MANIKUTTY S Vs. KERALA STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner states that she is entrusted an Akshaya Center based on Ext.P3, a MOU between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. It is stated that Clause 17(C) of Ext.P3 provides that in case the petitioner is unable to run the Akshaya Center for the reasons mentioned therein, petitioner can either transfer the centre or execute a power of attorney in favour of any other person.

(2.) It is stated that petitioner got an employment and therefore wants to execute a power of attorney in favour of her husband. It is also her case that the 4th respondent has already approved the said request and that Ext.P4 application made to the 1st respondent in this behalf is pending without orders of the said respondent. It is complaining of delay on the part of the 1st respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P4, the writ petition is filed.

(3.) If as stated by the petitioner, her case is covered by Clause 17(C) of Ext.P3 Memorandum of Understanding between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, necessarily the 1st WPC No. 30360/10 respondent is to take a decision on Ext.P4. Having regard to the case of the petitioner about the pendency of Ext.P4, I direct the 1st respondent to consider the matter and take a decision. This the 1st respondent shall do within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above.