A communication denying renewal without notice is void; authorities must consider the applicant's response in accordance with the law.

J U D G M E N T

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P.8 communication.

Through this communication, the petitioner has been informed that his application for the renewal of his certificate of competence, which was valid until August 17, 2024, cannot be renewed due to the reasons mentioned in Ext.P8. Ext.P8 indicates that the communication was issued to the petitioner when he raised a complaint before the Chief Minister’s Grievance Cell regarding the non-consideration of his application for the renewal of his certificate of competence by the competent authority. Ext.P8 further indicates that two primary reasons are cited for the denial of the petitioner’s eligibility for the renewal of his certificate of competence. The first reason is that the petitioner was not adequately informed about the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 , and the Kerala Factories Rules. Additionally, he had to undergo four attempts to clear the interview for the renewal of his certificate of competence. The second reason cited is that the petitioner had surreptitiously failed to record the existence of a boiler at the factory of M/s Formal Trade Links LLP. This oversight resulted in an accident that tragically claimed the life of a worker. It is alleged that the petitioner submitted a plan for the issuance of a license to the factory where the blast occurred without mentioning the presence of a boiler. It is further asserted that had the existence of a boiler been duly noted in the plan submitted by the petitioner for approval, the accident could have been averted.

2. The learned counsel asserts that the petitioner was not responsible for any deficiencies in the plans submitted for the issuance/renewal of the license granted to M/s. Formal Trade Links LLP. It is submitted that the boiler in question was established in the factory of M/s. Formal Trade Links LLP after the inspection conducted by the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext. P9. Furthermore, it is submitted that prior to the issuance of Ext. P8, no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Additionally, it is submitted that the petitioner is a retired employee of the Factories and Boilers Department, possessing extensive expertise in the relevant field and yet, for reasons that remain undisclosed to the petitioner, the authorities have declined to renew the certificate of competence issued to the petitioner.

3. The learned Government Pleader contends that a reading of Ext.

P8 itself will reveal that the competent authority made a decision not to renew the certificate of competence granted to the petitioner for valid reasons. It is asserted that the petitioner’s failure to record the presence of a boiler in the factory premises of M/s Formal Trade Links LLP resulted in an accident that could have been prevented. The learned Government Pleader emphasises that the accident resulted in the unfortunate loss of a worker’s life. Consequently, it is argued that in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the renewal of the certificate of competence. However, the learned Government Pleader does not have a case that Ext. P8 was issued after issuing a show- cause notice to the petitioner.

4. Having considered the submissions across the Bar, I conclude that the Ext.P8 communication should be set aside. The findings recorded therein were so recorded without considering any contention of the petitioner and without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. Although it is mentioned that the petitioner was interviewed, it is evident from Ext.P8 that the issues concerning the blast which occurred at the factory premises of M/s. Formal Trade Links, which appear to be the primary reason for not renewing the