Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46955
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
ANITHA A.PANICKER – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECCTOR,(CHIEF CO-ORDINATOR, AKSHAYA PROJECT) – Respondent
WP(C)/11382/2020
VINEETH KOMALACHANDRAN, KUM.NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN, SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN, SMT.SINDHULAKSHMI, SMT.ANJANA MOHAN, SMT.VINITHA B, SR. GP
Entities operating service centers must be licensed, and authorities have a duty to eliminate unauthorized operations in compliance with governmental directives.
Headnote:
Authorization - Akshaya Centre - Act Section List - The court emphasized the necessity for proper licensing of service centers, citing directives from the Department of Electronics and Information Technology to enforce compliance and protect the interests of licensed Akshaya Centres, ultimately compelling action against unauthorized operations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, operator of a licensed Akshaya Centre, sought judicial intervention against unauthorized Akshaya Centres threatening the service's integrity and legality in her locality. She argued the government failed to act against such illegal entities.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the petitioner’s concerns regarding unlicensed centers and acknowledged the directive from the Department requiring enforcement against unauthorized services, clarifying that actions should be taken within three months based on this directive.
Issues: Whether the local authorities are required to take action against unauthorized Akshaya Centres per state guidelines and directives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the directive from the Department of Electronics and Information Technology mandated action against unlicensed centers, establishing the legal obligation of local authorities to enforce compliance.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to take necessary steps to enforce compliance within three months.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2021 The petitioner, who is owner of an Akshaya Centre in Perumbalam Grama Panchayath, Alappuzha District, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the 5th respondent to consider Exts. P4, P5 and P5(a) and to take necessary steps allowing the petitioner to effectively carry on her Akshaya Centre.
2. The petitioner states that she is running the Akshaya Centre in Perumbalam Grama Panchayath since September, 2017. According to the guidelines issued by the Director, Akshaya State Project, only State approved and licenced centres are allowed to provide services pertaining to issuance of certificate from the Village Office and of other Aadhar related services. The petitioner would insist that there is a distance criteria between the Akshaya Centres.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, there are unauthorised and unlicenced Akshaya Centres functioning in the locality. These unlicenced centres are a grave threat to the security and privacy of individual citizens and it also affects legitimate Akshaya Centres established with the support and approval of the Government. As the Government has not taken any steps to curb the unauthorised service centres, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 4 and 5 entered appearance and filed a Statement. The 5th respondent stated that Perumbalam is a very small island and does not have much facilities for the inhabitants there. There is an Akshaya Centre run by the petitioner. There is also another private centre Janasevana Kendram for online services. They are also running a DTP centre. Because of the pandemic issues, the 5th respondent did not disturb the facilities available for the people in the area. The 5th respondent stated that there is no willful laches or delay on the part of the Panchayath authorities in taking action in accordance with Ext.P2 proceedings.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
5. In Ext.P5(a) order dated 17.11.2019, the Secretary to Department of Electronics and Information Technology has directed that the authority should act upon if it is found that service centres are functioning without any licence. When Ext.P5(a) gives such a direction, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are compellable to act upon Ext.P5(a). Infact the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have stated that the 5th respondent will take appropriate steps on Ext.P3 in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to act upon Ext.P5(a) order of the Government. Necessary steps in that regard shall be taken within a period of three months.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11382/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE AKSHAYA STATE PROJECT OFFICE DATED
24.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.20370 OF
2019 DATED 20.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEARING HELD ON 04.11.2019 .
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
21.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
13.3.2020.
EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DATED 7.11.2019.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11382/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE AKSHAYA STATE PROJECT OFFICE DATED
24.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.20370 OF
2019 DATED 20.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEARING HELD ON 04.11.2019 .
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
21.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
13.3.2020.
EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DATED 7.11.2019.
