The revocation of a license transfer must be based on verified evidence and cannot be arbitrary or capricious.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Exhibit-P11 order dated 18.01.2024 issued by the first respondent, by virtue of which, the order permitting transfer of license of an Akshaya Centre from the sixth respondent to the petitioner, was revoked.

2. The sixth respondent was granted licence to conduct an Akshaya Centre (for short ‘the Centre’) in the year 2014. Subsequently, he obtained employment in Canada and left the country. Petitioner managed the said Akshaya Centre on behalf of the sixth respondent. Later, an application was filed to transfer the licence of the Centre from the sixth respondent to the petitioner. By Exhibit-P3 order, the first respondent granted permission to transfer the licence.

3. In the meantime, on the basis of information that petitioner had obtained permission for transfer of licence, after suppressing the fact of the original licensee having left the country and the sixth respondent had even impersonated for obtaining the license originally, a complaint was filed by the second respondent before the State Police Chief. At the same time, a request was made to the first respondent also, to cancel the order transferring the licence issued in favour of the petitioner for the reason of impersonation and fraud perpetrated by the sixth respondent as well as the petitioner. On 18.01.2024, Exhibit-P11 order was issued by the first respondent, revoking the transfer of licence for the Centre issued in favour of the petitioner, after observing that the transfer of the licence of a person who is residing abroad and the impersonation of the licensee was illegal. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent stating that the sixth respondent had migrated to Canada on 27.04.2017, and an application was filed to transfer the Centre in favour of the petitioner on 05.10.2021 on the ground of his employment abroad. It is also averred that though Exhibit-P3 order was passed by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner, the same was not informed or served on the fourth respondent. On coming to know about the transfer, the State Project Office of the Centre was informed to initiate appropriate action. According to the fourth respondent, Exhibit-P3 order was invalid, since the original licensee was abroad, which was a violation of the terms of the agreement, and that Exhibit-P3 order was cancelled since the migration of the sixth respondent to Canada was in violation of the agreement with the Government.

5. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that the order of cancellation issued as Exhibit-P11 has been rendered without considering the police report, and also that any miscommunication or lack of communication between the Departments cannot be a reason to prejudice the petitioner.

6. I have heard Sri. Manas P. Hameed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Joice George, the learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent as well as Sri. Dheeraj A. S., the learned Government Pleader.

7. By Exhibit-P3 order, the Government permitted transfer of the licence of the Centre from the 6^th respondent to the petitioner. On a reading of Exhibit-P3, it is evident that the Government had specifically considered the request of the petitioner for transfer of the Akshaya Centre licence on account of the original entrepreneur having left the country for Canada. The request, as revealed from Exhibit-P3 itself, indicates that Sri. Sanu K. Thampan - the original licensee became unable to continue managing the Centre since he had left the country. The request was to transfer the licence for running the Centre to his cousin – the petitioner, wh