AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The first petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner. It is contended that she is an Akshaya Entrepreneur of Akshaya Centre No.KLM95 in Periyam, which she has been running since 2006. The first respondent has issued an order (Ext.P3) alleging misconduct against the first petitioner. The allegation is that she has entrusted the operation of the Akshaya Centre to another individual and that the mustering ID has been misused. The first petitioner was served with a communication (Ext.P4) by the District Project Manager, Kollam, to attend a hearing on 21/07/2023. However, she is suffering from various ailments and has authorized her husband to appear for the hearing on her behalf. The second petitioner was not permitted to represent the first petitioner at the hearing despite having an authorization. The first petitioner has now been served with a communication calling upon her to attend another hearing on 7/9/2023 at 3pm. In view of her ailments, the first petitioner prays that the second petitioner be permitted to appear and raise contentions on her behalf.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who reiterated the contentions in the writ petition.
The learned Government Pleader would refer to the Ext.P3 order issued by the District Collector and highlighted the nature of accusations against the petitioners herein. He would further contend that except for a registration card, no other details as regards the ailments suffered by the 1st petitioner are placed before this Court. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the Project Manager may have to hear the version of the 1st petitioner as well before a decision is taken.
I have considered the submissions advanced.
Ext.P2 would disclose that the 1st petitioner has been issued a Registration Card by the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram. I have no doubt that serious allegations are raised against the 1st petitioner in Ext.P3. However, having regard to the bodily condition of the 1st petitioner, nothing prevents the Project Manager from hearing the husband of the petitioner herein on his submitting a valid authorization. However, I make it clear that for deciding the issue, the presence of the 1st petitioner is also required, necessary directions shall be issued and in that event, the 1st petitioner shall appear, for which breathing time shall be granted. If the 1st petitioner fails to appear, it would be at her risk and costs.
This writ petition is disposed of.