Administrative authorities have a duty to process applications based on submitted documents; failure to forward documents by an intermediate office cannot be used as a ground to reject a request for license transfer.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners challenge Ext.P30 order issued by the 2^nd respondent, refusing to consider their application for transfer of the licence of Aakshaya Centre at Neeleswaram Municipality, from the 2^nd petitioner in favour of the 1^st petitioner.

2. The 1^st petitioner is the brother of the 2^nd petitioner. The latter is the licensee of an Akshaya Centre at Neeleswaram Municipality, which has been functioning for the last 7 years. While so, the 2^nd petitioner obtained an opportunity to pursue her higher studies in the United Kingdom and subsequently obtained even an employment abroad. The 2^nd petitioner is presently in Dubai, working as a Senior Visa Consultant. Since the licence for conducting the Akshaya Centre can be transferred to an immediate family member, the petitioners requested the transfer of licence of the 2^nd petitioner to the 1^st petitioner. Petitioners contend that though all necessary documents were submitted, by the impugned order, the petitioners' application was refused to be considered, alleging that necessary documents have not been submitted.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality.

4. By the impugned order, the 2^nd respondent has refused to consider the application submitted by the petitioners for transfer of the licence for conducting an Akshaya Centre in favour of the 1^st petitioner. The licence is presently in the name of the 1^st petitioner. A reading of Ext.P30 would reveal that the application submitted by the petitioners for transfer, has not been considered due to the alleged failure of the petitioners to submit the necessary documents. However, on a perusal of Ext.P24, it is noticed that the Neeleswaram Municipality had, by resolution dated 13.02.2026, resolved to issue an NOC for producing before the District Collector for the transfer of the licence of the Akshaya Centre in favour of the 1^st petitioner. In the impugned order, it is mentioned by the 2^nd respondent that what is produced is not a resolution, but only the NOC issued by the Secretary of the Municipality. On a perusal of Ext.P23, it is seen that the endorsement dated 16.03.2026, indicates that the authority had received a copy of the said resolution. Petitioners asserted that the said endorsement is that of the 5^th respondent, who apparently failed to forward the said document to the 2^nd respondent. It was also submitted that all documents relating to the employment of the 2^nd petitioner abroad, were also submitted.

5. Since the application for transfer of licence in favour of the

1^st petitioner from the name of the 2^nd petitioner has been refused to be considered allegedly due to non production of necessary documents, I prima facie satisfied that the said technicality has arisen on account of an apparent failure of the 5^th respondent to forward necessary documents received by him to the 2^nd respondent, the impugned order ought to be set aside and a fresh consideration be directed.

Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P30 and direct the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the application for transfer of licence submitted by the petitioners based upon all the documents already submitted by the petitioners before the 5^th respondent and as directed in Ext.P11 judgment dated 14.07.2025. The 5^th respondent is also directed to forward all the documents duly received by him and submitted by the petitioners in support of the transfer application. Appropriate orders shall thereafter be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Till a decision is taken, the st