After Parents of 3 Workers Killed Challenge Retrospective Factory Licence, Karnataka HC Finds No Express Power and Sends Issue Back for Review

The petitioners, whose children died in an accident at the factory operated by respondent No. 3, challenged a factory licence issued on 19 August 2024 with effect from the application date, 27 March 2024.

The accident occurred on 9 May 2024; the petitioners contended that the factory had no approved site plan or licence at that time and that the retrospective effect was unlawful and could prejudice related proceedings.

The State’s records showed that an on-site emergency plan had been approved in February 2024, while the parties disputed whether prior approval and licensing were required before operations began.

The petitioners sought to quash the licence and, among other relief, to compel regulatory action.

Section 6(1)(aa) of the Factories Act authorises rules requiring prior written permission for a factory site and its construction or extension; Section 6(1)(d) concerns factory registration and licensing.

Rule 3 of the Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 requires prior written permission for the site and prohibits manufacturing at premises constructed, extended or used as a factory without that permission.

Rule 4(2) prohibits using premises as a factory or carrying on a manufacturing process except in accordance with the registration and licence granted under the Rules; Rule 5 governs the grant and duration of licences and provides for deemed grant in specified circumstances.

Rule 7-A permits the Chief Inspector or Deputy Chief Inspector to revoke a licence, after giving the licensee an opportunity to show cause, but specifies no particular grounds.

The Court found no provision expressly authorising retrospective licensing.

Sections 41-A and 41-B, concerning hazardous-process factories, were also considered in light of the nature of the factory and the emergency-plan approval.

Reading Section 6 together with Rule 3, the Court held that prior site permission was required, and Rule 4(2) expressly required registration and a licence before the premises could be used as a factory or manufacturing could be carried on.

The Court rejected respondent No. 3’s argument that the legislation did not require prior licensing and found no statutory authority for issuing a licence retrospectively.

The record indicated that, on the date of the accident, there was no approved site plan or licence, notwithstanding the earlier emergency-plan approval.

However, the Court held that retrospective issuance, by itself, was not a ground for revocation under Rule 7-A.

It therefore directed the authorities to reconsider the application, including whether a licence could be issued retrospectively, having regard to the statutory provisions and the Court’s observations.

It did not quash the licence; instead, it remitted the matter to the authorities for reconsideration of whether retrospective issuance was permissible, allowing both the petitioners and respondent No. 3 to submit responses.

The petitioners withdrew their request for mandamus under prayer B, and that part of the petition was dismissed as withdrawn; the writ petition was otherwise disposed of with the stated observations.