N MAHESHWAR NYNARU vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 100408 OF 2025 (GM-POL)
BETWEEN:
1. N. MAHESHWAR NYNARU
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. CORPORATION TRAINER
TH
R/O. 948 D, 9 MAIN, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT,
BAGANGALORE 560076.
2. SMT. K. PHANIKUMARI
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. RET. BANK EMPLOYEE
TH
R/O. 48 D, 9 MAIN, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT,
BAGANGALORE 560076.
3. SHRI G. MANI
AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. PHARMA MARKETING
TH
R/O. PLOT NO. 156, 9 MAIN ROAD,
SHRI SHANMUGA NAGAR,
MANNIVAKKAM, CHENNAI 600048.
4. SMT. ANANDIMANI
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER
TH
R/O. PLOT NO.156, 9 MAIN ROAD,
SHRI SHANMUGA NAGAR,
MANNIVAKKAM, CHENNAI 600048.
…PETITIONERS
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Digitally signed by
SAROJA HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
(BY SRI. P.B. SURESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VENKATESH m.
KHARVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY. DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES, BOILERS,
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT
R/O. II FLOOR KALAYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN
BANNERUGHATTA ROAD,
NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560029.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
2. SHRI VARUN R.
SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES
BALLARI DIVISION, DIST. BALLARI 583101
3. M/S. J.S.W VIJAYANAGAR METALLIC’S LTD.,
R/BY ITS CEO SHRI LOKENDRA RAJ SINGH
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. CEO AND OCCUPIER
R/O. J.S.W VIJAYANAGAR METALLICS LTD.
TORANGAL, TQ. SANDOOR, DIST. BALLARI 583119.
4. THE JOINT LABOUR COMMISSION
KARNATAKA BHAVAN,
BANGLORE 110021.
5. MEMBER SECRETARY
THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PARISARA BHAVAN,
NO. 49 CHURCH STREET, BANGLORE 580007.
6. SHRI SURAJ YAKKAL
VICE PRESIDENT OF M/S J.S.W METALLIC’S LTD.,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
HSM 3 PROJECT,
R/O. RAJA NILAYA, TALUKA OFFICE,
TQ. KARKAL, DIST. UDUPI.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1, R2, R4 AND R5;
SRI. K.G. RAGHUVAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRASHANT F.
GOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R6)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
OR ANY WRIT ORDER TO CANCEL/SET-ASIDE THE LICENSED ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE REFERENCE NO.MYBY1206 DATED
19/08/2024 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS
MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners in this petition are the parents of three
young employees at the factory being run by respondent
No.3, who unfortunately, met with an accident during the
course of their employment, resulting in their untimely
deaths, seeking following reliefs:
“a. Issue writ of Certiorari or any writ order to
cancel/Set-Aside the licensed issued by Respondent
No.1 vide reference No.MYBY1206, No.
DFB/RGN/CR-10/2024-25 dated 19/08/2024 to the
respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A in the interest of
justice and equity.
b. Issue Writ Of Mandamus directed the Respondent
No.1,2,4 and 5 to take suitable action aginst the
Respondent No.3 to non compliance of requirement
under the karnataja factories rules 1969 and
Factories act 1948.
c. That the Hon'ble High Court passed necessary order which
deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be passed.”
2. The case of the petitioners is that:
2.1. The respondent No.3 had commenced the operation of its
factory without obtaining proper licences and permissions
which are mandatorily required under the provisions of the
Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Factories Act’) and the Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Factories Rules’).
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
2.2. That the accident resulting death of their children had
occurred on 09.05.2024, whereas the licence to run the
factory was issued on 19.08.2024, giving retrospective
effect from date of application i.e. 27.03.2024.
2.3. The licence issued to respondent No.3 by the respondent
No.1-State is illegal, as the same purports to act
retrospectively, when no such specific provisions of law is
contained either in the Factories Act or in the Factories
Rules. That the respondent No.3 is utilising this
retrospective licence in the proceedings that are initiated
against them under Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Such utilization of an otherwise
unlawful licence is prejudicially affects the interests of the
petitioners, who have lost their children. It is on this
premise that the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Sri.P.B.Suresh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, reiterating the averments made in the petition,
took this Court through the records, in that he referred to
documents submitted by the respondent-State along with
the memo dated 08.09.2025, which was filed pursuant to
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
an order dated 28.07.2025 passed by this Court. Referring
to the documents at page Nos.4, 5, 10, 13, 15, 18, 22 and
24, he insisted that the repeated applications filed by the
respondent No.3, as required under Rule 3 of Factories
Rules as well as under Section 6 of the Factories Act, had
been rejected by the respondent-State primarily for the
reasons of non-compliance with statutory requirements.
