This is a Kerala High Court revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, challenging an eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff, Kannur) under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court, and the subsequent Appellate Authority, held that the landlord bona fide needed the petition schedule shop room for her son’s partnership business and that the second proviso to Section 11(3) did not apply to the tenant. The revision petition contends (i) the petition schedule room is not identifiable as a separate estated unit within the larger building and thus eviction is unlawful, (ii) tenancy commenced in 1937 with only partial title, and (iii) the need lacks genuineness and cannot be compelled upon a tenant. The High Court reviews the matter, relying on established jurisprudence that bona fide needs must be sincere, not a pretext, and that revisional jurisdiction is limited to legality, regularity, and propriety, not re-appreciation of evidence. It upholds the concurrent findings but modifies the relief: grants six months for surrender with conditions, including affidavit, arrears deposit, and prohibition on third-party occupation, failing which eviction may proceed. The petition is dismissed with a time-bound remedy for vacating.
This is a criminal revision petition under sections 397 and 401 CrPC challenging concurrent convictions and sentences arising from a 2002 Food Adulteration case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The trial court in S.T. No. 6435/2002 convicted the accused under Section 16(1)(a)(i) for adulterated turmeric powder and under Section 16(1)(a)(ii)(g)(ii) with corresponding sentences, which were affirmed by the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No. 24/2009. The petitioners argue two core points: first, that Ext. P20, the laboratory report purporting adulteration, was not from a laboratory defined under Section 23(1A)(ee), rendering the conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) unsustainable in light of PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector and related precedents; second, that even if an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii)(g)(ii) relates to selling without a licence, it falls under the second proviso to Section 16(1)(a) with limited imprisonment. The High Court examined these submissions against prior Kerala authority, Rasheed N.K. and the PepsiCo ratio, and held Ext. P20 was not from a designated lab, invalidating the 16(1)(a)(i) conviction. The Court partially allowed the revision: acquitted under 16(1)(a)(i), but partially upheld/modified the sentence under 16(1)(a)(ii)(g)(ii), reducing imprisonment and fine. It directed appearance for the modified sentence and canceled bail bonds where applicable.
W.P.(C) No. 26499 of 2018; W.P.(C) No. 4617 of 2022 The common judgment addresses the protection of Vadakkumnatha Kshethra Maidan (Thekkinkadu Maidan) in Thrissur, a Devaswom land under the Cochin Devaswom Board. The petitions, filed by K.B. Sumodh (Secretary of Sree Thrissivaperur Vadakkumnathan Devasthanam Trust), challenge management practices and seek mandamus to implement safeguards for the Maidan. The core issues include restricting vehicular traffic after 9:00 p.m., deployment of security personnel, installation of surveillance cameras, and preventing dumping or unauthorized parking. The petitions highlight a 2018 incident of alcohol-influenced visitors entering the Maidan and call for barriers at entry/exit points and CCTV coverage. The Board’s counters emphasize that the Maidan is Devaswom land administered by the Board, with security measures in place and ongoing beautification discussions. The Court reviews the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act regime (Secs 62, 62A, 62B, 68, 73A, 74, 86, 76A) and related statutes, emphasising trustees’ fiduciary duties and the Deity’s protection, invoking principles from M.V. Ramasubbiar, A.A. Gopalakrishnan, and Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair. It also considers recent decisions (Satheesh v. Travancore Devaswom Board; Krishnakumar line) and the financial need of the Board. The Court disposes of the petitions with directions to enforce prior orders, regulate future activities, prohibit unauthorized hoardings, and permit a controlled Onam exhibition under strict conditions, while mandating compliance with Satheesh and related precedents.
This Kerala High Court writ petition challenges an Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, award (ID No.45/2012) awarding Rs.1,00,000 as compensation plus costs to the workman who claimed denial of employment as a driver at Bon Ami Tea Gardens. The Government of Kerala had referred the dispute to adjudication to determine whether the denial of employment was justifiable and what relief the workman was entitled to. The Tribunal held the denial unjustifiable and arbitrary, and ordered compensation, along with costs and an 8% interest on default. The management contended that the workman was a casual employee, not permanently employed, that the claim was belated and time-barred, and that the workman failed to prove his employment; they relied on judgments including Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Dept., and Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation v. C. Thomas Panikkar. The workman argued he worked as a driver from 1986 to 1992 and was denied work from 1992 onward; despite requests, he received no work. The High Court, noting its limited Article 226 review of Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal awards, examined the evidence (including a request for check rolls and trip sheets) and found the management failed to produce supporting records. It concluded the Tribunal’s finding was supported by evidence, affirmed the award, rejected the delay contention, and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the award against the management.
