CRL.M.C. Nos. 5791/2022 and 5885/2022; Crime No. 501/2022 (KOYILANDY PS) This High Court of Kerala case (Crl.M.C. Nos. 5791/2022 and 5885/2022) challenges a Sessions Court Kozhikode order granting pre-arrest bail to the accused in Crime No. 501/2022 of Koyilandy Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 354 and 341 IPC, with the prosecution alleging that on 8 February 2020 the accused, during a cultural camp near Nandi beach, allegedly embraced and outraged the modesty of a young female writer. The Sessions Court granted pre-arrest bail on 12 August 2022, prompting the state and the de facto complainant to approach the High Court. The state contends that the bail order demonstrates improper exercise of discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C., reliance on irrelevant considerations, and erroneous observations about the victim’s dress undermining the charge under Section 354A. The de facto complainant-victim argues the order is legally flawed and merits reversal. The accused contends merits for bail citing advancing age (74), near completion of investigation, and a long delay in filing the FIR (about 2½ years). During hearing, the court expunged remarks about provocative dress, acknowledging that dress is not a lawful ground to absolve the accused and emphasized a survivor-friendly approach. The High Court ultimately confirms the pre-arrest bail with conditions, without remitting the matter for further disposal.
W.P.(C) No. 23415 of 2020 This is a writ petition (WP(C) No. 23415 of 2020) filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by Aruna K.R. and other petitioners challenging or seeking relief in relation to disputes over land in Idukki district. The matter was referred to the Kerala High Court Mediation Centre for settlement. The mediator reported that the dispute between the petitioners and certain respondents—specifically respondents 7 and 8—had been settled, and a settlement memorandum was prepared and placed before the court. The memorandum of settlement records a partition of the disputed property described as 1.6930 hectares (out of a total extent of 4 acres 18 cents) in Survey No. 88/16, Kanjikuzhi Village, Idduki Taluk (formerly Thodupuzha Taluk), Kerala. The terms provide that petitioners will take 1.05 acres jointly, while respondents 7 and 8 will take the remaining portion, with possession and ownership to be recorded by the High Court on signing of the settlement. Respondents 7 and 8 agree to release their rights in favor of the petitioners, even if a patta under the Kerala Land Assignment Act remains in their names. The parties also undertake to bear their own costs and to have no further claims against one another. The court has accepted the settlement and closed the writ petition, incorporating the memorandum of settlement into the judgment.
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 9(n) r/w 10 POCSO Act of the accused, the victim's father, for sexually assaulting his minor daughter. The trial court framed the charges after the victim testified about repeated abuses beginning when she was seven, culminating in two night-time incidents in 2014. PW1, the victim, testified to being touched on her breasts, buttocks and private parts, and to the accused peeping into the bathroom. PW2, her mother, corroborated an account of the abuse and of reporting to police. The court below convicted the accused and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs 25,000 fine, under Section 10 POCSO for the mandatory minimum, with default imprisonment for three months. On appeal, counsel for the appellant argued the conviction rests on uncorroborated testimony of a child, with contradictions and omissions, and that delay in reporting and the victim's age were not legally proved. The Public Prosecutor supported the verdict, arguing that the child victim's testimony, though uncorroborated, is credible and supported by PW2. The High Court scrutinized the evidence, found PW1 credible, and held that in sexual-offense cases the testimony of a child witness can sustain conviction; corroboration is not a mandatory requirement. It relied on Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Asha Ram, and Gurmit Singh to reject the defense. As a result, the conviction and sentence were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
DBP No.7 of 2022, a suo motu petition at the High Court of Kerala, concerns the governance of Thelliyyorkkavu Devi Temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB). The court registered the matter on 21.02.2022 following complaints about temple constructions and the Sapthaha Yajnam. On 28.02.2022 it observed that there was no Temple Advisory Committee at Thelliyyorkkavu; instead an Ad-hoc Committee had overseen the Sapthaha Panthal. The petition relies on Section 31A of the TDB Act and the Rules framed under it, which prescribe formation, eligibility, election, term, and finances for Temple Advisory Committees (Clauses 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 18) and require board approval for committees and schemes. It refers to ROC No.2976/21/M (01.04.2021) as a Board action. The fourth respondent’s counter asserts that funds for Bhagavatha Parayanam and Annadhanam come from sponsors and that no Kanikka Vanchies or unauthorised collections occur; the permanent Sapthaha Panthal was constructed with donor sponsorship and board approval. The court cites precedents (Santharam Roy T.S., Chandu K., Sunil Kumar C., Ramjas Foundation) to interpret the statutory framework and the governance of temple development. Ultimately, the court disposed of the petition by directing the immediate constitution of a Temple Advisory Committee within two months, barring the Ad-hoc Committee from further development, auditing prior works, and restricting vazhipadu to Paditharam while ensuring board supervision.