3.1. He referred to provisions of Section 6 of the Factories Act,
emphasising the requirement of “previous permission in
writing of the State” as provided under clause [(aa)] of
sub-Section (1) of Section 6 the Factories Act. Reading the
same with Rule 3 of the Factories Rules, he emphatically
submits that there is an express prohibition to use any
location as a factory for any manufacturing process
without obtaining prior permission under the Factories Act.
3.2. He referred to sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the Factories
Act to contend that, since the applications filed by
respondent No.3 seeking issuance of licence had been
expressly rejected, respondent No.3 cannot even take
shelter under sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the Factories
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
Act, which provides for a deemed provision. He juxtaposed
these submissions with the date of incident i.e.
09.05.2024, in which the children of the petitioners had
died in an accident, to contend that these applications filed
and were rejected even prior to the date of the incident.
Therefore, he submits that Annexure-A, which is a
purported licence issued by the respondent-Authority upon
an application, though was issued on 19.08.2024, has
been given effect to from the date of application i.e.
27.03.2024, only to ensure that the illegalities committed
by the respondent No.3 in operating the factory without a
licence are protected and covered.
3.3. He submits that, if the effect of the said document is
allowed to continue, it would clothe the illegal activities of
respondent No.3 with legality and cause prejudice the
petitioners in pursuing their remedies in collateral
proceedings on account of the demise of their children.
Therefore, he submits that the petitioners have a
substantive interest in having the said document quashed.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
3.4. He further contends that if a statute provides for doing an
act in a particular manner, it has be done in that manner
alone and no other. Thus, he submits that, since Section 6
of the Factories Act and Rule 3 of the Factories Rules
mandate obtaining a licence prior to commencement of
any operation and expressly prohibit any such operation,
the respondent-State ought not to have issued the licence
contained in Annexure-A with retrospective effect. Hence,
seeks allowance of the petition.
3.5. He also refers to the contents of the statement of
objections filed by the State, more particularly paragraph
16, wherein the respondent-State has pleaded that the
accident occurred due to the non-implementation of
precautionary and safety measures in the factory. He
submits that, when no licence had been issued by the
respondent-Authorities in the first place, even the said
admission comes to the aid of the petitioners.
3.6. He then refers to the statement of objections filed by
respondent No.3, particularly paragraph 13, and submits
that, even according to respondent No.3, an application
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
was made on 27.03.2024 and the prescribed fee for grant
of registration was paid on that date, but the application
was initially rejected on 17.06.2024. Thus, even according
to respondent No.3, no licence had been issued as on
17.06.2024. He then refers to the additional statement of
objections filed by the respondents and submits that they
have taken a completely new stand, questioning the
competence of the State to promulgate the Rules. He
submits that such a stand is not available to the
respondents, as the respondents have not sought any
relief questioning the vires of the Rules. Hence, seeks for
allowing of the petition.
3.7. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the following
judgments:
(i) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh
and Others reported in 1963 SCC OnLine
SC 23 ,
(ii) Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka
reported in (2001) 4 SCC 9,
(iii) Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti
Chavare and Others reported in (1973) 1
SCC 559 ,
(iv) J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka 2014)
2 SCC 401,
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
(v) Independent Sugar Corporation Limited v.
Girish Sriram Juneja and Others reported
in (2025) 5 SCC 209.
4. Learned HCGP, referring to a document at page No.28 of
the memo dated 08.09.2025, submits that a site
inspection was conducted by the Director, Department of
Factories, Boilers, Industrial Safety and Health, Bengaluru
on 22.02.2024, in furtherance of the provisions of
Section 41-B(4) of the Factories Act. He submits that
necessary instructions were issued to respondent No.3 to
ensure that those conditions were to be fulfilled and
complied with before commencement of the operation.
Thus, he submits that the authorities had taken all
necessary precautions required under law in discharging
their obligations.
5. Sri.K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.3 through video conferencing, at the outset
submits that:
5.1. There is no provision under the Factories Act or the
Factories Rules requiring a licence to be obtained prior to
commencement of the operation. He refers to the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
definition of the term “factory” as defined under Section
2(m) of the Factories Act, to submit that the said definition
contemplates an existing factory with a prescribed number
of workers, which indicates that, as on the date of coming
into force of the Act, even existing factories were
considered to be factories within the meaning of the
definition, without insisting on the requirement of
obtaining a licence.
