Nazia Nazar vs The State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 11144 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 31904 OF 2023


PETITIONER:

          NAZIA NAZAR, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O. ANEESH A.,
          VAYALUVEETTIL, PALACKAL, THEVALAKKARA,
          KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690524

          BY ADV K.RAKESH


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, SECRETARIAT,
          TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001

    2     THE DIRECTOR, AKSHAYA STATE PROJECT OFFICE,
          VRIDAVAN GARDENS, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695004

    3     THE DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER, AKSHAYA DISTRICT
          PROJECT OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, CORPORATION BUILDING,
          ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001

    4     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
          KOLLAM, PIN - 691013


          SRI. SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE - GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 31904/23
                                        2

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P8 order issued by the 2 nd

respondent - Director, Akshaya State Project, on various grounds, but

primarily that it has been issued without hearing her; as also that it

has recorded certain aspects, which are factually incorrect.

2. The petitioner asserts that, even though Ext.P8 records

that she had made a statement before the Director, this was

impossible, because she was never given an opportunity of being

heard by the said respondent; and that what appears to have been

relied upon by the said Authority is a Report that was settled by the

District Collector earlier, which is evident from the fact that Ext.P8

refers to it as Item No.9. She says that this Report of the District

Collector is undated and was never made available to her; but that

when she was issued with a Show-Cause Notice asking why her

license be not terminated, she responded to it through Ext.P5, stating

affirmatively that none of the imputations against her are factually

correct. She says that, however, without considering Ext.P5 objections

in any manner whatsoever, the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P8, WPC 31904/23

adverting to what the District Collector has reported, but without

hearing her.

3. Sri.K.Rakesh - learned counsel for the petitioner,

vehemently argued that the record of his client's alleged statement in

Ext.P8 is egregiously improper because, she had made no such before

the 2nd respondent, nor was she given any opportunity for hearing.

He submitted that the 2nd respondent ought to have gone by Ext.P5

objections and then to have heard his client, before any decision, as

has been recorded in Ext.P8, could have been taken. He thus

reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P8 be set aside and the 2 nd respondent

be directed to reconsider the entire matter, adverting to Ext.P5

objections.

4. However, in opposition, the learned Government Pleader -

Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, submitted that Ext.P8 is irreproachable

because the 2nd respondent has recorded therein that the petitioner

had orally agreed that the imputations against her are correct. He,

however, conceded that the 2nd respondent appears to have indited

this, based on the earlier Report of the District Collector - referred as

Item No.9 in Ext.P8; but argued that this would be of no WPC 31904/23

consequence because, the petitioner had made such statements before

the District Collector, which had been correctly recorded in his

Report. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

5. I have considered Ext.P8 very carefully and evaluated its

contents on the basis of the afore rival submissions.

6. As rightly argued by Sri.K.Rakesh, Ext.P8 states that the

petitioner's statement was to the effect that she had not been

operating the 'Akshaya Centre' properly and that certain machineries

were shifted to her husband's 'DTP' Centre. However, Ext.P5 speaks

completely to the contrary; and obviously, the 2 nd respondent should

have explained in Ext.P8 in what manner the petitioner had made

oral admissions, if any, contrary to her explanation. However, a

closer look on Ext.P8 would clearly indicate that, what the 2 nd

respondent relies upon is a statement allegedly taken by the District

Collector earlier and this becomes limpid from the fact that a

reference to Item No.9 therein has been made, which is the Report

of the said Authority.

7. It is, therefore, without doubt that the petitioner was

never heard by the 2nd respondent and that her objections had not WPC 31904/23

been evaluated because, the said Authority appears to have been

swayed by the earlier Report of the District Collector.

8. Obviously, therefore, in the afore scenario, this Court

cannot grant imprimatur to Ext.P8; and am certain that the entire

matter will have to be reconsidered by the 2 nd respondent, in terms

of law.

Resultantly, I allow this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P8; with

a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent - Director, to hear

the petitioner and take a final decision, adverting to Ext.P8

objections, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. For this

purpose, I direct her to mark appearance before the said Authority at

11 A.M. on 02.11.2023, along with a certified copy of this judgment

and full set of this Writ Petition; and the afore time frame will begin

from that date.

Until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the

resultant order communicated to the petitioner, the interim order

granted by this Court on 29.09.2023 will continue to be in effect.

Needless to say, my observations above do not reflect any WPC 31904/23

affirmative declaration with respect to the merits of the contentions

of the petitioner; and that all of them are left open to be decided by

the 2nd respondent appositely.

Sd/-

RR                                      DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                JUDGE
 WPC 31904/23


                 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31904/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION AS REGARDS THE

SELECTION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 7-3-2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 22-4-

2022 OF MYNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR GETTING PANCHAYATH LICENSE DATED 11-8-2022 Exhibit P4 TTRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 1-7-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXHIBIT P4 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 4-7-2023 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 7-7-2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 21-7-2023 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-9-2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.NO.24/2019 OF I.T.D.

DATED 30-10-2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAT OF THE AGREEMENT APPENDED ALONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 20-7-2013 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 30-6-

2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE VISITOR'S REGISTER IN THE AKSHAYA CENTRE Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE E-DISTRICT REGISTER Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF UIDAI OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA