Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 38844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
PUSHPA GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY, INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT(C) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 20733 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.PREMCHAND, SMT.HALIYA T.P., SRI.MAHADEV M.J.
For the Respondents: SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY
Termination of administrative agreement requires adherence to natural justice principles and proper procedural compliance.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Writ petition challenging termination of Akshaya Centre license - The petitioner contended the order was illegal, non-speaking, and violated principles of natural justice. The Director of Akshaya’s authority to terminate was questioned based on the recommendation of the District Collector. The court held the termination was unsustainable without following proper protocols. (Paras 3, 4, 8)
(B) Natural Justice - The significance of due process was emphasized as the petitioner was not notified of prior recommendations leading to the termination. Procedural fairness is essential to uphold the legality of administrative actions. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, operating an Akshaya Centre since 2006, faced termination due to allegations of not being present. The communication to terminate was found to be flawed.
Findings of Court:
The termination order was set aside due to procedural violations. Respondents can take appropriate steps under extant rules.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the termination order and whether proper procedures were followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the requirement of following proper administrative procedures and respecting natural justice principles in administrative decisions.
Result: Ext.P9 is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's akshaya centre terminated based on procedural flaws. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. reporting and procedural compliance essential in termination processes. (Para 4) |
| 3. disputes on authority and powers regarding termination of agreements. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's ruling emphasizes adherence to procedures. (Para 8) |
| 5. writ petition conclusion and instructions for future steps. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2025 The petitioner is an Akshaya Entrepreneur. The Akshaya Centre No.KLM 095 has been functioning from the year 2006 onwards and is located at Perayam junction coming within the jurisdiction of Perayam Grama Panchayat. Before commencement of Akshaya Centre, every Entrepreneur will have to enter into an agreement with the Government of Kerala, Department of Information Technology.
2. The petitioner has been issued with Ext.P9 communication dated 29.03.2025 annexing an order passed by the Director, Akshaya. Ext.P9 is to the effect that the petitioner is not present in the Akshaya Centre regularly and another person is seen in the Centre and therefore the licence of Centre was suspended as per order dated 07.07.2024. It is further stated therein that the District Collector as per letter dated 06.02.2024 has recommended to terminate the Akshaya Centre and therefore the Akshaya Centre located at Perayam having No.KLM 095 is terminated.
3. The petitioner submitted that Ext.P9 is clearly illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Ext.P9 is a non-speaking order. Ext.P9 violates the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has not been served with the letter dated 06.02.2023 purported to have been sent to the 1st respondent. Though it is stated in Ext.P9 that on 06.09.2023 a notice has been sent, the petitioner has not received the same. The petitioner along with her husband went there but the officials at the office of the 3rd respondent told that they do not know about the hearing scheduled on
16.11.2023.
4. Clause F(v) of Ext.P1 specifically mentions that the appellate authority shall be the Director of Akshaya, who is to consider the appeal filed against order of termination.
It is evident from Ext.P9 that the same has been passed by the appellate authority itself on the recommendation of the District Collector. Therefore, it is clear that Ext.P9 is ex facie illegal. Ext.P9 is illegal and unjust and completely violates the principles of Natural Justice.
5. Heard.
6. The contention of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent-Director has no power to terminate the ACE agreement.
7. Government Pleader submits that the particular provision has been amended subsequently in the year 2021 and the Director has power to terminate the agreement based on the recommendation of the District Collector.
8. I find that the agreement in question here was executed on 09.09.2013. Therefore, the agreement should necessarily be governed by the conditions in Ext.P1. In the circumstances, termination of agreement without the recommendation of the District Collector cannot be sustained.
9. Ext.P9 is therefore set aside. It is made clear that this will not prevent the respondents from taking appropriate steps in accordance with the extant rules.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