5.2. He then refers to Section 7 of the Factories Act to submit
that all that is required for a person to commence the
operation of a factory is to issue a notice as contemplated
under Section 7 of the Factories Act. Reading into the
provisions of Section 6 of the Factories Act, the learned
Senior Counsel insists even the said provision only provide
for the power of the State Government to frame the Rules
and does not insist operation to be commenced only after
obtaining the licence.
5.3. Referring to Rule 4 of Factories Rules, he insists that the
said Rule does not expressly provide the date from which a
licence, if any, has to be issued. He submits that, since
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
Form No.3 is referred to under Rule 5 of the Factories
Rules, and the said Form No.3 contains a column providing
for the date of issue, there is no express bar on the State
issuing a backdated licence.
5.4. Referring to Rule 7-A of the Factories Rules, he submits
that through the Chief Inspector and the Deputy Chief
Inspector are authorised under the said Rule to revoke the
licence on any grounds, it does not specify the grounds.
Therefore, he submits that the petitioners cannot assume
that issuance of back dated licence to be a ground enough
for revocation of the licence, as contended in the writ
petition.
5.5. He refers to Sections 87 and 87(a) of the Factories Act to
point out that the State Government is vested with the
power to issue directions if it is of the opinion that the
operations being carried on in the factory are dangerous or
involve serious hazards. That even these provisions do not
provide for or contemplate the requirement of a licence.
5.6. He then refers to Section 92 of the Factories Act to
contend that, even assuming there was no licence or there
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
was any violation of provisions the Factories Act, the Act
contemplates only the punishment prescribed thereunder
and nothing beyond.
5.7. Referring to these provisions, he concludes that the relief
sought by the petitioners for revocation of the licence is
not traceable to any provision of either the Factories Act or
the Factories Rules.
5.8. Alternatively, he submits that, if the petitioners are the
apprehensive that the said licence will be utilised in the
collateral proceedings, it is open to them to bring these
lacunae to the notice of the authority or the Judicial
Magistrate before whom such collateral proceeding are
being considered, leaving the matter for adjudication by
the concerned Magistrate. Thus, opposing the submissions,
of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, he seeks for
rejection of the writ petition.
6. Heard. Perused the records.
7. The points that arise for consideration are that:
(i) Whether obtaining previous permission/approval in
writing for the site to be used as factory, so also
obtaining registration and licence is mandatory, before
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
using any premises as a factory or commencing any
manufacturing process?
(ii) Whether the Factories Act, 1948 and the Factories
Rules, 1969, provide for issue of licence with
retrospective effect?
(iii) Whether issuance of licence with retrospective effect will
be a ground for its cancellation or revocation?
(iv) What order?
Regarding Point No(i):-
8. Section 6 of the Factories Act reads as under:-
“ 6. Approval, licensing and registration of
factories .— (1) The State Government may make rules—
[(a) requiring, for the purposes of this Act, the
submission of plans of any class or description of
factories to the Chief Inspector or the State
Government;]
[(aa)] requiring, the previous permission in writing
of the State Government or the Chief Inspector to
be obtained for the site on which the factory is to
be situated and for the construction or extension of
any factory or class or description of factories;
(b) requiring for the purpose of considering
applications for such permission the submission of
plans and specifications;
(c) prescribing the nature of such plans and
specifications and by whom they shall be certified;
(d) requiring the registration and licensing of
factories or any class or description of factories,
and prescribing the fees payable for such
registration and licensing and for the renewal of
licences;
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
(e) requiring that no licence shall be granted or
renewed unless the notice specified in section 7
has been given.
(2) If on an application for permission referred to in
[clause (aa)] of sub-section (1) accompanied by the
plans and specifications required by the rules made
under clause (b) of that sub-section, sent to the State
Government or Chief Inspector by registered post, no
order is communicated to the applicant within three
months from the date on which it is so sent, the
permission applied for in the said application shall be
deemed to have been granted.
(3) Where a State Government or a Chief Inspector
refuses to grant permission to the site, construction or
extension of a factory or to the registration and
licensing of a factory, the applicant may within thirty
days of the date of such refusal appeal to the Central
Government if the decision appealed from was of the
State Government and to the State Government in any
other case.
Explanation. —A factory shall not be deemed to be
extended within the meaning of this section by reason
only of the replacement of any plant or machinery, or
within such limits as may be prescribed, of the addition
of any plant or machinery [if such replacement or
addition does not reduce the minimum clear space
required for safe working around the plant or
machinery or adversely affect the environmental
conditions from the evolution or emission of steam,
heat or dust or fumes injurious to health].
9. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions indicates that the State
Government is authorized to make rules pertaining to the
aspects encapsulated thereunder. Pertinent to note that
clause [(aa)] of sub-section (1) of the aforesaid Section
specifically provide for the requirement of obtaining
previous permission.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
10. Plain reading of the said provision indicates that the State
Government is required to frame rules requiring previous
permissions in writing of the State Government or the
Chief Inspector to be obtained for the site on which a
factory is to be situated and for construction or extension
of any factory or class or description of factories. Clearly,
any person who intends to establish a factory or undertake
the construction or extension of any factory or class or
description of the factories is required to obtain a prior
permission.
11. Rule 3 of Factories Rules 1969 read as under:
3. Approval of site, construction or
extension of a factory. -(1) No site shall be used
for the location of a factory nor shall any building
be constructed, reconstructed, or extended or
taken into use as a factory or part of a factory, nor
shall any manufacturing process be carried on in
any building constructed, reconstructed or
extended without the previous permission in writing
of the Chief Inspector. The previous permission, in
writing, of the Chief Inspector shall also be
obtained for the installation of additional machinery
or for the installation of prime movers exceeding
the horse power already installed in the factory.
(2) Application for permission under sub-rule
(1) shall be made in Form No. 1 (in triplicate) (or
through department online portal “e-surakshate)
along with a fee of [rupees five hundred) for
factories employing upto 500 workers and [rupees
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
one thousand) and shall be accompanied by the
following documents, namely.—
(a) A flow chart of the manufacturing process
supplemented by a detailed description of
the process in its various stages, (including
the chemicals used, if any, in the various
stages of the process and the steps
proposed to be taken for effective removal
of dust, fumes, gases and regarding the
proper and effective disposal of trade
wastes and effluents);
(b) Plans in triplicate drawn to scale
showing,—
(i) the site of the factory and immediate
surroundings including adjacent
buildings and other structures, roads,
drains and the like;
(ii) the plan, elevation and necessary
cross sections of the various buildings,
indicating all relevant details relating
to natural lighting, ventilation, and
means of escape in case of fire; and
(iii) The position of the plant and
machinery, aisles and passageways;
(c) A certificate from the Karnataka State
Pollution Control Board, to the effect that
arrangements are made for the disposal of
industrial liquid wastes, effluents and air
pollutants in the case of 3 [factories
engaged in hazardous processes] and that
the steps taken for proper disposal of waste
and effluents are effective.
[Provided that in respect of industrial
undertakings whose projects are approved either
by State High Level Clearance Committee or State
Level single Window Clearance Committee or
District Level Single Window Clearance Committee,
application for permission under sub-rule (1) shall
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
be in the Combined Application Form along with the
fee and documents specified in this rule.]
(3) The Chief Inspector may call for such other
particulars as he may require.
(4) After examination of the documents referred to
in sub-rule (2) and particulars called for, if any,
under sub-rule (3), [and ensuring the compliance
of Building Bye-Laws of the Karnataka Industrial
Area Development Board or any Local Authority, as
the case may be] the Chief Inspector may accord
the permission applied for, subject to such
conditions as he may consider necessary.
(5) The fact that the permission applied for is
accorded shall be noted on the plans and
specifications and shall be signed by the Chief
Inspector. One copy of the said plans and
specifications shall be returned to the applicant.
(6) (a) A factory or a part of a factory constructed,
reconstructed, extended or taken into use as a
factory, shall be in accordance with the plans
approved by the Chief Inspector, and shall
satisfy the conditions subject to which the
plans have been approved.
(b) No machine or prime mover or a
permanent fixture, not shown in the plans
approved by the Chief Inspector, shall be
installed, fixed or used in any factory except in
replacement of any machine, prime mover or
permanent fixture not occupying more floor
area than that already shown in the approved
plans.
(7) The plans and layouts of factory building shall
be prepared by a person possessing a degree or a
diploma in Civil Engineering or an equivalent
qualification.
(8) After the date of commencement of the
Karnataka Factories (Amendment) Rules, 1993, no
manufacturing process shall be carried on in any
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
factory constructed, extended or taken into use as
a factory or part of a factory unless a certificate of
stability in Form No. 1-A in respect of the building
is issued by a person possessing a degree in
Structural or Civil Engineering.
[(9) No manufacturing Process shall be
carried out in any premises of a factory unless a
fresh certificate to stability in Form - IA is obtained
from a competent person processing a degree in
Structural or Civil Engineering, once in every five
years.]
12. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules reveals that they
exhaustively lay down the procedure for granting approval
of site, construction or extension of factory.
13. Form No.1-A is the prescribed Form for issuance of
approval. The said Form No.1-A carries the title ‘Form of
Certificate of Stability’ . The said Form is extracted
hereunder.
