The process is as follows.
The inspector is required to make an inspection.
Before the appeals court ruling, he was free to disapprove
without giving a reason.
Subsequent to the appeals court ruling,
in order to disapprove in order to deny approval,
he had to justify the denial of approval by citing specific deficiencies
and to provide for each deficiency detailed evidence and reasoning.
If the burden of proof of deficiencies is on the inspector,
there is the presumption that absent such proof the installation be deemed
code compliant. The model of course is the trial. In a civil trial the
defendant is presumed to prevail unless the plaintiff proves his case
with a preponderance of evidence. In a criminal trial, the defendant is
presumed innocent unless the prosecutor proves his case beyond a 
reasonable doubt.