JUDGMENT : The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of the issues cropped up on account of an akshaya centre conducted by one Divya James, who is the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 19654 of 2022 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21087 of 2022. 2. In fact, on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13286 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No. 29298 of 2018 on 10.02.2022 and 02.03.2022 respectively, the District Collector, Kannur has passed an order dated 31.05.2022, by which the order of transfer of akshaya centre by the Municipality, which was originally allotted to Smt. Anusha Joseph, to one Divya Joseph was cancelled by the District Collector. 3. W.P.(C) No. 19654 of 2022 is filed by the former Chairman of Health Standing Committee and also a ward member of Sreekandapuram Municipality to implement the said order. W.P.(C) No. 21087 of 2022 is filed by Smt. Divya James to quash the said order of the District Collector. Therefore, I heard them together and proposed to dispose of the writ petitions together. 4. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 19654 of 2022 is that several complaints were raised against the akshaya centre conducted by Smt. Divya James and in spite of earnest efforts made by him, no action was initiated, consequent to which a complaint was filed before the District Collector and later, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 13286 of 2021. Anyhow, it is contended that in spite of the order passed by the District Collector cancelling the transfer, no action is being initiated. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appeared in the connected writ petition filed by Smt. Divya James, contended that the District Collector has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order; that the District Collector has not followed the principles of natural justice and has not given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence; that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to file a statement or documents; that the contentions raised by the petitioner was not considered; and that he has no right to cancel the licence of akshaya centre. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective petitioners Smt. P. Parvathy and Sri. V.T. Madhavanunni, learned Standing Counsel for the Sreekandapuram Municipality, Sri. Jayakumar Namboodiri, the learned Special Government Pleader Sri. C.E. Unnikrishnan and Sri. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective petitioners Smt. P. Parvathy and Sri. V.T. Madhavanunni, learned Standing Counsel for the Sreekandapuram Municipality, Sri. Jayakumar Namboodiri, the learned Special Government Pleader Sri. C.E. Unnikrishnan and Sri. K. Mohanakannan for the fifth respondent in W.P.(C) No. 21087 of 2022, and perused the pleadings and material on record. 7. The sole question that emerges for consideration is whether any manner of interference is required to order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the District Collector as per the directions issued by this Court in the judgments referred to above. 8. On a perusal of the said impugned order, it is clear that the akshaya centre was originally allotted to one Anusha Joseph, who transferred the same in favour of Divya James, without securing adequate orders from the respective authorities. It was accordingly that complaints arose against Smt. Divya James and ultimately, as per the directions issued by this Court, the District Collector has considered the issue and has cancelled the transfer made by the Municipality from Smt. Anusha Joseph in favour of Divya James. It is important to note that the former Health Standing Committee Chairman and the Councillor of the Sreekandapuram Municipality, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 19654 of 2022, had raised a contention in the earlier writ petition in the instant writ petition filed by him that there was no decision taken by the Municipality permitting transfer of akshaya centre from Anusha Joseph to Divya James. 9. The District Collector, after calling for the files and enumerating the details, has found that there are certain interpolations and manipulations in the documents maintained by the Municipality and it was accordingly that the District Collector has decided to cancel the order transferring the akshaya centre from Anusha Joseph to Divya James. Therefore, I do not think, any interference is required to the said order based on the factual circumstances and scrutiny of documents. It is also passed after providing an opportunity of participation to all concerned. 10. Even though the learned counsel appearing for Smt. Divya James submitted that the District Collector has no power or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, I am of the view that the District Collector is the District Coordinator of akshaya centre. It is also passed after providing an opportunity of participation to all concerned. 10. Even though the learned counsel appearing for Smt. Divya James submitted that the District Collector has no power or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, I am of the view that the District Collector is the District Coordinator of akshaya centre. Moreover, the District Collector was directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation to consider the complaints pending before the District Collector, and therefore under any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the order impugned is without jurisdiction. To put it more clearly, when the power was exercised by this Court on the principles of infinite jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and directed the District Collector to pass an order, the order passed by the said authority can only legally be presumed to be an order absolutely with jurisdiction and power. Therefore, the contention so advanced has no legal sustenance. 11. However, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State officials submitted that the subject matter is now under the active consideration of the State Coordinator on the basis of the orders passed by the District Collector and a decision would be taken at the earliest possible. In that view of the matter, I do not think, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21087 of 2022 is not entitled to get any relief as is sought for in the writ petition and therefore, it is declined. W.P.(C) No. 19654 of 2022 is disposed of directing the State Coordinator to take a decision finally in respect of akshaya cente in question within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.