Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 73417
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
RAMANATHAN.A – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR, AKSHAYA, KERALA STATE IT MISSION – Respondent
WA NO. 241 OF 2022 | WP(C) 27377/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.Premchand, Surya Mohan P.
For the Respondents: Sri. Tek Chand, SC for R1, R2 and R4, Sri. Balagangadharan, SC for R3, Sri. P.K. Mohanan for R5
The appeal reinforced the need for procedural due process in administrative license terminations and upheld the legality of actions taken based on substantiated allegations of negligence in service delivery.
Headnote:(A) Agreement for Akshaya Centres - Clauses concerning termination and responsibilities - The appeal concerned the termination of the Akshaya entrepreneurship of an individual due to non-remittance of fees collected from a student for college admission, leading to the student's loss of opportunity to study in a government college. (Paragraphs 4-11)
(B) Principles of Administrative Law - The necessity for a fair hearing before termination of administrative licenses is reinforced, as is the prohibition against arbitrary decisions without substantive evidence. The District Collector's decision was challenged based on alleged procedural flaws, including lack of proper hearing. (Paragraphs 12-20)
(C) Onus of Proof - The burden rests on the petitioner to prove the conflicting facts regarding the remittance and operational standards, which were explored through various complaints and inspections. (Paragraphs 21-23)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, managing an Akshaya Centre, was accused of failing to remit fees for a student's college admission in a timely manner, which led to his termination by the District Collector based on complaints and a local body inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the District Collector’s actions were within legal bounds and the necessary procedures as per the agreement were followed before termination.
Issues: The primary questions were whether the correct procedures were followed in terminating the Akshaya Centre’s license and whether the appellant was allowed a fair hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that thorough inquiry and adherence to procedural fairness were crucial in administrative actions, stating that the termination decision was legally sound and factually supported by multiple accounts of the situation.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. process of fee collection and remittance (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. procedural arguments against termination (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. responsibilities of akshaya centre entrepreneurs (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. conclusion on the legality of the termination (Para 15 , 23) |
| 5. court's validation of administrative decisions (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT
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, the5th 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 Distric