1 [Form No. 1-A
[See Rule 3(8)]
Form of Certificate of Stability
1 Name of the factory
2 Village, town and district in
which the factory is situated
3 Full postal address of the
factory
4 Name of the occupier of the
factory
5 Nature of manufacturing
process to be carried on in the
factory
6 Number of floors on which
workers will be employed
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
I, certify that I have inspected the buildings on
the………… day of.....19……in……which……………is housed and
examined the various parts including the foundations as shown
in the complete plans sent to the Chief Inspector for approval
under Rule 3(2), with special reference to the machinery, plant,
etc., that have been installed. I am of opinion that the buildings
have been constructed/extended in accordance with the plans
sent to Chief Inspector, by the management of M/s……………
vide their letter No……… dated ....... that they are structurally
sound and that its stability will not be endangered by its use as
a factory for the manufacture of …………… process for which the
machinery, plant, etc., installed are intended.
(Signature)
Place:
Date: Name, Designation and Qualifications
Exceptions :- Nothing in this rule shall apply to factories
notified under sub-section (1) of Section 85 unless it is
specifically required by the Chief Inspector.
14. Thus, a combine reading of clause [(aa)] of sub-Section
(1) of Section 6 of the Factories Act, read with relevant
Rule and the contents of the statutory Form No.1-A
extracted hereinabove, makes it clear that, before
commencing any operation, a person intending to start a
factory is required to obtain permission/approval of the
site plan, without which the person cannot proceed to
commence the operations.
15. This is further evident even from the records submitted by
the respondent-State, to which the learned HCGP has
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
drawn the attention of this Court. At page 28, is approval
accorded to the on site-emergencey plan in furtherance of
Section 41-B(4) of the Factories Act. The said document
reads as under:
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
PÁSÁð£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÁAiÀÄÌgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¸ÀÄgÀPÀëvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Áé¸ÀÜå E¯ÁSÉ
080-26531200
¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ,
[email protected]
2£Éà ªÀĺÀr, PÀ¯Áåt-¸ÀÄgÀPÁë ¨sÀªÀ£À,
www.esuraksha.karnataka.
qÉÊj ªÀÈvÀ, §£ÉßÃgÀÄWÀlÖ gÀ¸ÉÛ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-29.
_______________________________________________________
¸ÀA:¹J¸ïJA¹/JAJºÉZï¹/¹Dgï-137/23-24
¢£ÁAPÀ: 22-02-2024
¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÁSÁð£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÁAiÀÄègÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¸ÀÄgÀPÀëvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Áé¸ÀÜå E¯ÁSÉ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, EªÀgÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ
«µÀAiÀÄ: PÁSÁð£ÉUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ 1948gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt 41©(4) gÀrAiÀÄ°è D£ï-
¸ÉÊmï JªÀÄeÉð¤ì ¥Áè£ï C£ÀÄß C£ÀĪÉÆâ¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.
G¯ÉèÃR: DqÀ½vÀ ªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 17-02-2024.
²æÃ. PÉ. ²æäªÁ¸ï, PÁSÁð£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÁAiÀÄègÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¸ÀÄgÀPÀëvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¸Áé¸ÀÜå E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÁSÁð£ÉUÀ¼À PÁAiÉÄÝ 1948gÀ
¥ÀæPÀgÀt 41©(4) gÀrAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁVgÀĪÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄvÁÛ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ
M/s. JSW Vijayanagar Metallics Limited, Bellary District.
µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É F
PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ D£ï-¸ÉÊmï JªÀÄeÉð¤ì ¥Áè£ï C£ÀÄß C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
1. PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ°è G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀĪÀ C¥ÁAiÀÄPÁj gÁ¸ÁAiÀĤPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, CªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ
±ÉÃRgÀuÁ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðzÀ°è §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀiÁzÁUÀ CxÀªÁ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj
PÁAiÀiÁðZÀgÀuÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ GvÁàzÀ£Á ZÀlĪÀnPÉAiÀÄ°è
ªÀÄvÁÛªÀÅzÉà §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉUÀ¼ÁzÀ°è CªÀÅUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ,
PÁSÁð£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÁAiÀÄègÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¸ÀÄgÀPÀëvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Áé¸ÀÜå E¯ÁSÉ
gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉAiÀĨÉÃPÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj
§zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ D£ï-¸ÉÊmï JªÀÄeÉð¤ì ¥Áè£ï C£ÀÄß
C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀĨÉÃPÀÄ.
