Important points:
Before terminating the Akshaya Kendra agency of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to a fair hearing in the matter. The well-established principles of natural justice require that the petitioner be given reasonable opportunity to defend the complaints against him effectively.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. The petitioner, who is an Akshaya Common Service Centre Entrepreneur, is before this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P2 notice and Ext.P4 order and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to continue with the functioning of the Akshaya Centre.

2. The petitioner has been running the Akshaya Centre with CSC ID KL-011200311 at Muttil in Wayanad District since the year 2008. The petitioner was served with Ext.P2 notice dated 02.08.2017 informing him that a decision has been taken to cancel the entrepreneurship of the petitioner on the basis of certain complaints. The petitioner was required to give his explanation within seven days.

3. The petitioner would state that on receipt of Ext.P2, he contacted the office of the 3rd respondent-Chief Coordinator, Akshaya Project, seeking details of the complaints against him. The petitioner was directed to contact respondents 1 and 2 for getting copies of the complaint. Though the petitioner approached respondents 1 and 2, they refused to furnish requisite copies of the complaints referred to in Ext.P2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply narrating details of services rendered to the customers who have given the complaints.

4. However, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 order dated 18.09.2017, declining to accept Ext.P3 explanation given by the petitioner. Ext.P4 order confirmed the proposal of the Chairman of the District e-Governing Society to shut down the Akshaya Kendra run by the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the 3rd respondent has not given the petitioner an opportunity of fair hearing. Ext.P3 explanation given by the petitioner was not properly considered. In fact, there are only three complaints against the services rendered by the petitioner. The petitioner had properly explained the situation. The 3rd respondent, however, failed to appreciate the explanation given by the petitioner correctly.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further argue that the petitioner was not furnished with copies of complaints alleged to have been received against him. Since the petitioner was not served with the copies of those complaints, he was denied with an opportunity to effectively defend the complaints against him. The action of the 3rd respondent has resulted in gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, contended the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. The 1st respondent defended the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P4 cancellation was made due to the poor performance of the petitioner and the complaints received from general public. The petitioner was issued with several show cause notices and warnings. A complaint was received on 27.03.2015 regarding unauthorised usage of registration log-in user ID/password of Aam Admi Bima Yojana through another institute. One Eldo K.G. filed complaint regarding the failure of the petitioner for submission of applications submitted by him. One P. Abdul Rahiman made complaint in respect of his food and safety registration. The JAO, BSNL made complaints on charging extra money while making BSNL bill payments through the petitioner.

8. The learned Government Pleader argued that the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice by the petitioner, is untenable. The petitioner was heard on various allegations levelled against him during the hearing conducted on 28.02.2012. The Muttil Grama Panchayat also had passed a resolution dated 14.10.2016 seeking cancellation of the petitioner's Akshaya Centre. Exts.P2 and P4 orders were passed after conducting detailed enquiry. The petitioner has not invoked his appellate remedy. Even after initiating proceedings against the petitioner, various complaints were received from the public. In spite of all these complaints, the petitioner is running the Akshaya Centre on the basis of interim ord