Kerala High Court Overturned The District Collector's Decision Rejecting Seva Bharati's Appointment As Relief Agency

On Thursday, the Kerala High Court overturned a District Collector's order dismissing a Seva Bharati's appointment as a Relief Agency due to all the services provided by its volunteers during the pandemic.

The petitioner is a non-governmental organisation (NGO), a voluntary social service organisation that works across India to provide philanthropic activities at the grassroots level. The petitioner has indeed been giving services to thousands of people impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic on a strictly charitable basis ever since the virus has outbreak.

While granting the petition, Justice N. Nagaresh made the observation that the objections raised by the Panchayat President or District Panchayat President does not mean that they are admissible without further investigation.

Thousands of volunteers of the NGO provide health care 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.

Ayurvedic Medicine AYUSH-64 was recently produced by the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences for treating asymptomatic Covid-19 patients and distributed by Seva Bharati volunteers. As a result, the petitioner was given permission to distribute AYUSH-64 in four Kerala districts.

The Kannur District Collector, who is also the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA), hired the petitioner as a Relief Agency on May 22, 2021, because its volunteers have been providing free assistance to augment the State's efforts. While the Collector withdrew the appointment within two days, stating that the petitioner's volunteers had been operating with the petitioner's political party's symbol and signs.

However, advocate V.N Sankarjee stated that the organisation has no political leaning or connection, and that none of its volunteers have ever utilised any emblem or symbol of a political party anywhere. It was further claimed that the appointment was cancelled without prior warning to the petitioner, thereby violating natural justice standards.

The respondents, on the other hand, claimed that the decision establishing the petitioner as a Relief Agency stipulated that the Relief Agency must function without any political or communal interest, and that failure to do so would result in the order being cancelled.

Consequently, they received complaints from a Grama Panchayat President, a Ward Councilor, and two others stating that the petitioner used political symbols in relief work, as well as other significant claims. As a result, the Collector issued an order cancelling the appointment.

Meanwhile, the Government Complaint is received argued that the matter is not arbitrarily decided, especially since the petitioner has no legal right to be acknowledged as a Relief Agency. It was maintained that the writ petition was without significance on this basis