Budget Foods Pvt. Ltd., a retail operator, challenged two adverse orders (Exts. P6 of 07.03.2022 and Ext. P7 of 10.05.2022) denying registration of four permanent workers as headload workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. The company had hired four workers for loading/unloading at its Kalpetta hypermarket and had submitted registration applications (Exhs. P1–P4). It relied on the legal regime that governs headload workers, the statutory right to registration, and prior judicial directions (notably W.P.(C). No. 4561/2022 and a 2021 judgment) that the area is a scheme and that registration cannot be blocked on administrative grounds. The court traced the rule’s intent: to make registration possible for new entrants, not to penalize prospective workers for non-existent prior headload work. Relying on Rajeev v. District Labour Officer, Muhammed Kunju, and Gangadharan v. Abdul Nasir, the court read down Rule 26A, holding that registration can be granted if the employer is willing to engage and the applicant has the requisite physique. The court set aside the orders and directed immediate registration and identity cards for the workers within 30 days, disposing of the petition.
This Public Interest Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.23819 of 2022) challenges Exhibit P3, a Government Order transferring Dr. B. Ashok IAS from the post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (KSEB) to the Agriculture Department. The petitioner, a KSEB employee, argues that the transfer violates tenure protection of two years (Ashok having completed only one year) and that the Board’s precarious finances, though improved in the previous year under Ashok’s leadership, cannot justify removal, especially amid alleged influence and alleged mala fides by the 6th respondent. The petitioner seeks quashing Exhibit P3 and enabling Ashok to continue as CMD until the end of his tenure. The petition asserts issues of probono litigation (public interest), tenure protection, and governance of a state-controlled utility, invoking Article 312 of the Constitution, Article 14, and provisions relating to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Electricity Act, 2003. The respondents contend the matter is a service dispute, not a genuine aggrieved-person PIL matter, and that PIL in service matters is not maintainable except for quo warranto. The High Court ultimately holds that PIL is not maintainable in service matters and dismisses the petition.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.M.C. 4801 of 2019) challenges the continuing proceedings in SC No.559/2018 before the Sessions Court, Kollam, arising from Crime No.29/2002 of Anchalumood Police Station. The sole accused, Saseendra Babu, faced charges under Section 306 IPC in connection with the death of Sasidharan, who committed suicide on 2 February 2002 after an exchange with the accused over debts owed. The petition contends that the alleged words by the accused during a debt dispute — though abusive — do not establish mens rea or instigation to commit suicide, and hence the proceedings should be quashed. The State counters that the final report indicates a prima facie case and that the matter involves factual matters more appropriate for trial. The learned judge analyzes the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC, citing Supreme Court precedents (M. Arjunan v. State and Vedprakash Bhaiji v. State of Madhya Pradesh) to emphasize that mere insulting language is insufficient without evidence of intent to incite or abet suicide. On considering the material on record and the cited authorities, the court concludes there is no demonstrated mens rea to instigate suicide, quashes Annexure A1 final report, and discharges all further proceedings in SC No.559/2018. The order thereby allows the CRL.M.C. and ends the prosecution at this stage.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from eviction proceedings between a landlord and tenant regarding a commercial lease of 11.478 cents of land where HPCL (appellant) sought eviction and damages from the tenant. The property originally belonged to the plaintiffs and defendants 2–15. Lease deeds Ext.A1 (1953), Ext.A2 (1963), and Ext.A3 (1976) governed the tenancy for fixed terms of ten years, with Caltex Act 1979 subsequently extending leases. The appellant contends that Exts.A2 and A3 amounted only to renewals, not fresh leases, thus qualifying for protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for buildings erected pre-1967. The trial court found the tenant entitled to Section 106 protection; the first appellate court held that Exts.A2–A3 created fresh leases, removing the entitlement. The High Court, however, determined that the lease terms expired by efflux of time and that the subsequent deeds created a fresh lease, thereby denying Section 106 protection. The court noted the distinction between extension and renewal and relied on Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. T.S. Kalyanaraman (2014) to uphold the renewal-as-fresh-lease principle. It partially allowed the appeal: eviction confirmed, but damages for use and occupation were adjusted to ₹300 per month at 9% interest, prospectively, till possession.
This High Court of Kerala, in MACA No.216 of 2012, heard on 3 January 2022, reviews an award of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, arising from an accident on 19 November 2006 involving the appellant’s motorcycle. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,44,910 to the appellant (injury claimant) against insurer and owner, with liability partly settled after the owner and rider were ex parte and the insurer acknowledged policy validity, but contested the driver’s license validity. The appellant, a student-cum-contractor with a claimed monthly income of Rs.5,000, sustained severe injuries including a depressed skull fracture and fragmented leg injuries, necessitating emergency surgery and prolonged hospitalization. The Tribunal’s fixation of income at Rs.1,250 per month and the lack of evidence on certain heads led the appellant to challenge the quantum. The High Court re-examines the evidence, relying on the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa decision (2011) to fix a notional income of Rs.5,000 per month for the year 2006, and determines a higher compensation for loss due to disability (29% with a multiplier of 18) at Rs.3,13,200. It also recalculates amounts for transportation, nourishment, medical expenses, pain, suffering, and loss of amenities, resulting in a total enhanced award of Rs.4,26,060 with interest and costs. The appeal is allowed and the insurer’s liability remains intact, with a 60-day window to deposit the enhanced amount and disbursements to follow.
This Rent Control Revision challenges eviction orders issued under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, stemming from an eviction petition by landladies in RC(OP) 21/2015 for bona fide need and arrears. The tenant, B. Vijayan Pillai, failed to deposit admitted arrears despite multiple court directions beginning 26.02.2018. The Rent Control Court subsequently ordered eviction under Section 12(3) on 08.08.2018 after observing that sufficient time had been granted for payment, and despite IA extensions (1538/2018 and 3386/2018). The Addl. Rent Control Appellate Authority-II, Kollam, dismissed the appeal in RCA 28/2018 dated 27.02.2019. The revision petition under Section 20 of the Act contends the order is unsustainable. The High Court analyses Section 12 (payments during proceedings) and notes that a tenant must pay or deposit all admitted arrears to contest eviction, with extensions allowed only to facilitate payment. Citing Shaji M. v. SNDP Sakhayogam (Full Bench) and Narayanan v. Vinod, the court endorses that no separate notice is required and that reasonable opportunity must be given. Ultimately, the court dismisses the revision petition, while granting one month to pay the arrears; if not paid, eviction orders will continue to operate.