2. ¥Àj¸ÀgÀ gÀPÀëuÉ, PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄgÀPÀëvÉ §UÉÎ ºÉaÑ£À DzÀåvÉ
¤Ãr, ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ J¯Áè ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖ¤mÁÖV ¥Á°¹,
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
C¥ÀWÁvÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¤nÖ£À°è ¸ÁzsÀåªÁzÀ J¯Áè PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ.
3. PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ J¯Áè PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀjUÀÆ PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ°è
¸ÀA¨sÀ«¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ¸ÀA¨sÀªÀ¤ÃAiÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀ, CzÀjAzÁUÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ
C¥ÁAiÀÄ, vÀÄvÀÄð ¥Àj¹ÜwUÀ¼À°è vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁzÀ PÀæªÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀÄvÀÄð
¥Àj¹ÜwUÀ¼À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ºÁUÀÆ D£ï-¸ÉÊmï JªÀÄeÉð¤ì ¥Áè£ï£À §UÉÎ
ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr ¤AiÉÆÃfvÀ dªÁ¨ÁÝjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ vÀgÀ¨ÉÃw
¤Ãr ¸À£ÀßzÀÝvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß SÁvÀj¥Àr¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ. ºÉƸÀzÁV PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃgÀĪÀ
J¯Áè PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀjUÀÆ F §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀgÀ¨ÉÃwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀ PÀæªÀÄ
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ.
Fire Evacuation Drill
4. ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀ¤µÀ× ¥Àæw JgÀqÀÄ wAUÀ½UÉƪÉÄä
£ÀqɸÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ vÀÄvÀÄð ¤UÀðªÀÄ£À ºÁUÀÆ CVß±ÁªÀÄPÀ
G¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼À §¼ÀPÉ PÀÄjvÀÄ vÀgÀ¨ÉÃw ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
5. PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄvÀÛªÀÄÄvÀÛ EgÀĪÀ PÁSÁð£ÉUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ
PÁSÁð£É¬ÄAzÀ MzÀV§gÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ C¥ÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr,
vÀÄvÀÄð ¥Àj¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è CªÀgÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸ÀÄgÀPÀëvÁ PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ
CjªÀÅ ªÀÄÆr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
6. PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ ºÀAvÀ ºÀAvÀªÁV ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ aQvÉìAiÀÄ°è vÀgÀ¨ÉÃw ¤ÃqÀ®Ä
PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ.
7. C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹zÀ D£ï-¸ÉÊmï JªÀÄeÉð¤ì ¥Áè£ï£À C£ÀĵÁ×£À PÀÄjvÀAvÉ D£ï-
¸ÉÊmï JªÀÄeÉð¤ì ªÀiÁPïræ¯ï C£ÀÄß ¥Àæw DgÀÄ(06) wAUÀ½UÉƪÉÄä vÀ¥ÀàzÉÃ
PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ, F E¯ÁSÉUÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ªÀgÀ¢
ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
¸À»
(PÉ. ²æäªÁ¸ï)
¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ,
PÁSÁð£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÁAiÀÄÝgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÊUÁjPÁ
¸ÀÄgÀPÀëvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Áé¸ÀÜå E¯ÁSÉ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
EªÀjUÉ,
Occupier/Manager,
M/s. JSW Vijayanagar Metallics Limited,
Vijayanagar Post-583 275,
Toranagallu Village, Sandur Taluk,
Bellary District.
¥Àæw:
PÁSÁð£ÉUÀ¼À »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, §¼Áîj «¨sÁUÀ, §¼Áîj.”
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
16. Relevant also to note provisions of Section 41-B of the
Factories Act, which reads as under:
41B. Compulsory disclosure of information
by the occupier .—(1) The occupier of every
factory involving a hazardous process shall
disclose in the manner prescribed all information
regarding dangers, including health hazards and
the measures to overcome such hazards arising
from the exposure to or handling of the
materials or substances in the manufactures,
transportation, storage and other processes, to
the workers employed in the factory, the Chief
Inspector, the local authority within whose
jurisdiction the factory is situate and the general
public in the vicinity.
(2) The occupier shall, at the time of
registering the factory involving a hazardous
process, lay down a detailed policy with respect
to the health and safety of the workers
employed therein and intimate such policy to the
Chief Inspector and the local authority and,
thereafter, at such intervals as may be
prescribed, inform the Chief Inspector and the
local authority of any change made in the said
policy.
(3) The information furnished under sub-
section (1) shall include accurate information as
to the quantity, specification and other
characteristics of wastes and the manner of their
disposal.
(4) Every occupier shall, with the approval
of the Chief Inspector, draw up an on-site
emergency plan and detailed disaster control
measures for his factory and make known to the
workers employed therein and to the general
public living in the vicinity of the factory the
safety measures required to be taken in the
event of an accident taking place.
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
(5) Every occupier of a factory shall,—
(a) if such factory engaged in a hazardous
process on the commencement of the
Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987 (20 of
1987), within a period of thirty days of
such commencement; and
(b) if such factory proposes to engaged in
a hazardous process at any time after
such commencement, within a period of
thirty days before the commencement of
such process,
inform the Chief Inspector of the nature
and details of the process in such form and in
such manner as may be prescribed.
(6) Where any occupier of a factory
contravenes the provisions of sub-section (5),
the licence issued under section 6 to such
factory shall, notwithstanding any penalty to
which the occupier or factory shall be subjected
to under the provisions of this Act, be liable for
cancellation.
(7) The occupier of a factory involving a
hazardous process shall, with the previous
approval of the Chief Inspector, lay down
measures for the handling, usage, transportation
and storage of hazardous substances inside the
factory premises and the disposal of such
substances outside the factory premises and
publicise them in the manner prescribed among
the workers and the general public living in the
vicinity.
17. The said Section falls under Chapter IV-A, which contains
provisions relating to hazardous process.
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
18. Section 41-A of the Factories Act also becomes relevant for
the purpose of application of the facts involved in this
case. The said Section reads as under:
“41A. Constitution of Site Appraisal
Committee.— (1) The State Government may,
for purposes of advising it to consider
applications for grant of permission for the initial
location of a factory involving a hazardous
process or for the expansion of an such factory,
appoint a Site Appraisal Committee consisting
of—
(a) the Chief Inspector of the State who shall be
its Chairman;
(b) a representative of the Central Board for the
Prevention and Control of Water Pollution
appointed by the Central Government under
section 3 of the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974);
(c) a representative of the Central Board for the
Prevention and Control of Air Pollution referred
to in section 3 of the Air (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981);
(d) a representative of the State Board
appointed under section 4 of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
(6 of 1974);
(e) a representative of the State Board for the
Prevention and Control of Air Pollution referred
to in section 5 of the Air (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981);
(f) a representative of the Department of
Environment in the State;
(g) a representative of the Meteorological
Department of the Government of India;
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
(h) an expert in the field of occupational health;
and
(i) a representative of the Town Planning
Department of the State Government,
and not more than five other members
who may be co-opted by the State Government
who shall be—
(i) a scientist having specialised
knowledge of the hazardous
process which will be
involved in the factory,
(ii) a representative of the local
authority within whose
jurisdiction the factory is to
be established, and
(iii) not more than three other
persons as deemed fit by the
State Government.
(2) The Site Appraisal Committee shall
examine an application for the establishment of
a factory involving hazardous process and make
its recommendation to the State Government
within a period of ninety days of the receipt of
such application in the prescribed form.
(3) Where any process relates to a factory
owned or controlled by the Central Government
or to a corporation or a company owned or
controlled by the Central Government, the State
Government shall co-opt in the Site Appraisal
Committee a representative nominated by the
Central Government as a member of that
Committee.
(4) The Site Appraisal Committee shall
have power to call for any information from the
person making an application for the
establishment or expansion of a factory involving
a hazardous process.
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
(5) Where the State Government has
granted approval to an application for the
establishment or expansion of a factory involving
a hazardous process, it shall not be necessary
for an applicant to obtain a further approval
from the Central Board or the State Board
established under the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974) and
the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981 (14 of 1981).”
19. There is no dispute that the factory in question belonging
to the respondent No.3 is carrying on activities which are
classified as one involving hazardous process. Therefore,
admittedly the Director of the Factories has apparently
conducted the site inspection on 22.02.2024 and has
issued instructions, as noted hereinabove.
20. As regards the licence for operation is concerned, the
same is dealt with under Rules 4 and 5 of Factories Rules,
1969. The said Rules read as under:
“ [4. Application for registration and grant
of licence .- [(1) The occupier of every factory
shall submit, to the Chief Inspector or
Jurisdiction Officer an application in Form 2 (in
triplicate) or through department online portal
"e-surakshate" for registration of factory and
grant of licence along with the list of Partners or
Directors.]
(2) No premises shall be used as a factory
nor any manufacturing process be carried
on in any factory except and in accordance
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
with, the registration and licence granted
under these rules.
(3) The plans approved by the Chief Inspector
under Rule 3, and the licence granted by him
under Rule 5 shall be readily available in the
factory for inspection of the Inspector.
5. Grant of licence. - (1) A licence for a factory
may be granted by the Chief Inspector in Form
No. 3, on [fees specified in the Tables "A" and
"B"].
(2) A licence may be granted or renewed, under
2
this chapter, for such period not exceeding [ten
years] at a time, as may be specified at the time
of such grant or renewal.
(3) In case of factories working for part of a year
and commencing work on or after First day of
July, the fees to be charged for the first time
shall be half of that specified in the Tables A and
B subject to a minimum of rupees forty-five.
(4) Where the Chief Inspector refuses to grant
or renew a licence, he shall record, in writing,
the reasons for such refusal and communicate
the same to the occupier.
(5) If, on an application for registration and
grant of licence, sent to the Chief Inspector by
registered post, no order is communicated to the
applicant within three months from the date on
which it is so sent, the registration and grant of
licence applied for in the said application shall be
deemed to have been granted.”
21. The above noted Factories Rules, 1969 in Rule 5(2),
mandate that the licence be granted or renewed for a
period from the time and date when it is specified therein,
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
indicating the date and time from which the licence is
required to be issued and becomes operational.
22. Therefore, reading of the aforesaid provisions of law makes
it clear that no person intending to start a factory as
defined under the Act, more particularly carrying on the
activities involving hazards process can be allowed to
contend that there is no need or necessary to obtain any
permission or approval in the nature of a site plan and
registration and licence before setting up the factory and
commencing the operation.
23. Settled principles of the rule of construction that each word
used in a statute or rules has to be given its natural
meaning and effect which it carries. It would be
preposterous to accept the contention to the act does not
mandate obtaining such prior permission, registration and
licence.
Point No.(i) is answered accordingly.
Regarding point No.(ii):
24. It is the vehement contention of learned Senior Counsel of
respondent No.3 that there is no express bar in the statute
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
for the State issuing a backdated licence. Despite repeated
queries by this Court as to the provision which specifically
provides for the issuance of a licence retrospectively, there
has been no convincing answer. No specific provisions of
law providing for the issuance of a licence retrospectively,
is brought to the notice of this Court by the respondents.
25. On the contrary, as already noted above, it is the
vehement contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing
for respondent No.3 that the Act itself does not require
obtaining licence prior to commencement of the operation.
This Court is not persuaded by said submission particularly
in the light of the relevant provisions of law referred to
herein above and the answer to the point No.(i).
26. The aforesaid discussions and analysis would indicate that
the Factories Act and the Factories Rules have not
conferred any express power or authority on the
respondent-Authorities to issue retrospective licence.
Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly.
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
Regarding point No.(iii):
27. The other question which requires consideration is whether
the grounds urged by the petitioner would result in
revocation of the licence. The provision provided under the
Act for revocation of licence is Rule 7-A of the Factories
Rules, read as under:
“[ 7-A. Revocation of licence. – The Chief
Inspector or the Deputy Chief Inspector may, at
any time before the expiry of the period for
which the licence has been granted or renewed,
revoke the licence on any of the grounds:
Provided before revoking any licence, the
licensee shall be given an opportunity to show
cause, as to why the licence should not be
revoked.]”
28. Rule 7-A, as seen does not provide for any specific
ground/s and keeps it open to the absolute discretion of
the officers noted therein for the purpose of revocation.
29. In any event, in the considered view of this Court, the
issuance of a licence retrospectively cannot be a ground
for revoking, cancelling or setting aside the licence as
sought for in this writ petition.
30. In view of there being no express provision for the
issuance of a licence with retrospective effect and in the
absence of any specific ground of revocation or
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
cancellation of licence on that context and in the light of
provision of Rule-7-A as noted above, this Court deems it
appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by relegating
the matter to the respondent-Authorities to reconsider the
application of the respondent No.3, more particularly, as to
whether a licence can be issued retrospectively or not,
keeping in mind the provisions of law quoted hereinabove
and the observation made in the course of this order.
31. The petitioners are at liberty to submit their response to
the concerned authorities.
32. Respondent No.3 is also at liberty to submit its response to
the concerned Authority.
Point No.(iii) is answered accordingly.
Regarding point No.(iv):
33. Reverting to the case at hand, the facts and the
submissions noted above, along with the documents
produced, indicate that the applications which are filed by
the respondent No.3 for issuance of a licence and approval
of the site plan have been rejected on more than four
occasions. Even as admitted by respondent No.3, the
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:12344
WP No. 100408 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020227892024
application filed on 27.03.2024 was rejected in the month
of June, 2024. Therefore, as on the date when the
unfortunate incident had taken place i.e. on 09.05.2024,
there was neither an approved site plan nor was there any
licence.
34. Learned Senior Counsel on instruction submits that the
petitioners would not press relief on prayer-B.
35. The petition, insofar as the relief sought under prayer-B is
concerned, is dismissed as withdrawn.
36. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
RHR/-CT:cmu
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 96