Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 51651
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAMANATHAN.A – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR, – Respondent
WA/241/2022
Entrepreneurs must comply with service obligations; failure to remit collected fees constitutes grounds for termination of their licenses as per contractual agreements.
Headnote:
Termination - Akshaya Centre - Akshaya Agreement - Section F - The court upheld the termination of the entrepreneur's license for failing to remit fees on time, emphasizing adherence to contract terms, the importance of service delivery standards, and the adequacy of inquiry processes followed by authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's Akshaya Centre failed to remit a student's admission fee in time, leading to the student's complaint and subsequent termination of the centre's license by the District Collector after an inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Collector duly conducted an inquiry, following the necessary procedures, and determined that the termination of the Akshaya Centre was justified based on the evidence presented.
Issues: Whether the termination of the appellant's Akshaya Centre was justified and whether proper procedures were followed during the inquiry process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Akshaya entrepreneur must adhere to contractual obligations related to service delivery, and failure to do so justifies termination under the provisions of the agreement.
Final Decision: The writ appeal is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
S. Manikumar, C.J.
Before the writ court, the following reliefs sought for by the appellant has been declined:- “i. Call for records leading to Exhibit P5 and Quash the same by a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, direction or order;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing respondents to reconsider the matter after conducting an independent enquiry into the complaint evidenced by Exhibit P2.”
2. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the writ court, captioned appeal is preferred.
3. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder:- 4. Appellant is the entrepreneur of an Akshaya Centre No.
PKD166 located at Krishna Road, Pirayari, Palakkad, which was commenced in the year 2008.
5. A student by name Leo Babu, the 5th respondent, who applied for admission to B. Com course in the Colleges under the University of Calicut, availed the service of the Akshaya e-Kendra run by the appellant, to remit the mandatory fee for first allotment. e-chalan for Rs.425/- was raised by the Akshaya e-Kendra and the 5th respondent paid Rs.435/-, which included Rs.10/- towards service charges for the Akshaya e-Kendra and a receipt for Rs.435/- was issued to the 5th respondent.
6. After remitting the mandatory fee for the first allotment, the
5th respondent attempted for the next higher option, but found that he is not eligible for the next allotment. When the 5th respondent found that the ineligibility for the next higher option was due to the non- remittance of the mandatory fee for the first allotment, he approached the Akshaya e-Kendra on 19.06.2017, and they told him that they will enquire into the matter, and took the receipt issued on 13.06.2017 from him.
7. After the 5th respondent reached home, he received a message of remittance of the fees. When he went to Akshaya e-Kendra to enquire about this, he was issued with a fresh receipt with alterations in the date. According to the 5th respondent, though Akshaya e-Kendra collected the fees and service charges from him on 13.06.2017, they remitted the fees to the University only on 19.06.2017, when he complained of the non-remittance. The last date for remittance of the mandatory fee for the first allotment was on 16.06.2017, and due to the failure on the part of Akshaya e-Kendra to promptly remit the amount collected from him to the University, he lost his chance to prosecute studies in a Government College of his choice, and had to take admission in Self Financing College, paying huge fees.
8. The 5th respondent filed complaint against the petitioner before the Police, the District Collector and other authorities. Pursuant to the complaint, the District Collector, Palakkad, by Ext.P5 order dated 08.08.2017, terminated the Akshaya e-Kendra entrepreneurship of the petitioner, which is the order impugned in the writ petition. 9. According to the appellant, the 5th respondent came to his Akshaya eKendra to remit the fee only on 19.06.2017 and his version in the complaint is factually incorrect; and that the District Collector has passed the order of termination of Akshaya e-Kendra, without following the procedures in Ext.P6 agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Government of Kerala.
10. Though the agreement contemplates termination of ACE by the District Collector, pursuant to a resolution of the Local Self Government Institution, recommending termination, after an enquiry with notice and opportunity of hearing to the ACE, the said procedures were not followed in terminating the entrepreneurship of the appellant.
11. Appellant has further contended that the District Collector blindly accepted the report of the Secretary of the Panchayat, and did not apply her mind, and was prevailed up on by the District Project Manager, who was in inimical terms with the appellant.
12. Appellant has also contended that even before passing Ext.P5 order terminating the ACE, the District Project Manager h
