.P. (C) Nos.18927 and 18928 OF 2009 :: 4 :: 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 petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge