This is an Income Tax Appeal (ITA No.39 of 2017) filed before the High Court of Kerala by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1 (Revenue) challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, dated 10 January 2017, relating to AY 2011-12. The ITAT had partly allowed the assessee’s case by sustaining some of the disallowances and directing the deletion or recharacterization of others. The key issues concern (i) the treatment of preoperative expenditure incurred for setting up a new unit at Chennai (whether revenue or capital in nature) and related deletions; (ii) the claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) on R&D expenses incurred outside India; (iii) unrealized foreign exchange fluctuation gains and their proper accounting under section 43A; and (iv) prepaid expenses claimed for AY 2011-12. The Revenue’s substantial questions mirror those in ITA No.44 of 2017; the Court, while following the reasoning in the companion ITA, answered several questions in favour of the assessee and others in favour of the Revenue. It also cites precedents such as Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Bajaj Tempo Ltd., and Assam Travels Shipping Service to justify its conclusions. The appeal is ultimately “allowed in part” as indicated in the order.
WP(C) Nos. 37875/2022, 37890/2022 and 38021/2022 These connected writ petitions, filed by Mercy Mathew through her brother as next friend, challenge several documents executed in her name, alleging disability-induced incapacity and fraud. Mercy, described as deaf, dumb and illiterate, allegedly was coerced by her elder brother (the 4th respondent in WP 37875/2022) and others to execute settlement and sale deeds in favour of herself and proforma defendants, to be settled or transferred to beneficiaries including the 4th respondent and a co-defendant. The petition asserts that the District Registrar failed to properly verify identity and capacity at registration, and relies on an order (Ext. P5) in support of the claim that the questioned deeds were procured by coercion or fraud. The petition also invokes the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and contemplates appointment of a guardian under Section 14 to protect the petitioner’s legally binding decisions. The respondents contend that these matters involve civil disputes and cannot be properly adjudicated in a writ petition; they argue that registration challenges may be pursued by other remedies, and that reliance on Papayya Sastry is misplaced. The learned Judge holds that Articles 226 writs are not apt to challenge registration on the basis of alleged incapacity alone and that a separate guardianship remedy under the Disabilities Act may be invoked. Ultimately, the petitions are dismissed.”
W.P.(C.) No. 35170 OF 2015 This writ petition challenges Ext.P12 and seeks a mandamus directing the Kodungallur Municipality to grant an occupancy certificate for a high‑rise building, constructed by the petitioner in strict accordance with Ext.P1 approved plan. The petitioner, represented by counsel, contends that Ext.P1 provided for a basement, ground floor, four upper floors and a terrace (total area 1632.84 m2) with parking for ten cars, and that initial delays in obtaining the Fire and Rescue NOC postponed completion. Ext.P6 issued an occupancy certificate for lower floors, and completion plans were submitted. Despite this, Ext.P12 was issued on grounds of violations of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (Rules 112 and 113), prompting the Government to obtain reports. Ext.P9 (Regional Joint Director’s report) indicated construction in accordance with the granted permit and Ext.P8/Ext.P9 orders suggested the building could be numbered, subject to compliance. The respondents argue that the permit was initially limited and that violations persisted, requiring rectifications. The court, relying on Ext.P1 and Ext.P9, holds that the petitioner’s building may be deemed compliant if the second staircase is provided and construction conforms to Ext.P1; it disposes the petition with directions to re‑inspect and, if conditions are met, number the remaining floors, issue occupancy certificate and assess tax at regular rates within two months of the judgment.
WP(C).No. 29362 of 2015 (U) This writ petition, filed by Kadukutty Service Co-operative Bank Limited (a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society), challenges the proposed expansion of the area of operation of the Chalakudy Town Co-operative Bank Limited (an Urban Co-operative Society) and the opening of a new branch at Kadukutty. The petitioner contends that the 4th respondent’s bye-laws were amended to extend its area of operation beyond Chalakudy Municipality into Kadukutty Panchayat, which would violate the statutory type classifications and create unhealthy competition, potentially injuring the petitioner. The Bank argues that under Sec. 2(taa) Urban Co-operative Societies are confined to a municipality or corporation, and Sec. 2(od) covers Primary Co-operative Societies with wider jurisdiction; the amendment of the bye-laws and the Registrar’s sanction (Exts. R4(b), R4(c)) purportedly expand the 4th respondent’s jurisdiction, contravening Sec. 2(aa) proviso and Sec. 7(1)(c)/(d). The petitioner also contends lack of written permission and non-compliance with Sec. 12, and objects to the 3rd respondent’s approval of the amendment and the subsequent branch sanction (Ext. R4(d)). The respondents counter that the proviso to Sec. 2(taa) protects existing Urban Co-operative Societies, allowing expansion in certain circumstances; the two societies have distinct principal objectives, obviating overlap concerns; the action complies with the Act and Rules, and the writ petition should fail. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, upholding the open branch and amendment.
WP(C).No. 25012 of 2015 (B) This Judgment disposes of two Writ Petitions (WP(C) Nos. 25012 of 2015 and 27671 of 2015) concerning the selection and appointment of the Director of Gulati Institute of Finance and Taxation (GIFT). The petitioner in the first petition, Dr. D. Narayana, a distinguished economist and former RBI chair professor, contends that the appointment of the Director, and the related selection process, violated the Government’s Rules of Business under Article 166 of the Constitution and the Memorandum of Association for GIFT, including reliance on CTS rules and the then-ongoing Register of Societies. He argues that the selection process was tainted by the use of a high-powered Expert Search Committee and by ad hoc decisions, especially Ext.P-10 (the Minister’s file note) and Ext.P-11 (the subsequent notification), which bypassed the constitutionally mandated cabinet/council process. The fifth respondent in the first petition, Dr. Jose Sebastian, is the petitioner in the second petition, challenging the same processes and seeking appointment as Director. The State and GIFT contend that CTS rules were upgraded into GIFT with a tripartite governance model and that the age, qualifications and selection process were valid. The Court extensively analyzes the constitutional framework (Art. 166; Art. 154), Kerala Rules of Business, and Supreme Court precedents on mandatory procedures, cabinet/council approval, and malice in power. It ultimately quashes Ext.P-10 and Ext.P-11 and remits the matter for fresh consideration by the Council of Ministers in accordance with constitutional Rules of Business, emphasizing that decisions concerning the head of an autonomous institution must follow proper ministerial process and Cabinet involvement. It disposes of both petitions, signaling a need for an early, compliant decision by the State Government.
WP(C).NO. 34622 OF 2008 (V) The petitioner, T.K. Krishnan, holder of a licence to manufacture explosives under Rule 155 of the Explosives Rules, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash two government orders—Ext. P2 (dated 24-01-2008) suspending his Ext. P1 licence and Ext. P4 (dated 30-09-2008) confirming the suspension on rejection of his appeal (Ext. P3). The background facts are that on 15-01-2006 the Sub Inspector of Police sampled three crackers from the petitioner's shop, which, on chemical examination, were found to contain potassium chloride, a prohibited substance. A crime was registered under Section 102 Cr.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Explosives Act, and proceedings were initiated to suspend the licence until disposal of the criminal case. The petitioner challenged the suspension, arguing the orders were unlawful. The respondents contended that licensing authorities are empowered to vary, suspend or revoke licences for the security of public peace or public safety and relied on the Explosives Act and Sasindran v. Addl. District Magistrate (2006 (4) KLT 662) to justify the suspension. The court held that the Exts. P2 and P4 orders were issued after considering the relevant facts and were not perverse or mala fide. The writ petition was dismissed, thereby upholding the suspension of the licence.
W.P.(C).No. 25330 of 2016 This Kerala High Court writ petition challenges the non-concurrence of a sanctioned appointment of Smt. Jaya Paul as Assistant Professor in Mathematics at St. Peters College (the college is run by the St. Peters College Trust, the petitioner). The University (Mahatma Gandhi University) approved the appointment (Ext.P4) after a workload study showed justification for an additional post in Mathematics. However, the Department (2nd and 3rd respondents) withheld concurrence, citing the possibility that Dr. Thampy Abraham, who had become Principal in 2012, might revert to the previous post, thereby vacating the associate professor vacancy. Petitioners contended that university approval should suffice for salary and disbursement, and that withholding concurrence contradicts the University acts and the workload-based justification. The court noted that University approval was granted in accordance with rules and that the government’s refusal to concur had no sound basis, especially since there was no step taken to challenge the University’s decision. Relying on a persuasive precedent (Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College), the court quashed the impugned Ext.P7 and directed the respondents to concur and disburse salary, with a three-month deadline for compliance, effective from 12.12.2013.
WP(C).No. 30284 of 2015 (I) The petitioners, conveners of a workers' union, held licences to vend toddy at shops 7 and 10 in Kollam Excise Range for 2014-15, renewed for 2015-16. Chemical analysis of samples drawn on 9 Feb 2015 led to registration of Crime Nos. 262/2015 and 263/2015 for alleged breaches of Abkari Act sections 57(a) and 56B, with the samples testing positive for starch, a prohibited additive under Ext.R2(a). Anticipating action, the petitioners approached this Court seeking protection against a show-cause/suspension order Ext.P10, issued on 14 Oct 2015 under Section 26(b) of the Abkari Act read with Rules 5(19), 9(2) and 7(31). Interim relief was granted on 20 Oct 2015 directing suspension to be stayed and that explanations be submitted. The key issue is whether the second chemical analysis or crime registration is a precondition for suspension. The petitioners argued hardship, lack of individual licensee status, and reliance on case law (Rajappan, Sabu) to protect renewals unless offence is charged. The Government Pleader contended the statutory power to suspend pending enquiry, independent of criminal investigation or chemical testing, citing Devidasan and Muraleedharan and arguing the interim order should not thwart statutory powers or the planned auction of licences. The Court held that the second respondent has ample powers to suspend and that Ext.P10 is not invalidated by the absence of a second analysis; relying on Devidasan, it vacated the interim stay and disposed of the petition, directing fair hearing and merits consideration within one month, while keeping the petitioners free to pursue remedies under Rule 5(3)(i).
W.P.(C).No.35877 of 2005-U This writ petition challenges a long, contentious sequence of disciplinary actions against Eugine Nazarath, the Professor and Head of the Architecture Department at TKM College of Engineering, Kollam. The controversy stretches back to the late 1980s and 1990s, centered on an engineering student (the 4th respondent) who alleged internal assessment irregularities and victimization. The University of Kerala, through its Syndicate and various directives, directed the educational agency to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, despite there having been no formal University inquiry into the private college’s affairs. The petitioner argued that the University improperly dictated the course of action, undermining the college’s management and violating statutory protections for teachers in private colleges under the Kerala University Act, 1974 and related statutes (Ch. VIII; Sec. 60). The proceedings were pursued after an extended delay; the suspension began on 16 January 2006 and continued for over a year without timely Vice-Chancellor approval, violating Section 60. The Enquiry Report on Ext. P35 relied heavily on student deposition and media coverage and ignored mark sheets. The Court found that the University’s 2002–2005 actions were driven by threats of withdrawing affiliation and not by legitimate inquiry; the disciplinary action was improper and the procedure under Section 60 was not complied with. The writ petition was allowed; the disciplinary proceedings were quashed, the petitioner was ordered to be paid full pay and pension, with arrears due within three months, and costs awarded.
WP(C).No. 26064 of 2016 (G) The first petitioner, Karthikeyan, had availed a term loan from the third respondent bank in 1999; the second petitioner was the loan’s surety. The third respondent Bank is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Ext.P6 provides a one-time settlement (OTS) scheme for cooperative societies, stating that for loan accounts up to Rs 5 lakhs, the borrower can settle by paying the principal outstanding plus an equal amount as interest. The petitioners seek extension of Ext.P6 benefits to their liabilities and directions from the court to implement the scheme in their case. The third respondent Bank counters that it is a banking institution regulated by the Banking Regulation Act and RBI supervision, and is not bound by Registrar of Co-operative Societies circulars like Ext.P6. It offers to settle the liability for Rs. 5,93,258 if paid. The petitioners rely on a previous decision (Abdurahiman Nagar Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. State of Kerala) to claim such circulars are binding; the Bank relies on RBI guidance, including Ext.R3(a), which states there is no compulsion for BR Act banks to follow such schemes, and Ext.R3(c), indicating banks can adopt such schemes only in accordance with RBI guidelines. The Court holds Ext.P6 does not bind the BR Act bank and that the Abdurahiman Nagar decision is distinguishable in the present context. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed for lack of entitlement to relief.
WP(C).No. 28699 of 2009 (Z); W.P.C.No.17664 of 2010 These connected writ petitions (WP(C).No. 28699 of 2009 (Z) and WP(C).No.17664 of 2010) arise from a pay fixation anomaly in All India Radio cadre and were pursued before the Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench. The petitioner, D. Pradeep Kumar, a Programme Executive (Malayalam), challenged the fixation of his pay on 01-01-1996, wherein a junior direct recruit, Rajeev Kumar, was fixed at ₹9,000 while he himself was fixed at ₹8,500 despite joining service earlier (1992). The CAT (O.A. Nos. 151/08 and 150/08) directed, in a common verdict dated 24-07-2009, that a combined seniority list be published and that direct recruits be fixed at par with their juniors, laying down that senior direct recruits should not be paid less than juniors. The Department’s stance sought to negate the reliefs, arguing no anomaly and citing earlier pay revisions and the principle of avoiding a multiplicity of litigations, while noting that benefits had been extended to some other personnel in similar situations. The Kerala High Court treated both petitions as arising from a common cause of action and proceeded to address the department’s submissions, while emphasizing that pay fixation issues are ordinarily to be resolved by the CAT Principal Bench or through subsequent orders. In a significant interim adjustment, the court substituted the name Rajeev Kumar with TT Prabhakaran for relief purposes and directed consideration of Indira’s eligibility for analogous relief. It also underscored that further action would depend on the outcome of OA 165/2015 before the Principal Bench, and reaffirmed the principle that equality is a positive concept, not a negative constraint. The petitions were disposed of accordingly with directions framed to implement the Tribunal’s reliefs subject to due process and final CAT orders.
WP(C).No. 28024 of 2015 (C) The petitioners, students of various merit levels, challenged amendments to the Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU) regulations governing revaluation and scrutiny of answer scripts. They contended that sub-clause 2 of clause 13 and sub-clauses 1 and 4 of clause 14 of the amended regulations introduce an irrational, discriminatory barrier to awarding revalued marks. The amended provision states that original marks will stand where revaluation results in scores less than the original marks, or up to 4.99% of the maximum marks, with a notable exception for candidates who had originally scored 95.1% or more: for them, even a drop of below 5% would still be allocated to secure 100% marks. Petitioners argued this creates arbitrariness and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, seeking a declaration that the regulation is unconstitutional and requesting that revalued marks be granted without the sub-clause’s constraint. Respondents argued that the regulation applies uniformly to all students and reflects academic policy and fairness, noting that revaluation can yield higher or lower marks and is conducted through a separate agency. The court held that MGUniversity, as an academic body, has the discretion to prescribe criteria for revaluation. It rejected the petition, stating no arbitrariness or unequal treatment warranting interference, while distinguishing the factual scenario from other cases. The petition was dismissed with costs.
WP(C).No.24089 of 2016 (I) These connected writ petitions challenge orders of the Regional Transport Authority denying temporary permits to private stage carriage operators on routes in the Kochi area, where KSRTC was not operating or had withdrawn regular services. The petitioner, T. J. Raju, along with other private operators, sought temporary permits under Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and proviso to Section 104 for vacancy routes such as Poothatta-Aluva, Eloor Ferry-Willington Island, Aluva-Thevara Junction, and Konam-Ponekkara, arguing there exists a temporary need while KSRTC's operations are curtailed and the demand of the traveling public remains. The RTA rejected the applications on grounds that the proposed routes overlapped notified schemes (e.g., Trivandrum-Kannur scheme) and that the third respondent objected. The petitioners argued that non-operation by the STC on vacancy routes constitutes temporary need and that a permit can be granted even if the STC holds a permit elsewhere. The court, after analyzing the statutory framework and precedents, held that while notified route schemes restrict private operation, a temporary permit can be granted if there is temporary need and the STU is not operating on the vacancy route. Citing Punjab Roadways and Mohankumar R and Adarsh Travel, the court directed the RTA to re-consider the applications; the orders denying permits were set aside. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed and the RTA must reconsider the petitions accordingly, ensuring public transport needs are met.
WP(C).No. 29253 of 2012 (F) This batch of connected writ petitions challenges the applicability and enforcement of the UGC Regulations, 2010 on appointments to the post of Principal in colleges affiliated to Kerala University and Mahatma Gandhi University. The petitioner contends that the UGC Regulations cannot be invoked in the absence of amendments to the University Acts/statutes, and relies on older Kerala judgments such as Raveendran’s case and Joykutty to contend non-application. The court traces the evolution of the legal framework governing higher education standards, noting that the UGC Act, 1956 (and its regulations), directions under Section 20, and Section 26(1)(e)/(g) empower the UGC to define qualifications and maintain standards. It cites central judgments (Delhi University v. Raj Singh; Dr. Preeti Srivastava; State of Tamil Nadu v. Bratheep; Annamalai University; Neha Anil Bobde) to affirm that UGC Regulations are intended to ensure minimum standards and are binding where adopted. Kerala adopted the UGC Regulations via G.O.(P).No.392/2010/H.Edn (2010), effective 18-9-2010, making the Regulations applicable in the state. The Full Bench overruled Raveendran and overruled Joykutty on the question of binding effect of UGC Regulations in Kerala. The judgment ultimately holds that appointments made contrary to UGC Regulations, 2010 are illegal and directs authorities to consider claims under those standards; WP only partially allowed (with one connected petition, WP(C).15739/13, dismissed).
CRL.A. No. 285 of 2003; CRL.A. No. 1679 of 2006 Two criminal appeals (CRL.A. Nos. 285 of 2003 and 1679 of 2006) arise from a conviction for committing grievous hurt under IPC sections 324 and 326 by the Addl. Sessions Judge. The sole accused, Nanda Gopalan, was convicted for assaulting PW1 with a bat and other means on 14 May 1999 on a public road, causing severe injuries including loss of teeth and nasal fracture. He was acquitted of an offense punishable under Sec. 307 IPC, while the State challenged the acquittal. The prosecution relied on testimony from PW1, his wife PW8, two sons PW2 and PW3, and independent witnesses PW4–PW6, together with material objects MO1–MO7. The defense argued that many witnesses were unreliable and that there was no proof of intent to kill. The High Court judge examined the credibility of ocular witnesses, rejected the trial court’s reasoning that some witnesses were unreliable, and emphasized that post‑event conduct cannot by itself negate credible testimony. He discussed the status of independent versus chance witnesses, and permitted evidence and documents to be considered under Cr.P.C. He ultimately upheld convictions under 324 and 326, but altered the sentence: two years for 324 and three years for 326, with a Rs. 30,000 fine to be paid as compensation to PW1, and confirmed other directions of the trial court.
WP(C) No. 24792 of 2016 (Y) The Kerala High Court considers a writ petition by the Principal of Sree Narayan Mangalam Institute of Management and Technology challenging a refund order issued by the Fee Regulatory Committee in response to a student’s discontinuation of an engineering course. The 4th respondent, a student, joined the course in 2014 but left in the second year; his mother alleged financial hardship and sought the return of his academic certificates. After the student paid liquidated damages (Rs. 2.25 lakhs) to obtain certificates, the Committee ordered a refund, which the college challenged. The Court analyzes the regulatory regime governing admissions and liquidated damages: the KEAM Prospectus clause 12.2.4 (a)(i) exempts certain categories from liquidated damages; clause 12.2.4 (b)(ii) prescribes damages for continuing students beyond the first year; Clause 17 of the Agreement allegedly interacts with the Prospectus; Government Provisions and various exemptions (SC/ST/OEC, Keralite with income below Rs.75,000, transfers, and defense academy cases) are interpreted. The Court emphasizes harmonious construction of the provisions and clarifies that the year-based exemption applies to the admission year, and the rest of the years fall under the damages regime. On this basis, it holds that Ext.P6 is not sustainable and quashes the refund order, allowing the petition (no costs awarded).
