AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devan Ramachandran, J
The petitioner impugns Ext.P4 order, issued by the Director of Akshaya State Project, finding that she was running the ‘Akshaya Centre’ - for which she had been earlier granted licence - between December, 2022 and February, 2023, through a ‘Benami’; thus cancelling her licence.
Sri.Manas P.Hameed – learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that, on 31.12.2021, his client had preferred Ext.P2 request for transfer of her licence due to health issues, in favour of a third party; but that this was not considered until 2023; and therefore, that she has filed Ext.P3 request, withdrawing her earlier application and for permission to continue the licence on her own. He submitted that this was done because, his client’s health has improved and she does not need to transfer the licence to run the ‘Akshaya Centre’ to anyone else. He says that, however, in spite of this and without any cogent or reliable evidence, Ext.P4 order has now been issued, saying that she was running the Akshaya Centre through ‘Benami’. He asserted that this is illegal and unlawful; and therefore, reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P4 be set aside.
The learned Government Pleader – Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, in response, submitted that, as evident from Ext.P4, read along with the application of the petitioner, she could not have run the ‘Akshaya Centre’ on her own from December, 2021, until February 2023, namely, between the time when she made the application for transfer and then filed Ext.P3 to withdraw it. He submitted that, therefore, the Director of Akshaya State Project was without error in having issued Ext.P4.
When I hear the learned Government Pleader on the afore lines, if there is clear evidence to show that petitioner was running the Akshaya Centre through somebody else, then certainly, there would have been some cause for having issued Ext.P4. However, merely because she made an application for transfer of licence in December 2021 (shown incorrectly as December 2022 in Ext.P4), and later withdrew it through Ext.P3 in February 2023, an automatic assumption cannot be made that she was operating the ‘Akshaya Centre’ through ‘Benami’.
As long as there is nothing on record or in evidence to show that petitioner was operating the ‘Askhaya Centre’ except for herself - though she may have been running it with the assistance of other persons on account of her health issues – a drastic opinion entered in Ext.P4 by the 2nd respondent – Director, could not have been settled. This is more so because, now the petitioner says that her physical condition has improved and that she will be able to run the ‘Akshaya Centre’ on her own.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P4; however, with every liberty being reserved to the competent Authority to initiate complete action against the petitioner, if so warranted in future; but following due procedure and in compliance with the Statutory Scheme.