Trade licence rejection invalid without verified pollution evidence; must rely on official inspections, not complaints.

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 08.10.2025 issued by the second respondent, whereby the petitioner’s application for issuance/renewal of a trade licence came to be rejected based on a representation submitted by the fifth respondent stating that the petitioner was running a sawmill, resulting in noise and air pollution.

2.The petitioner had earlier been granted a trade licence;

however, the application for renewal of the same was rejected through the impugned proceedings.

3.Respondents 3 and 4 filed a counter affidavit stating that, upon inspection of the property, it was found that the petitioner was not running a sawmill, but was engaged only in carpentry work, and that no machinery had been installed. The petitioner’s unit was involved only in the making of doors and windows. Apart from this, there was no report from the fourth respondent to establish that the carpentry work carried out by the petitioner had resulted in air pollution or noise nuisance. Therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent are not legally sustainable.

4.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.203/2024/A2 is hereby set aside. The second respondent is directed to grant a trade licence to the petitioner forthwith, subject to the petitioner paying the requisite fee.

5.It is made clear that the petitioner shall not use any light or heavy machinery for carrying out carpentry or woodwork in the said premises. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.