Government Cannot Impose Unilateral Terms On Akshaya Entrepreneurs | Kerala High Court Directs State To Consider Grievances Before Finalising Agreement
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh directed the State Government to consider the representation submitted by an association of Akshaya entrepreneurs before finalising any revised agreement concerning the operation of Akshaya Centres in Kerala. The Court held that the grievances raised regarding the unilateral imposition of terms warranted official consideration and disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to take an appropriate decision on the representation dated 14.05.2025 before finalising the agreement. The Court clarified that members of the petitioner-association must execute the current agreement and that the judgment shall not be treated as a ground for refusal.
The petitioner is a registered association under the name All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation, Kollam District, and has been engaged in representing the interests of Akshaya Centre operators across Kerala. The association approached the High Court contending that successive government orders had mandated that all government-to-citizen (G2C) online services be routed exclusively through Akshaya Centres, as seen in Exts. P1 to P5. The Information and Technology Department had issued various directions instructing departments of the State to implement this model through Akshaya Centres, which are recognized as authorised Common Service Centres (CSCs) under the State framework.
The petitioner submitted that every Akshaya entrepreneur is required to execute an agreement with the State Government to operate such centres. The system of formal agreements began in 2013, with the latest version being executed in 2022. The association argued that the terms and conditions contained in the agreement are unilaterally imposed without any consultation or negotiation with the entrepreneurs.
According to the petitioner, several communications had been made to government authorities pointing out the difficulties faced by Akshaya entrepreneurs, including the structure of service charges and conditions of the agreement. The petitioner contended that the members were being compelled to accept agreements under terms that had not been mutually discussed, and sought a revision of the agreement format to reflect equitable provisions.
A detailed representation outlining these issues, dated 14.05.2025, was submitted to the second respondent, i.e., the Secretary, Information and Technology Department (C), Government of Kerala. This representation, marked as Ext. P8, requested a reconsideration of various aspects of the agreement, including enhancement of service charges and revision of clauses perceived as unfavorable or unilateral.
Additionally, the petitioner produced Ext. P9—an email communication—which directed Akshaya entrepreneurs to execute fresh agreements under revised terms. The petitioner asserted that the revised terms referred to in Ext. P9 were not disclosed in advance, yet the authorities were insisting on execution without providing the opportunity for input or review.
In opposition, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the operation of Akshaya Centres was governed by the policy prerogative of the Government. It was contended that the terms and conditions of the agreements were determined in the public interest and that no individual or collective entity, including the petitioner association, could claim a right to negotiate or dictate those terms.
The respondents maintained that the Government retained exclusive authority to prescribe the framework and conditions under which public services were disseminated via Akshaya Centres and that contractual arrangements were formed accordingly.
The Court examined the grievance raised by the petitioner association and the response submitted by the Government through its Senior Government Pleader. The main concern pertained to the direction issued in Ext. P9 that compelled Akshaya entrepreneurs to execute a revised agreement, the terms of which were not disclosed to them at the time.
Referring to the contents of the writ petition and the materials placed on record, the Court recorded:
“The concern raised by the petitioner is with regard to Clauses in Ext.P9. The authorities, by Ext.P9, are compelling the Akshaya entrepreneurs to execute fresh agreement, the terms of which are yet not known to the petitioner.”
The Court stated that a direction had been issued in Ext. P9 requiring the execution of new agreements, and this was done without the petitioner's association being informed of or consulted on the revised terms. The Court considered it appropriate that the respondents give due regard to the concerns raised in the representation dated 14.05.2025 prior to finalising the new contractual arrangement.
The Bench held:“After hearing the petitioner and the respondents, I am of the view that the 2nd respondent can consider the grievance raised by the petitioner before finalising the revised agreement, which is proposed in Ext.P9.”
The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation dated 14.05.2025 and take an appropriate decision on it before finalising the revised agreement, at the earliest possible time. The Court further clarified that the members of the petitioner association are required to execute the current agreement, and the judgment shall not be treated as a reason to avoid doing so.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri V. Premchand, Smt. Haliya T.P., Shri Mahadev M.J., Advocates
For the Respondents: Smt. K. Amminikutty, Senior Government Pleader
Case Title: All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:42852
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 20495 of 2025
Bench: Justice N. Nagaresh
[Read/Download order]
