Shafeer K.M & Ajmal M.M v. State of Kerala and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. V. Kunhikrishnan
- Judgment Date
- 2023-06-26
- Court Decision / Holding
- There is no merit in this writ petition and hence it is dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- SHAFEER K.M
- AJMAL M.M
Respondents
- STATE OF KERALA
- DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
- THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, STATE OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
- THE DIRECTOR, AKSHAYA PROJECT
- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD
- THE DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER, AKSHAYA DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD
- THE BLOCK COORDINATOR, AKSHAYA DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD
- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • MANAS P HAMEED
- • K REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN K
Counsels for Respondents
- • GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition, WP(C) No.18541 of 2023, is filed by two Akshaya Centre licensees (Shafeer K.M. and Ajmal M.M.) seeking quashing of a cancellation order (Exhibit P12) and a mandamus/direction to the Akshaya Project Director to consider transfer applications (Exhibits P5 and P6) in favour of the second petitioner, in light of the District Collector’s recommendation (Exhibit P9) and prior court directions (Exhibit P11). The petition contends that transfer of the Akshaya Centre license is permissible under Government Orders (Exts. P2 and P3) and that the third respondent had no power to cancel the license absent a District Collector’s recommendation. It relies on this Court’s earlier common judgment (Exhibit P11) directing consideration of the transfer, and argues that Ext. P12 violates those directions. The government pleader counters that the first petitioner did not renew the licence post-2021, having obtained government employment in 2020, thus the licence lapsed; Ext. P12 cancellation is therefore permissible lawfully. The court notes the licence expiry and the lack of renewal, and ultimately relies on a line of authority, including Muneer A.P. v. District Collector, Kannur (2023 (2) KHC 18), to affirm that orders passed in pursuance of court directions can be valid. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit, with the court indicating that discretionary relief is unwarranted in the circumstances.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Orders passed by an authority in pursuance of a court directive are within jurisdiction and power when consistent with judicial directions
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners’ counsel argued that Exts. P2 and P3 Government Orders permit the transfer of an Akshaya Centre license and that the 3rd respondent had no power to cancel the licence without a District Collector’s recommendation. They highlighted that Ext. P11 (the court’s common judgment) directed the Director to consider the transfer in favour of the 2nd petitioner, and that Ext. P12, cancelling the licence, violated those directions. They emphasized that the ACE (Akshaya Centre Entrepreneurs) framework and the terms in Ext. P1, together with Exts. P5 and P6, show the transfer is permissible; they pressed that the 3rd respondent’s unilateral cancellation is unauthorized. They argued that the High Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised to secure the petitioners’ rights and prevent illegal cancellation, especially where a court order directs action. They argued about the necessity to keep the Akshaya Centre functioning and that the 2nd petitioner is a legitimate transferee in light of the District Collector’s recommendation and Exts. P2, P3, and P9.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contended that the 1st petitioner did not renew the licence after 25.03.2021 and had hidden employment starting 16.07.2020, which vitiates the licence; no renewal implies licensure lapse and the Director could cancel the licence. They argued the Director has authority to cancel in such circumstances and that Ext. P12 is a valid exercise of power; reliance was placed on Exts. P2 and P3 (GO) and the relevant policy to reject the notion of a transfer in the absence of renewal and proper procedure. They submitted that the District Collector’s recommendations were not properly followed and that the petition’s challenge to the cancellation should be dismissed, as the court’s prior directive in Ext. P11 was complied with only in the present context, but the petition remains without merit given the license lapse and non-renewal.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Muneer A.P. v. District Collector, Kannur | 2023 (2) KHC 18 | Positive | Cited to support that a court directive can render an order within jurisdiction and power; compliance with a court direction can validate subsequent administrative action. |
| Common Judgment dated 21.03.2023 in W.P.(C).NO.7430 of 2023 and W.P.(C).NO.7787 of 2023 | W.P.(C).NO.7430/2023 & W.P.(C).NO.7787/2023 | Positive | Cited as the prior HC decision directing consideration of the transfer, and the present action is framed in light of that directive; used to justify the subsequent Ext.P12 order under the same court’s jurisprudence. |
| W.P.(C).NO.32686 of 2022 | W.P.(C).NO.32686 of 2022 | Mentioned Only | Judgment referenced as Exhibit P14A; not expressly relied upon as a direct precedential basis in the reasoning. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Shafeer K.M & Ajmal M.M v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.