WP(C) 28461/2018 (and connected cases) This batch of writ petitions challenges terminations of provisional empanelled KSRTC employees (drivers, conductors and mechanics) who had been regularised through judgments or bipartite settlements, and/or whose regularisation was guided by Government Orders. The petitioners contend that the 2008 bipartite settlement, 2011 Government orders, and later Supreme Court directions had created a vested right to regularisation for those meeting twin criteria: ten years of service and 120 days of duty per year as on 21 December 2011. KSRTC terminated many employees on grounds of not meeting the 120-day requirement by 2011, relying on a 2013 Government order incorporating the condition. The petitioners argue retroactive application of such conditions and rely on prior judgments in their favor, whose effect they claim should continue. The State and KSRTC counter that the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No. 4435-4438/2017 held that any condition for regularisation can be imposed; that decision binds all, including those with earlier favorable orders, and retrospectivity should be recognized. The Court ultimately holds that the Supreme Court’s 2017 declarations bind the petitioners and others, sets aside the termination orders, and directs KSRTC to grant hearings, examine records, and decide on regularisation if the twin criteria (ten years and 120 days) are satisfied; otherwise, termination with pension or family benefits as applicable. The judgment emphasizes procedural fairness, retrospective effect of the SC decision, and clear timelines for reconsideration.
MACA Nos. 427/2015 and 731/2015 These MACA appeals arise from O.P.(MV) No.1526/2010 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to Manu Kumar P.M. for injuries sustained as a pillion rider in a 2010 accident, and the insurer ICICI Lombard’s challenge that the award was excessive. The Tribunal held the accident occurred due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider, with no breach of policy conditions, and awarded Rs.37,25,375 with 9% interest and costs. The High Court, hearing the appeals together, re-examines the computation of compensation for loss of earning capacity in the light of permanent disability, disability assessment reports, and income evidence. It accepts that the claimant suffered permanent disability and, after Medical Board reassessment, fixed disability at 82% with a finding of 100% loss of earning capacity. It applies the multiplier method (18 years) and adds future prospects (40%) consistent with Supreme Court guidance in Pappu Deo Yadav, and other precedents such as Raj Kumar Ajay Kumar, Jithendran, and Kajal, to quantify future economic loss. The Court reallocates sums across heads, enhances certain heads (loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, future bystanders), and reduces others, resulting in a total enhanced award of Rs.70,33,575 with 7.5% interest and costs. MACA 427/2015 is allowed to the extent indicated, while MACA 731/2015 is dismissed.
This writ petition by M.G. Rathnakumari, a Junior Cooperative Inspector, challenges the State of Kerala and the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board for denying appointment by transfer as Lower Division Typist despite eligibility and vacancies from 06.03.2014. The petitioner repeatedly approached this Court, which directed consideration of her application; however, due to pendency of writ petitions and alleged non-compliance, the appointment was delayed and finally granted only by Ext. P9 (30.01.2020). The petitioner sought retrospective appointment from 06.03.2014 with consequential benefits and argued for retroactive effect, invoking Gracy v. State of Kerala (1985 KHC 62), which held that where due promotions are illegally denied, an employee may be entitled to full salary and allowances from the date of retrospective promotion. The respondents relied on various Supreme Court decisions (including Union of India v. K.K. Vadera; Baij Nath Sharma; Nirmal Chandra Sinha; Union of India v. N.C. Murali). The Court found Ext. P12 (rejection) misconceived and an affront to court directions, and set it aside. Since the petitioner did not hold LD Typist from 06.03.2014, the Court directed a proper reconsideration of the retrospective appointment, including the possibility of notional promotion from the date of vacancy, in light of applicable provisions, and to pass appropriate orders within two months after hearing, with a view to implementing the directions and avoiding contempt.
