JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It owns the factory and is engaged in manufacturing activity. The owner of the factory has a right to nominate someoneas 'occupier' of the factory for the purpose of obtaining licence to run a factory in terms of Section 6 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rules 4,6 and 7 of the M.P. Factories Rules, 1962. The owner of the factory duly nominated and designated S.R.R. Subramaniam its Managing Director to be the occupier in respect of the aforesaid factory at Pithampur. The licence was granted in Feb. 90. The Factory thereafter commenced production. The licence is renewable every year. It was renewed on March 17, 1993 (Annexure P/1). The Factories Act, 1948 was amended in 1987. The aforesaid person found it difficult to ensure day to day affairs on various procedural law and regulations relating to the factory. Consequently at meeting held on June 20, 1993 the Board of Directors of the petitioner passed resolution designating S.R. Navalgund, Deputy General Manager, to be occupier in terms of the aforesaid provision. This resolution was duly certified under Section 54 of the Factories Act, 1956 (Annexure P/2). On October 30, 1993, the petitioners intimated the change of the name of the occupier to the respondent No. 1 in writing (Annexure P/3). The petitioner also applied in prescribed form No. 4 for renewal of licence for the year 1994 (Annexure P/4). In this application S.R. Navalgund was shown to be the occupier in place of S.R.R. Subramaniam. The respondent No. 1 issued the notice dated June 3, 1994 (Annex. P/5) intimating the petitioner that the application (Annexure P/4) did not contain signature of the Director and that S.R. Navalgund was not Director of the Company. This is how renewal of licence was not granted. Aggrieved by this letter (Annexure P/5) the petitioner filed this writ petition for appropriate direction. 2. I have heard both the sides. 3. Section 2(m) of the Factories Act as amended provides that 'occupier' of a factory means a person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. By resolution dated June 28, 1993 it was indicated that aforesaid S.R. Navalgund is designated to be a person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. 3. Section 2(m) of the Factories Act as amended provides that 'occupier' of a factory means a person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. By resolution dated June 28, 1993 it was indicated that aforesaid S.R. Navalgund is designated to be a person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. The petitioner, therefore contends that the respondent No. 1 fell into error in deferring the consideration of the application for renewal and in commenting about absence of signature of Director as stated in Annexure P/5, particularly in the face of the fact that the copy of resolution (Annexure P/3) was forwarded to the respondent No. 1 alongwith the application (Annexure P/4). The counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure P/5 deserves to be quashed and respondent No. 1 deserves to be directed to consider the application for renewal treating S.R. Navalgund as occupier for the purpose of renewal of licence. 4. The Government Advocate very frankly submitted that position as is urged in this writ petition could have been brought to the notice of the respondent No. 1 in reply to letter (Annexure P/5) and there was no justification in approaching this Court without any order of rejection of the application for renewal. According to him, it is still open to the petitioner to reply Annexure P/5 and seek proper order. The Government Advocate also submits that apparently there is no difficulty in accepting S.R. Navalgund as occupier in terms of the requirement of law and in processing the application Annexure P/4 for renewal of the licence on that basis. 5. In view of the aforesaid position, there seems to be no controversy for adjudication in this writ petition. 6. In the result I dispose of this petition by directing the petitioner to submit appropriate reply to the respondent No. 1 to the letter dated June 3, 1994 (Annexure P/5) within a period of 15 days from today and directing the respondent No. 1 to take up the application (Annexure P/4) and take appropriate action on the same in conformity with law. 7. If the respondent No. 1 still decides to reject the application seeking renewal of the licence he shall do so by passing the order with reasons. 8. The petition, thus, stands finally disposed of in terms indicated above but without any order as to costs.