WP(C).No. 25049 of 2015 (E) This writ petition challenges the Kerala State Public Service Commission’s (KPSC) decision not to include the petitioner in the rank list for direct recruitment to the post of Blacksmith Grade-II (category No.470/09) in KSRTC, and the Ext.P5 communication notifying non-inclusion. The petitioner contends that his ITI certificate and National Trade Certificate fulfill the basic qualifications, and that his three years of work experience as a casual labourer at M/s. Suresh Engineering Works & Metal Industries (Adoor) should count toward the experience requirement. The notification dated 30.12.2009 specified a three-year experience in a body-building/repair workshop with SSI registration, but did not expressly exclude casual labour experience. The PSC contends that the three-year requirement must come from a specified form of employment, and that the general conditions (Part-II) exclude apprentices, trainees, and casual labourers from qualifying as eligible experience. The court examines Ext.P3, showing three years of work as a casual labourer, and finds that the certificate reflects continuous service for three years, with evidence of SSI-registered private employment. Interpreting Paragraph 19 of Part-II General Conditions, the court holds that such experience can be acceptable and that the communication Ext.P5 is unsustainable. The petition is allowed; the court directs inclusion of the petitioner in the rank list for category No.470/09.
W.P.(C).No.25153 of 2015 (T) This batch of Kerala High Court writ petitions challenges quarrying operations in Kozhikode district on grounds that environmental clearance (EC) is mandatory for mining activities, including minor minerals. The court surveys a corridor of jurisprudence from Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana and All Kerala River Protection Council to Nature Lovers’ Forum, and traces how environmental norms have evolved under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and MMDR Act, 1957, with the Kerala MMCRs of 1967 and 2015. The petitioners argue that the State’s undertakings before the Supreme Court and interim orders misread precedents, potentially allowing renewal or grant of permits without EC. The respondents rely on government orders and amendments to MMCR 2015 to justify renewals, albeit these were later struck down in Nature Lovers’ Forum. The court reiterates that EC is required for mining operations, even when area is below 5 hectares, and that interim status quo cannot override statutory mandates. It scrutinizes permits issued without EC (including renewals) and finds many to be illegal, restraining quarrying accordingly. The judgment emphasizes sustainable development, the public trust doctrine, and the primacy of EC in mining to protect the environment while recognizing construction needs. Ultimately, the petitions are allowed, with costs, restraining quarry operations on the cited permits and ordering compliance with EC norms.
WP(C).NO. 29487 OF 2010 (I) This writ petition challenges a Co-operative Societies Department order in a dispute over membership eligibility of a long-time member of Kadachira Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The petitioner, T. Sivadasan, was admitted as a member on 26.12.1991, having owned property within the society’s area (Ext.P10). Eligibility requires residency or ownership of land within the society’s area under Section 16(1)(a)(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, read with Rule 16 (2)(b) of the Rules. Before the 25.01.2009 election, the petitioner allegedly alienated the property, but on 27.01.2009 he acquired a new property within the area (Exts.P11–P12), re-establishing eligibility. On 14.10.2009 the 4th respondent filed a complaint asserting that the petitioner remained ineligible for the election. The 1st respondent dismissed Ext.P3 (17.03.2010). The 2nd respondent, by Ext.P7 (09.09.2010), allowed the appeal and set aside the 1st respondent’s order. The High Court quashed Ext.P7, holding that the petitioner had reacquired eligibility before the complaint and that disqualification under Rule 16(3)/(4) must be continuing until action is initiated; Ext.P7 rested on residency and ignored the ownership criterion. The court thus allowed the writ petition with consequential reliefs, reinstating the petitioner’s status.
WP(C).NO. 25553 OF 2014 (T) Mathew Mathai, along with another bidder, challenged revenue recovery actions taken against land bought by auction to recover arrears of a liquor revenue case from 1986–87. The Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 enabled sale of the properties (69.68 ares in Kuravalangad; 98.40 ares in Neexhoor) after default in payment of kist. The 4th respondent issued Ext.P1 under the Amnesty Scheme (G.O.(MS) No.108/08/TD, 26.05.2008) allowing settlement of long-pending excise arrears at concessional rates; the petitioner paid 75% of the principal and remitted further portions, and sought reconveyance of the bought‑in lands and an order to drop revenue recovery on remaining lands. He argued that accepting the amnesty and collecting money while retaining the land amounts to double enrichment, and that reconveyance would be equitable. The Government Pleader urged reliance on Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala and other earlier decisions granting relief but not establishing a binding ratio. After examining extents P11, P13, P15 and Ashok Kumar, the Court held those earlier decisions did not establish a binding ratio for the present issue. Following Ashok Kumar, the Court held reconveyance is not permissible solely on amnesty payment, except if the entire due amount is realized by sale. The petition is dismissed, though it notes potential refund of amnesty payments to avoid double enrichment if applicable.