This Kerala High Court judgment in MFA (Forest) No. 136 of 2008 concerns a challenge to a Forest Tribunal order denying exemption from vesting under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The petitioner, Pavithran, claimed exemption for about 5.1763 hectares of land in Re. Sy No. 605/part of Kallamala Village, Mannarkkad Taluk, Palakkad, by virtue of a Land Reforms Act purchase certificate (Ext. A5). The certificate was contested by a third party; earlier suits were dismissed, and remand failed to revive the claim. The Tahsildar’s 2002 notice had flagged vesting forest status, leading to a suit for declaration against vesting. The Forest Tribunal framed issues on limitation, the private forest character, and exemption under Section 3(2), ultimately holding the application time‑barred and failing to establish property identity, with reliance on commission reports rejected. On appeal, counsel for Pavithran argued two points: (i) a Land Reforms Act purchase certificate is conclusive proof of title with a presumption under the Evidence Act (Section 4); and (ii) under Section 72K, exemption under the Vesting Act is automatic. The State’s counsel contended that identity of the property was not proved and noted prior decisions that restrict reliance on Land Reforms proceedings for vesting exemptions. The High Court dismissed the MFA appeal, upheld the Tribunal’s decision on limitation and identity, and awarded costs to the parties.
This is a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court entertaining two writ appeals (WA Nos. 829 and 833 of 2017) challenging common judgments in W.P.(C) Nos. 15191/2016 and 9727/2016. The appellant, Huntsman International (India) Pvt. Ltd., imported and sold Suprasec (a polyurethane product). The core issue is the classification of Suprasec under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT), determining whether it falls under HSN 2929.10.20 (Isocyanates) or HSN 3909.50.00 (Polyurethanes), which affects the applicable tax rate (5% vs 12.5%). The dispute began with a change in classification from 2929.10.20 to 3909, and a clarificatory order dated 04.11.2009 under Section 94 of the Act addressed related goods, while the appellant argues the clarifications are not conclusive on Suprasec’s classification. The authorities relied on the clarifications, and penalties were imposed under Section 25(1) and Section 6(7)(1)(d), with additional provisional notices under Section 67. The High Court, while noting technical and scientific issues, remands the matter to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh, objective adjudication, allowing the appellant to submit additional documents or expert opinions within eight weeks and directing disposal within six months, while keeping the writ petitions open to further challenge. No costs are awarded.
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition under Article 226 challenging Ext.P3 (dated 18.05.2022) publishing the preliminary list of nominees for the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) of Sree Kottaram Mookambika Temple, Kolazhi, Thrissur. The petitioner, a devotee, contends that the election to the TAC has not been conducted strictly in terms of the approved bye-laws (Ext.P1) and seeks quashing of Ext.P3, a fresh election excluding respondents 5–11, and mandamus to appoint a new TAC in accordance with Ext.P1. He also seeks action on Ext.P4 (complaint dated 20.05.2022) before the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner to remove those named in Ext.P3. The respondents counter that the current bye-law (as approved under statutory provisions) governs membership and election; they highlight there is no TAC in place and contend the matter requires adherence to the bye-laws, Sections 76A and 31A of the Travancore–Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Acts, and related rules. The Court emphasizes the statutory character of TACs and the pari materia relationship between Sections 31A and 76A, approving the need to follow the bye-laws. It disposed of the petition by directing the 2nd respondent to finalize the mandalam list within one month and the 3rd respondent to convene a meeting within two months, enabling a compliant election.
