IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17239 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.NATARAJAN, PROPRIETOR, RAJAN CASHEW COMPANY, THEKKUMBHAGOM, CHAVARA SOUTH, NADAKKAVU, KOLLAM. 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, PADMAVILASOM ROAD, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 17208 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) Nos. 17208 and 17239 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of June, 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 a common judgment. 2. I will refer to the facts in writ petition 17208/09 which will suffice in so far as the other writ petition is also concerned. 3. 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 Thekkumbaghom, Chavara and filed Ext.P1 application in form No.1 prescribed under the Factory 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 WPC. Nos. 17208 and 17239 OF 2009 : 2 : consent letter for establishing a cashew factory issued by the Pollution Control Board and building permit from the Local Authority as evidenced by Ext.P5 to P8 were also submitted. According to the petitioner consent letter from the neighbors along with the resolution by the Panchayath recommending grant of permit was also submitted. 4. 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. This has not been responded to and hence the writ petition praying for appropriate reliefs. 5. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the view taken by this Court in SHIHABUDEEN KUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA (1984 KLT 474), wherein this court indicated that the power exercisable by the licensing WPC. Nos. 17208 and 17239 OF 2009 : 3 : authority under the Factory Rules is to be so done without reference to any direction from the Government. 7. It is true that the designated licensing authority is to exercise his power without being influenced by extremeness source. I am also not in a position to discern what exactly are the defects which continue to vitiate or render infirm the application filed by the petitioner. At any rate petitioner sought for a clarification vide Ext. P12. Nothing further has been done. The applicant cannot be met with Ext.P11 which simply does not say what the continuing defects are. That is not an appropriate exercise of power. In the result, there will be a direction to the second respondent to pass orders 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 any defects in the application, then he shall specify such defects and issue a notice to the petitioner giving an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify such defects. At least two weeks of time must be granted to the petitioner to rectify the defects and thereupon if all defects are WPC. Nos. 17208 and 17239 OF 2009 : 4 : cured or if there are no defects then unless there is any other supervening statutory factor, the applicant is entitled to a license subject to any conditions that can be imposed in terms of the Factories Act or 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 under the impugned communications shall be taken back on file. sd/- (V.GIRI, JUDGE) jma The words “Thekkumbhagom, Chavara” occurring in the third sentence of 3rd paragraph of the judgment dated 29.6.2009 in WP(C) No.17208/2009 and connected case are corrected and substituted as “Chithara” as per order dated 20.7.2009 in I.A.No.8649/2009 in WP(C)17208/2009. Sd/- Registrar(Judicial)