Petitioner challenges Ext. P7 and seeks for a direction to the respondents to dispose of Exts. P8, P9 and P11, after hearing the petitioner. 2. The facts involved in the case would disclose that the petitioner is conducting an Akshaya Centre in terms of Ext. P12 agreement dated 13.9.2013. Previously, the Centre was being run by her husband, who got an employment in Government service and this agreement came to be executed in her favour. According to the petitioner, her husband was conducting a sub centre in terms of permission given by the Akshaya District Project Office in the bus stand complex. Petitioner now challenges Ext. P7 on the ground that an attempt is being made by the Government to start an Akshaya Centre in the bus stand complex where she is conducting the sub centre.
3. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that when she is conducting a sub centre in the bus stand complex in terms of Government Order dated 19.11.2013, another centre cannot be set up within a minimum distance of two kilo meters. Therefore, the centre which is now proposed in terms of Ext. P7 is not in accordance with the said norms.
4. That apart, it is contended that a report had been submitted by the Director of Akshaya State Project Office, requesting the Government to intervene in the matter in view of the fact that the petitioner was conducting the sub centre in the said site and an allotment is going to be made in terms of Ext. P7.
5. Counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent inter alia stating that an earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioner's husband challenging the starting of Akshaya Centre at Malappuram District, which, according to him, was in violation of the norms. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on a finding that the norms as per Government Order dated 30.4.2005 have no application to Malappuram District. The contention of the respondent is that Ext. P7 is a continuation of the said proceedings, which was initiated for starting additional Akshaya Centers in the District of Malappuram and since petitioner's husband has already suffered a judgment, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is estopped from filing this writ petition and it is barred by the principles of res judicata.
6. That apart, it is contended that the norms at Ext. P12 came into existence only after Ext. P7 order was passed and since the petitioner has no legal right to conduct the sub centre, she cannot claim that she can continue the sub centre at any point of time.
7. Counter affidavit is also filed by the 5th respondent, who, in addition to challenging the maintainability of the writ petition, states that in terms of the notification issued by the Department, a selection process had been undertaken and though the petitioner and 5th respondent were candidates, the 5th respondent was selected to start Akshaya Centres in the bus stand complex. Under these circumstances, the respondent seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation available as per records and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the party respondent and the learned Government Pleader, it is clear that petitioner's right to conduct Akshaya Centre is with reference to Ext. P12 agreement dated 13.9.2013, which is apparently not in the bus stand complex. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Ext. R1(a) to contend that she has a permanent sub centre, Ext. R1(a) does not indicate so. It is an instruction issued by the District Secretary, Akshaya Project to the petitioner's husband. That apart, it is the submission of the learned Government Pleader that there had been complains from people of the locality regarding functioning of the said sub centre, as a result of which Panchayat had passed a resolution to start a new Akshaya Centre in the bus stand complex. For that reason also, the petitioner is not entitled to take up a contention that she has a vested right to continue with the said Akshaya sub centre.
9. Under these circumstances, I do no think that apart from the fact that Ext. P14 came to be issued subsequent to Ext. P7, the petitioner has any legal right to demand that a distance of two kilo meters has to be maintained from her premises and the new sub centre.
10. With reference to Ext. P13 communication, it is purely a matter within the discretion of the Government to consider the same or not. Petitioner cannot insist that the Government should consider Ext. P13.
11. Having regard to the aforesaid findings, I do not think that the petitioner has ventilated any legal grievance for challenging Ext. P7.
12. As contended by the the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, the issue regarding starting of new centre was agitated by this Court which resulted in Ext. P2 judgment. The petitioner is not entitled to re- aagaitate the same. As matters stand now, since the petitioner has no legal right to challenge Ext. P7, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/