Allowed

Saleem.C. v. the Chief Coordinator & District Collector, Akshya Project, Kozhikode

Kerala HC14 Nov 2017WP(C)/23258/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order cancelling the petitioner's appointment as an Akshaya Entrepreneur issued without a proper inquiry or hearing. The court held that a reasonable time must be granted if the petitioner needs to relocate premises.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P3 order of cancellation is set aside. If petitioner is evicted from the Panchayat building, he shall be granted reasonable time to find alternate premises.

Saleem.C. Vs the Chief Coordinator & District… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/23RD KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 23258 of 2012 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SALEEM.C. AGED 37,

¶8

S/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI, CHENATTU HOUSE, P.C.PALAM (P.O), VIA-NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE CHIEF COORDINATOR & DISTRICT COLLECTOR AKSHAYA PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR, AKSHAYA STATE PROJECT OFFICE, KOCHUMADATHIL BUILDING, T.C.25/2241, MANJALIKULAM ROAD, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001.

¶13

3. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE IT MISSION, ICT CAMPUS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033.

¶14

4. THE SECRETARY, MADAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MADAVOOR (P.O), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 583.

¶15

5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.

¶16

R4 BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH

¶17

SMT.M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH R5. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. A. C. VIDHYA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sdr/-

¶20

WP(C).No. 23258 of 2012 (F)

¶21

----------------------------

¶22

APPENDIX -----------------

¶23

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶24

----------------------------------------

¶25

P1- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF UNDERTAKING DATED 13.09.2006.

¶26

P2- TRUE COPIES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.04.2012, 11.07.2012 AND 23.07.2012.

¶27

P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED NIL.

¶28

P4- TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER'S BANK ACCOUNT.

¶29

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSACTIONS SCROLL FROM JANUARY 2012 TO JUNE 2012

¶30

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

¶31

EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD 18.01.2012

¶32

EXT. R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE PROTECT OFFICE

¶33

EXT.R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER.

¶34

EXT.R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.03.2012

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/-

K. Vinod Chandran, J

W.P.(C).No.23258 of 2012-F

¶41

¶42

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2017

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

The petitioner was carrying on an Akshaya Centre, which was abruptly cancelled at Exhibit P3. The cancellation at Exhibit P3 was made by the District Collector on the report of the Block Co-ordinator, that, the Centre had not been functioning for three months.

¶45

Though the writ petition was admitted on 05.10.2012,

¶46

there was no interim order passed. Later on 19.10.2012, the following interim order was passed:

¶47

“The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 by which, the District Collector and Chief Co-ordinator of the Akshaya Project, Kozhikode directed cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner as an Akshaya Entrepreneur. The petitioner was allotted the Akshaya e-centre KZ 913 of Paimbalassery, Mudavoor Panchayath, which was in effect cancelled by Ext.P3. The only reason stated is that, the District Collector had a report that the centre had not been functioning for the last three months. It is also stated that an explanation was called for and reply was not furnished. It is seen that the order Ext.P3 is undated. It refers to a letter of 21.06.2012.

¶48

¶49

WP(C) No.23258 of 2012

¶50

There is nothing on record to show who issued the said letter and what happened to the registered notice, which was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the said order of cancellation by the above Writ Petition.

¶51

It is also submitted that no order was granted earlier during admission, since the petitioner had not produced any documents evidencing the functioning of the centre. The petitioner has now produced Ext.P5 series of documents showing that, the Akshaya Centre allotted to the petitioner had been regularly functioning from January 2012 to June 2012. In such circumstance, there shall be an interim order of stay of Ext.P3 order until further orders”.

¶52

The petitioner has been continuing the Akshaya Centre on the strength of the interim order.

¶53

The learned Government Pleader takes me through Exhibit R1(d), a reply filed by the petitioner against the notice issued. It is submitted that the reply itself would indicate that the petitioner had not been carrying on the Akshaya Centre.

¶54

A reading of Exhibit R1(d) reveals that the petitioner

¶55

was initially carrying on the Akshaya Centre in a Madrassa. On increase of divisions, the petitioner was asked to move out. The petitioner was in the process of moving out and had shifted the Akshaya Centre to a Panchayat building, where there was no

¶56

WP(C) No.23258 of 2012

¶57

¶58

electricity. The petitioner, by Exhibit R1(d), assured the Assistant District Co-ordinator of Akshaya Project, Kozhikoide that the Akshaya Centre would be commenced within a period of one week.

¶59

This Court is inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that the notice was issued by the Assistant District Co-ordinator and the reply was made to the said authority. The District Collector had not initiated any proceedings; nor has heard the petitioner before a revocation was made. Further, as revealed from Exhibit R1(d), the Akshaya Centre ceased functioning only by reason of the facts as put forth in Exhibit R1(d). Hence, normally the petitioner ought to have been given some time to re-commence the operations. As of now, the petitioner has been continuing on the basis of the interim order.

¶60

The learned Counsel for the Panchayat submits that the petitioner’s Centre is being carried on in the building of the Panchayat. However, the learned Counsel for the Panchayat points out that the Panchayat has decided to reconstruct the building and, hence, issued a notice to the petitioner for surrender of vacant possession. That is not the subject matter of the writ petition and Panchayath could proceed in accordance with law; but, as of now,

¶61

¶62

WP(C) No.23258 of 2012

¶63

there is no reason to sustain Exhibit P3 order of cancellation. Exhibit P3 would stand set aside. If the petitioner is evicted from the building

¶64

of the Panchayat, the petitioner shall be granted reasonable time to find out alternate premises.

¶65

The writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to suffer

¶66

their respective costs.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶69

vku/-

¶70

[ true copy ]

Saleem.C. v. the Chief Coordinator & District Collector, Akshya Project, Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem.C. v. the Chief Coordinator & District Collector, Akshya Project, Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Muhammed Ali Vs District Collector

Reni Koyipram Vs T Madhu

Suma Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Silk Souk Vs State of Kerala

Ouseph Thomas @ a.J.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Somtech Computers Vs the Executive Chairman