'Arbitrary Exercise Of Power': Kerala High Court Quashes District Collector's Order Cancelling Appointment of Seva Bharati As Relief Agency

The Kerala High Court on Thursday quashed the order of a District Collector cancelling the appointment of a Seva Bharati as a Relief Agency on account of all the service rendered by its volunteers during the pandemic.   

Justice N. Nagaresh while allowing the petition remarked:

"The fact that complaints are made by the Panchayat President or District Panchayat President, does not make such complaints acceptable as such without any enquiry."

Factual Background:

The petitioner is an NGO, a voluntary social service organisation working all over India, providing charitable services at grass-root levels. providing health care service through over 5000 Health Care Centres, 960 Mobile Clinics, 480 Urban Area Clinics, 200 Counselling Centres, 6500 Ambulances and 7 Leprosy Medication and Rehabilitation Centres through thousands of volunteers.

Recently, the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences had developed Ayurvedic Medicine AYUSH-64 for treating asymptomatic Covid-19 patients and directed for their distribution through Seva Bharati volunteers. The petitioner was accordingly authorised to distribute AYUSH-64 in four districts in Kerala.

Since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner has been providing services to thousands of persons affected by the pandemic purely on a charity basis.

On 22nd May 2021, the Kannur District Collector being the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) appointed the petitioner as Relief Agency since its volunteers have been rendering free services supplementing the work carried out by the State. 

However, within two days, the Collector cancelled the appointment alleging that volunteers of the petitioner have been working using the symbol and signs of the political party represented by the petitioner.

Advocate V.N Sankarjee on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it has no political inclination or affiliation and none of its volunteers had used any symbol or sign of any political party anywhere. It was also alleged that cancellation of the appointment was without notice to the petitioner and therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The respondents however contended that in the order appointing the petitioner as a Relief Agency,  it was stated that the Relief Agency has to work without any political or communal interest, failure of which entail cancellation of the order.

However, they received complaints from a Grama Panchayat President, a Ward Councilor and two others alleging that the petitioner engaged in relief activities with political symbols, which also contained other serious allegations. Accordingly, the Collector issued an order to temporarily cancel the appointment. 

The Government Pleader submitted that there is no arbitrariness in the matter, particularly because the petitioner has no statutory right to be recognised as a Relief Agency. HOn this ground, it was argued that the writ petition was without any merit. 

Observations of the Court:

The Single Bench noted that the petitioner had been working in co-operation with the District Administration, Department of Health and Local Self Governments to fight Covid-19 for the last more than one year. This is why the petitioner was recognised as a Relief Agency. 

The Court found the events that followed this appointment surprising. No notice was given to the petitioner before the cancellation of appointment.

The petitioner was not informed as to who or where a political symbol was used and which political party's symbols/signs were used during relief work. It has not been stated even in the statements filed by the respondent before this Court.

The Bench also found that the decision taken by the DDMA was solely based on the demand by the District Panchayat President. 

"The DDMA has not cared to make any sort of preliminary enquiry in order to convince itself that the complaints are not politically motivated and there is at least prima facie substance in the complaint." 

It was further noted that the context in which the petitioner was recognised as a Relief Agency and the sequence of events immediately followed give rise to genuine suspicion on the veracity of the complaints made against the petitioner. 

"Admittedly, no preliminary enquiry was made before acting upon the complaints against the petitioner. The fact that complaints are made by the Panchayat President or District Panchayat President, does not make such complaints acceptable as such without any enquiry."

The Court ruled that the petitioner should have been granted at least an opportunity of hearing before cancelling its appointment. 

Accordingly, the Bench found the order of the DDMA cancelling the appointment of the petitioner NGO as unsustainable and liable to set aside. 

Although the Government Pleader submitted that it was a temporary cancellation, the Court noted that after passing such order, no steps were taken to cause an enquiry. 

Similarly, the State added that the petitioner had no enforceable right and hence the writ petition is not maintainable. To this the Court responded as follows:

"This Court cannot agree with the said argument for the reason that the petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the arbitrary exercise of power by a public authority. The petitioner is challenging an order which prima facie causes aspersions on it." 

The writ petition was accordingly allowed and the order of cancellation was thereby set aside. 

Case Title: Deseeya Seva Bharathi v. Union of India & Ors. 

Click Here To Download The Order