IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20589 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.SIRAJUDEEN, PROPRIETOR, A.R. CASHEWS, VILAYIL VEEDU, 2ND MILE STONE, KILIKOLLOOR P.O., KOLLAM.-4 BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO LABOUR & REHABILITATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES & BOILERS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES & BOILERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 20589 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 23rd July,2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is engaged in the business of buying raw cashew nuts and exports cashew kernels. He was desirous of setting up a factory under the name and style “A.R Cashews” at Kandachira in Kollam District. Chavara and filed Ext.P1 application in form No.1 prescribed under the Factory Rules. Requisite fee was remitted. By Ext.P3 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 consent letter for establishing a cashew factory issued by the Pollution Control Board y as evidenced by Ext.P7 & 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. 2. By Ext.P13, the petitioner was informed that W.P ( C) No. 20589 of 2009 2 the application for the grant of permission for the location of the site and construction of the factory is being refused on the ground that the documents are not complete. Hence the writ petition praying for appropriate reliefs. 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 Vs. STATE OF KERALA (1984 KLT 474), wherein this court indicated that the power exercisable by the licensing authority under the Factory Rules is to be so done without reference to any direction from the Government. 5. 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. The applicant cannot be met with Ext.P15 which simply does not say what the continuing defects are. That is not an appropriate exercise of power. W.P ( C) No. 20589 of 2009 3 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 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. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 20589 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No. 20589 of 2009 5