The petitioner, MM TV Limited, sought a declaration that it is entitled to construct two additional floors atop an existing building (No. 2/275-A, Aroor) for which a building permit was issued in 2010 (Ext.P4). In 2022, the petitioner applied online (Ext.P6) for permission to add two floors. The Grama Panchayat Secretary issued Ext.P9, refusing the permit on the ground that the land is categorized as ‘Nilam’ in revenue records and that a building permit for such land requires sanction of the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, i.e., Section 27A. The petitioner challenged Ext.P9. The respondent contends that the land, though described as Nilam, is not in the Data Bank and that Ext.P4 approvals were given for a structure with a total plinth area; Ext.P9 targets an unnotified paddy land. The court, relying on Soumini v. Naduvannur Grama Panchayat, Deepu v. District Collector, Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector, and Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma, held that where land already has a building, a change of user under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order) is required; 27A permission is not triggered for mere residential/commercial expansion that does not change the land’s nature as of 30.12.2017. Ext.P9 is set aside, and the Panchayat is directed to grant a building permit if the petitioner is otherwise eligible, with orders to be issued within one month.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P4 proceedings dated 17.03.2022 of the Travancore Devaswom Board and Exts.P5 and P6 auction notices, issued to auction the Kuthaka right for making and selling flower garlands in Sree Mahadeva Temple and Krishnan Kovil under Ettumanoor Devaswom for the year 2022-23. The petitioners, four Kazhakakars of Sree Mahadeva Temple, contend that the Karanma (right to supply flower garlands) is a long-standing customary arrangement vested in their families, recognized by earlier judicial decrees (Ext.P1 and Ext.P2). They argue the Board’s Ext.P4 decision to auction and Exts.P5-P6 auction notices infringe the Karanma and contravene the directions in 2003’s W.P.(C) No.19366/2003 and Ext.P3 order (2003) directing reconsideration. They rely on Section 28 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, and on the constitutional protection of customary rites, to bar interference with Karanma. The respondents counter that Karanma rights within the Nalambalam are unaffected and that the Ext.P4 auction relates to Kuthaka outside Nalambalam; temple rites must be administered by the Board under the Act. They emphasize the Board’s fiduciary duties and the need to manage temple properties and revenues, including muthalkoottu remittance obligations, to sustain temple functioning. The court ultimately weighs these positions against legal duties under the Act and prior judgments and holds that Ext.P4 and Exts.P5-P6 do not impair the petitioners’ Karanma rights.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 2620/2012) before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam arising from a road accident on 30 April 2004 involving a car Reg. No. TMB 2858 that struck the appellant, a tailor aged about 37 years. The appellant sustained serious injuries requiring open reduction and internal fixation of the right tibia, fasciotomy, and later skin grafting; he was hospitalized for extended periods. He claimed Rs. 3,50,000 as compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, awarded Rs. 1,12,000 with 8% interest. The appellant challenged the award, arguing that Ext. A8 shows 12% permanent disability and that the doctor was not examined; the Tribunal erred in adopting only 6% disability and in using an income of Rs. 2,500 per month. He contends he earned about Rs. 6,000 per month and seeks enhanced compensation. The respondents contend the Tribunal’s award was just; the 6% disability is justified, Ext. A8 was not properly proved, and the income figure was not reliably established. The High Court, while hearing the appeal, accepts 9% disability (relying on the Ext. A8 and the injury severity), adopts a monthly income of Rs. 4,500 (citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram, [(2011) 13 SCC 236]), and applies a multiplier of 15. This yields enhanced heads of Rs. 72,900 for disability, Rs. 10,000 for amenities, and Rs. 13,500 for loss of earnings, totaling Rs. 96,400 with 8% interest from petition date. The appeal is allowed; the enhanced amount is payable with NEFT/RTGS; set-off for any prior payments is required.
WP(C) No. 10612 of 2024 & con. cases The judgment deals with a batch of writ petitions challenging freezing of bank accounts in the wake of cybercrime probes and notices issued by police authorities and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. Petitioners, ranging from individuals to banks exercising freezing actions, challenged account freezes imposed by police/cybercrime authorities across multiple states. The court recalls and applies guidance from a related decision in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2023 KHC Online 661), and issues a consolidated set of directions to harmonize anti-fraud/enforcement efforts with the petitioners’ right to access funds. The core holding directs that freezes must be strictly confined to the amounts specified in the police requisitions; banks should enable the petitioners to operate beyond that amount. Police authorities are directed to inform banks whether the freezing must continue in the same manner, and for what period, within eight months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Banks are required to comply with these limits or to withdraw freezes if further restriction is not warranted. If no information is received, petitioners may approach the court again, with all contentions left open. The disposition emphasizes protecting ordinary banking transactions while preserving the integrity of criminal investigations, providing a practical, uniform framework for freezing orders across jurisdictions.
