IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 8961 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.C.SAJEED, S/O.MOHAMMAD KUNJU,AGED 37 YEARS, PROPRIETOR,M/S RUBY CASHEWS,VELLAMKULANGARA HARIPAD, DISTRICT ALAPPUZHA RESIDING AT; KOTTAKUZHIYIL (CHAKKALETHU HOUSE),KATTACHIRA, PALLICKAL.PO, KARTHIKAPPALLY,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI (VENNELA) SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, ALAPPUZHA. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).8961/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to have set up a Cashew Factory at Vellamkulangara. He claims to have obtained licence from the local authority and 'No Objection' letter from the District Medical Officer. He also claims to have obtained consent from the Pollution Control Board. Petitioner's application for a licence under the Factories Act was processed and ultimately certain defects were pointed out. Documents submitted by the petitioner were returned for rectification and by Ext.P12, petitioner re-submitted the application along with the documents. But action was not taken to take a decision on the application. Petitioner moved this Court which resulted in Ext.P13 judgment directing an expeditious consideration of Ext.P12. Thereafter, by Exts.P16 dated 17.2.2009, second respondent passed an order rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that the W.P.(C).8961/2009 2 petitioner had re-submitted the documents without curing the defects. This is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. This Court had at the time of admission of the writ petition passed the following order:- “By Ext.P11, 8 defects were pointed out to the petitioner. What is relied on to contend that these defects have been cured in Ext.P12 communication. A reading of Ext.P12 shows that out of 8 defects, in respect of 7 of them, petitioner has only promised to cure the defects. There is nothing else to show that the defects pointed out have been cured. In these circumstances, in the absence of any material on the part of the petitioner to satisfy this Court that the defects in fact were cured, prima facie, I am not in a position to find fault with Ext.P16.” W.P.(C).8961/2009 3 3. Thereafter, petitioner has filed an additional affidavit. Petitioner has stated as follows in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit. As a matter of fact, I had cured all the defects noted in Ext.P11 and I had represented the application and the documents along with Ext.P12 representation. But this Honourable Court has observed that a reading of Ext.P12 shows out of eight defects in respect of seven of them, the petitioner has promised to cure the defects. What is intended to be communicated as per Ext.P12 order was that all the defects had been cured. Ext.P12 was drafted in English and due to my lack of proficiency in English I could not properly communicate vide Ext.P12 that the defects had been cured. The drawing submitted along with Ext.P12 is produced herewith and marked as Ext.P17. The fact that the petitioner has cured all the defects mentioned in W.P.(C).8961/2009 4 Ext.P11 can be ascertained if physical verification of the Factory and its premises is made. I have installed electronic Borma for avoiding smoke. As electronic Borma is working in electronic power no smoke is generated. Thus I cured defect No.1 mentioned in Ext.P11. I have resubmitted fresh drawings as required in factory. The mess room has been mentioned in the drawing. Washing facilities have been provided with sufficient number of water taps (1 tap for 10 workers) not less than 1.20 Metrs. apart and the same has also been shown in the drawing. Separate store room has been provided for storing all the shells, ashes etc, and the same has also been shown in the drawing. I have installed rain water storage tank having storage capacity of 60 litres/sq.Mtr. of the total floor area to provide roof top rain water harvesting arrangements. What is required in Ext.P11 is that the minimum capacity of the storage tank shall be 50 litres/sq.mtrs of the total W.P.(C).8961/2009 5 floor area. Now the minimum capacity of the storage tank of roof top rain water harvesting arrangements provided by me is having capacity of 60 litres/sq.mtrs of the total floor area. The petitioner has set up a septic tank having the capacity adequate for 100 workers. The petitioner have relocated the creche building far away from the borma building required in clause 8 of Ext.P11. Thus I have cured all the eight defects. A verification of the same by the 2nd respondent or any of his subordinates would reveal the said facts. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 5. In view of the steps that the petitioner claims have been taken as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support of I.A.No.5046/2009, I am of the view that the petitioner's application requires W.P.(C).8961/2009 6 reconsideration at the hands of the second respondent. Second respondent shall verify whether the petitioner has cured the defects which have earlier been pointed out and complied with other formalities and take a decision on Ext.P12 application. 6. In the result, Ext.P16 is set aside. Second respondent is directed to take back on file Ext.P12 application and take a fresh decision in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs