The Kerala High Court has ruled that Akshaya Centres, set up to provide access to government services, cannot be treated as business establishments run for profit. However, the High Court rejected the pleas on the issue and said the entrepreneurs were bound by the contracts they had signed with the government. It stressed that they had “no statutory or other right to demand or dictate the charges to be levied” for services.

Justice N Nagaresh observed that the Centres were created to bridge the digital divide and ensure citizens could access essential services easily.

“Akshaya Centres are service centres. They cannot be treated as business centres enabling franchisees to run them with profit motive alone. The Centres are intended to serve the common man and connect the public with government services which otherwise are to be provided free of charge,” the court noted.

The ruling came while dismissing petitions filed by the Forum of Akshaya Centre Entrepreneurs and the All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation. The groups had challenged a government order fixing service charges for K-SMART services delivered through the Centres.

Launched under the Kerala State IT Mission, Project Akshaya functions on a public-private partnership model, with entrepreneurs operating centres under agreements signed with district collectors. All government-to-citizen (G2C) services are routed through these e-centres.

The petitioners argued that the new order fixing charges was issued without consultation, ignoring the costs and workload involved. They sought a stay, claiming that their earlier entitlement to per-page charges was being taken away.

Rejecting the plea, the High Court said the entrepreneurs were bound by the contracts they had signed with the government. It stressed that they had “no statutory or other right to demand or dictate the charges to be levied” for services.

“The relationship between the petitioners and the Government is purely contractual. The petitioners have the right to accept the terms of the contract or quit,” the court remarked, making it clear that entrepreneurs must abide by government-fixed rates.

The writ petitions were dismissed.
(With LiveLaw inputs.)