Natural justice is upheld unless procedural violations significantly affect the decision-making process in judicial review.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges the order cancelling his licence to run an Akshaya Centre as well as the order of the Appellate Authority, affirming the said cancellation. Petitioner alleges that the impugned orders have been issued without adhering to the principles of natural justice and also without considering the relevant facts.

2. Petitioner was a duly licensed Akshaya Centre Entrepreneur (for short, ‘ACE') and was operating an Akshaya Centre at Karakkonam in Thiruvananthapuram District, pursuant to an agreement dated 13.02.2014. According to the petitioner, even though he operates a mobile phone shop in close proximity to the Akshaya Centre, the same does not adversely impact the goodwill, brand and future prospects of the Akshaya Centre. Petitioner alleges that, due to a personal enmity of the Block Co-ordinator of the Akshaya Centre, the District Collector suspended his licence on 13.02.2024, which was challenged by him in W.P.(C) No.19864 of 2024 and this Court directed the District Collector to pass orders pursuant to the objection filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the District Collector, by an order dated 22.06.2024, permitted the petitioner to continue operating the Akshaya Centre, subject to certain conditions, including the requirement of petitioner's constant presence at the Akshaya Centre.

3. In the meantime, despite petitioner’s request for transfer of the entrepreneurship of the Akshaya Centre was pending consideration, the impugned order Ext.P9 was issued by the 3^rd respondent – the Director of Akshaya Project cancelling the licence of the petitioner. On appeal filed by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent affirmed the order of cancellation as per Ext.P13, which is also challenged in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the impugned orders were passed without hearing him and also without considering the relevant factors, apart from it being bad for total non-application of mind.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent, stating that the requirement of licensee's presence at the Akshaya Centre is essential and he is not entitled to manage or represent any other Akshaya Centre as a benami. The 3^rd respondent has stated that the petitioner was always found to be absent during surprise inspections, contrary to the conditions and the services relating to Aadhaar cards were being conducted by other staff, while the petitioner was working in the mobile phone shop run by him. Since the petitioner was never found in the Akshaya Centre, his licence was suspended initially, but, the District Collector, pursuant to the directions of this Court, granted another opportunity to the petitioner and permitted him to operate the Akshaya Centre under strict conditions, specifically stipulating that the ACE should be present at the Akshaya Centre as stipulated in the agreement and should not engage in other business activities detrimental to the goodwill of Akshaya Centre. It is also mentioned that these conditions were insisted on, because there were numerous complaints received from various corners regarding excess charges collected for the services in the Akshaya Centre licensed to the petitioner.

5. The 3rd respondent also averred that the Vigilance Department had, as part of a statewide surprise inspection titled 'Operation E-Seva', conducted an inspection on the petitioner's Akshaya Centre and during that inspection also, petitioner was found to be absent. Even in a follow- up inspection conducted by the Block Co-ordinator on 08.07.2024, the petitioner was not present as he was