Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1945 PETITIONER: USMAN C.T., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, THAIVALAPPIL, CHITHARI P.O, KASARAGOD, PIN-671 316. BY ADVS. MANAS P HAMEED IPSITA OJAL RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-682 031. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, VIDYA NAGAR, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671 123 3 THE DIRECTOR, AKSHAYA STATE PROJECT OFFICE, SAANKETHIKA, IIND FLOOR, VRINDAVAN GARDENS, POTTAKKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004 4 AJANUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MAVUNGAL - MOOLAKNDAM RD, PUTHIYAKANDAM VILLAGE 2, ATHINHAL, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671 531 SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2024 The petitioner says that he is an “Akshaya Centre
Entrepreneur” and that, due to certain reasons as mentioned in the memorandum of this writ petition, he applied for his transfer in favour of his uncle. He says that, however, the District Collector has now rejected the said application through Ext.P2, but without citing any cogent reason, but merely saying that the Rules applicable do not permit such a requested transfer.
2. Sri.Manas P. Hameed - learned counsel for the
petitioner, vehemently argued that, going by the applicable Rules and Regulations, a transfer, as requested by his client, is possible; but that perhaps, the District Collector did not consider this in its proper perspective because, his client had been unable to appear before him, when Ext.P2 was issued. He submitted that, if his client is given an opportunity of doing do, he will be able to convince the
-:3:-
District Collector about his bonafides and the tenability of his claim. He alternatively submitted that, if the District Collector is not willing to allow his client to transfer the “Akshaya Centre” in favour of his uncle, as requested, then he may be permitted to continue it because, he intends to do so, without taking of any other employment now.
3. The learned Government Pleader - Smt.Vidya
Kuriakose, in response, submitted that, if the petitioner only requires an opportunity of being heard by the Competent Authority, she will not stand in the way of appropriate orders being issued; but added that when he himself admits that he was abroad and engaged in another business, his request, that he be allowed to continue to operate the “Akshaya Centre”, becomes totally untenable. She added that this may be left open to be decided by the Competent Authority, while the hearing before him is taken forward. She, however, added that the competent authority to take a decision on the petitioner's plea is not the District Collector but the 3rd respondent - Director.
-:4:-
4. When I examine Ext.P2 - which is the order
impugned, as rightly argued by the Sri.Manas P. Hameed, it only says that the petitioner did not appear, but only his uncle - the prospective transferee; and the said Authority, therefore, entered opinion that the requested transfer was contrary to the statutory scheme. No reason has been stated in substantiation of this; and therefore, am of the view that the afore suggestion of Smt.Vidya Kuriakose is the best available to the petitioner.
5. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P2; with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent - Director, to reconsider the application for transfer made by the petitioner, after
affording him an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
-:5:-
6. Needless to say, if the petitioner is to impel his
alternative contention as recorded afore, that he will continue to operate the “Akshaya Centre”, the same will also be considered by the 3rd respondent - Director; and his opinion on it reflected in the resultant order. This writ petition is thus ordered. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE bpr -:6:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6717/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT DATED
08.07.2022 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER