JAYANTHI v. STATE OF KERALA

SRI ROBIN RAJ-SPECIAL GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

29.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 22422 OF 2023 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated to be the wife of late Balram K. who was the licencee of a cafeteria allotted by the Department of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST Department), at Wayanad. She says that her husband unfortunately died in February, 2023, pursuant to which, she preferred Ext.P3 application for transfer of the licence of the cafeteria in her favour; but that, without considering the same, Ext.P5 has now been issued, asking her to vacate from the premises and intimating that the original licence granted to her husband, namely Ext.P2, stands cancelled. She points out that the only allegation in Ext.P5 is that there are arrears of rent with respect to the cafeteria, but contends that the conclusions therein are wrong especially because, they have been entered into without affording her an opportunity of being heard. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P5 be set aside and the competent Authorities be directed to consider Ext.P3 and issue appropriate orders thereon, thus transferring the licence in her favour, without any avoidable delay.

2. Smt.Christabel D. Avravu - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Ext.P5 has been literally a “bolt from the blue” for the petitioner and her family because, they are still reeling from the WP(C) NO. 22422 OF 2023 3 cataclysmic consequences of the death of Balram. She pointed out that the petitioner and her family belongs to the most disadvantaged section of Society and that they are surviving solely from the income they receive from the cafeteria; and therefore, that the cancellation of Ext.P2 licence, after Sri.Balram died, on the allegation that there are large sums as arrears of rent, is illegal and unlawful. She, therefore, prayed that Ext.P5 be set aside.

3. In response, Sri.Robin Raj – learned Special Government Pleader for the SC/ST Department, submitted that the imputation of the petitioner, that Ext.P5 has been issued without hearing her is wholly wrong, which is evident from paragraph three thereof, wherein, it has been recorded that she and the other legal heirs of late Balram were granted an opportunity of being heard and that they had agreed to remit the arrears of rent within a period of one month. He submitted that this has been blatantly violated and that, though not specifically stated in Ext.P5, the Authorities have reliable information that the cafeteria has, in fact, been sublet out by them to others. He argued that the afore actions of the petitioner is contrary to the Scheme under which the allotment was done because, it is intended only for the benefit of the members of the SC/ST community and no one else. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. WP(C) NO. 22422 OF 2023 4

4. I have evaluated the afore rival contentions, on the touchstone of the various materials available on record.

5. There are some facts which are uncontested, namely that Sri.Balram was holding Ext.P2 agreement validly and was operating the cafeteria on the strength of the same until he died in February,

2023. It is also uncontested that the petitioner made an application for transfer of licence in her favour vide Ext.P3.

6. The controversy in this writ petition has its genesis in the fact that the Authorities maintain that the petitioner has committed default in payment of rent and that she was given an opportunity of being heard, along with the other legal heirs of late Balram, prior to Ext.P5 having been issued. However, that said, when one examines Ext.P5, the Sub Collector states that he had spoken to the petitioner and the other legal heirs and that they had conceded to remit the arrears of rent within a period of one month. However, Ext.P5 does not say what was the arrears of rent intimated to the petitioner; but then proceeds to record that, as on the date of this order, the total amount is Rs.1,74,500/-. The petitioner, as I have already said above, asserts that she or other legal heirs were not heard before the afore amount was quantified and that they had not agreed to remit the same within a period of one month as recorded in Ext.P5. WP(C) NO. 22422 OF 2023 5

7. Since the afore disputation is in the realm of facts, this Court cannot resolve it at the first instance, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Suffice to say, the petitioner is conceded to be a member of the SC/ST community and it is also without any dispute that her husband late Balram had been granted licence to run the cafeteria through Ext.P2. There is nothing on record to prove to the contrary, that the petitioner and her family are now suffering on account of the death of Sri.Balram and that they would be put to distress if their sole source of income is denuded. Of course, as I have also recorded, it is the stand of Sri.Robin Raj that the petitioner has sublet the cafeteria, but this remains without any corroboration, since Ext.P5 does not even mention so.

9. In the afore circumstances, I find favour with the petitioner, particularly taking note of her present condition and the financial distress which she say she and her family has been pushed to on account of the untimely death of her husband; and resultantly, set aside Ext.P5, with a consequential direction to the Sub Collector to hear the petitioner, as also any other person who may be interested in being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action as expeditiously as is possible. WP(C) NO. 22422 OF 2023 6

10. Needless to say, while completing the afore exercise, all necessary empathy will be extended to the petitioner, adverting to the fact that she is a women belonging to SC/ST community and stated to be in financial crisis on account of the unfortunate death of her husband.

11. It goes without saying that, until such time as the afore is done and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, she will be allowed to continue to operate the cafeteria on her own or with the help of her relatives/legal heirs of late Balram; but she will not be entitled to sub lease it, or handover its possession to anyone else without authority. This writ petition is thus ordered. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/29.1 WP(C) NO. 22422 OF 2023 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22422/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO. 54/2011/SCSTDD DATED 24/5/2011 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 04.03.2021 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 02.05.2023 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.05.2023 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 33/ENU/2023 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 07.06.2023 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/07/2023 FORWARDED TO R3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP DATED 04/07/2023