An industry cannot operate without a valid statutory license; however, access may be granted for necessary removal of goods.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the operation of Ext P4 Stop memo issued by the 2nd respondent;

ii. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the Ext P6 rejection letter issued by the 2nd respondent;

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to conduct the work as per Ext P3 letter issued by the 4th respondent; forthwith;

iv. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to remove the stock kept at the industry and conduct routine maintenance of the machinery; forthwith;

v. issue such other writ, order or direction which may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;

vi. dispense with the translation of the document produced in the Vernacular Language” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is the proprietor of an agro-based industry by name ‘T.J. Traders’ engaged in the sorting and drying of areca nuts, which falls under the category of Green Industry is the submission. The petitioner was conducting the business on the strength of a valid license issued by the Department of Industries and Commerce valid up to 09.10.2026 is the further submission. However, the said license was subsequently cancelled by the District Collector on the ground that the petitioner had not obtained the required certification from the 4th respondent. Consequent to the cancellation, the 2^nd respondent issued a stop memo restraining the functioning of the unit because there is no valid license and also complaints from the neighbouring residents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.2711/2025, wherein the operation of the stop memo was stayed, which was later modified as per Ext.P3.

3. This Court in Ext.P2 observed that the pendency of the writ petition and the interim order passed by this Court would not preclude the Pollution Control Board in initiating appropriate action against the petitioner from operating without valid consent. Subsequently, the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to approach this Court in case of a fresh cause of action arises. It is submitted that an inspection was conducted by the 4^th respondent on 14.01.2026 pursuant to the petitioner’s application for consent to operate. Thereafter, a communication dated 13.02.2026 was issued directing the petitioner to carry out certain modification in the unit, as evident by Ext.P3. While so, the 1^st respondent issued stop memo as evident by Ext.P4 and proceeded to seal the premises, restraining the petitioner from entering the unit or carrying on any activity until all statutory license were obtained. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 16.03.2026 before the 2^nd respondent seeking limited permission to remove the existing stock of areca nuts, carry out maintenance of machinery and to do the needful as directed by the 4^th respondent as per Ext.P3.

However, the said request was rejected by Ext.P6 communication dated 19.03.2026. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

4. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board.

5. It is an admitted fact that there is no license to the petitioner as on today from the statutory authorities. Therefore, there is no question of continuing the industry by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the arec