Arb.A.No.16 of 2008; Arb.A.No.23 of 2008 Two Arbitration Appeals (Nos. 16 and 23 of 2008) arise from a common judgment dated 21 July 2007 in O.P. Nos. 3/2006 and 8/2005 of the Sub Court, Thalassery, concerning compensation claimed by Western India Cottons Limited for alleged interruption and undervoltage in electricity supply by Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) during Jan 1980–July 1982 and subsequent periods. The Company contends that under the supply agreements dated 1 Sept 1973 (Exts A1, A2) and Clause 26, disputes are referable to arbitration under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and that the Board’s attempts to challenge the validity of the arbitration clause or to restrict the reference are barred by earlier orders and res judicata. The Board argued that the disputes did not fall within the arbitration clause, that the agreements were illegal/void, and that Clause 23 of the Conditions of Supply waives liability for failure to supply. The Sub Court’s combined trial upheld the Company’s claim in part and dismissed the Board’s challenge; the High Court held that arbitration was validly invoked and that the Board could not question the existence or scope of the arbitration clause due to res judicata and estoppel, citing earlier orders including O.S.3/1983, Arbitration Appeal No.29/2004 and C.R.P 1699/89. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the Company’s award-based decree was left intact.
Krishna Kumar, the appellant in MACA 1455/2013, challenges a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kollam award in O.P.(MV) 1397/2009 arising from a 31 July 2008 motor accident in which he sustained severe injuries resulting in paraplegia. The Tribunal held the first respondent negligent and the insurer liable to pay compensation, directing Rs. 16,02,000 with 9% interest and costs. The applicant, aged 23 at the time, worked as a J.C.B. operator with claimed earnings of Rs. 8,000 per month and underwent extensive treatment, including a 97-day hospitalization. The appellant argues the quantum underestimates his disability and loss of earning capacity, insisting on functional disability rather than mere percentage disability, supported by medical records showing paraplegia and a spinal injury. He relies on Syed Sadiq & Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to fix a functional disability of 85%, and on Ramachandrappa to determine income, while invoking the Pranay Sethi doctrine to award future prospects of 40% due to young age. He seeks enhanced compensation for loss of earnings, future medical treatment, and loss of amenities, arguing the insurer’s liability and policy conditions were not properly considered. The respondents contest the functional disability and quantum, defending the Tribunal’s findings and policy constraints.
WP(C).No.21908 of 2015 (K) This consolidated writ petition concerns T. Basheer’s attempt to establish a slaughter house on 1.17 acres of land in ReSy. No.45/1A, 46 and 49 of 1A, Nenmeni Village. The petitioner sought a licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) Rules, 1996, supported by Ext.P2 (PCB consent), Ext.P3 (NOC from Fire and Rescue Services), Ext.P4 (fitness certificate), and Ext.P15 (property tax receipt). In 2015, Ext.P10 revoked the building number on the ground that the land is Paddy Land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, an order stayed by interim orders in related petitions. W.P.(C) No.9413/2015 challenged the revocation, and the Court indicated the petitioner could avail the deeming provision under Section 236 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 and seek a licence under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The Panchayath later renewed the licence pending the writ petitions, and the Court directed consideration of regulatory compliance and land status under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, including reports from the Agricultural Officer and KSRSEC. The Court held the petitioner is entitled to the 2016-17 deeming provision and allowed W.P.(C) Nos.21908 of 2015 and 314 of 2016, directing the licence issuance within a month, with renewal contingent on KLU Order proceedings. W.P.(C) No.9413/2015 disposed of per directions. The matter emphasizes statutory deeming provisions, land classification challenges, and interim licensing relief.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal by the 1st accused, T.C. Jacob, challenging a 2006 conviction under Section 304B IPC for dowry death in SC No. 323/2005 (Adhoc-I Sessions Court, Ernakulam). The trial court sentenced seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a set-off; A2–A4 were acquitted. The prosecution alleged that Suja, wife of the appellant, was subjected to cruelty in connection with a dowry demand and that she died by suicide on 26 February 2004 within six years of her marriage (10 May 1998). Key evidence included testimonies of PW2–PW4 (brother, mother, uncle), and Ext. P5 (a medical certificate) indicating injury from an alleged assault; Ext. P1-FIS and Ext. P2 complaint; Postmortem indicated hanging as the cause of death. However, the court found that Ext. P5 was inadmissible, and that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 304B—namely, cruelty/harassment in connection with a dowry, soon before death, and a proximate nexus. It held that the evidence of harassment occurred years before death, there was no independent corroboration, and the proximity test could not be satisfied. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
The revision petitioner, Ahamedkunju, a landlord, seeks eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court allowed eviction, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed and dismissed the petition. The High Court, allowing the revision, held that the appellate authority ignored settled principles and misapprehended facts. It noted that the appellate authority based its conclusion on the sequence of notices—an initial rent-increase notice in 1996, followed by Exhibit A1 in 1998 seeking vacant possession for starting a furniture business—and on the long delay in filing subsequent proceedings. The court found that the Bona Fide Need assertion was not properly tested on the materials available at the relevant time and that the appellate authority erred in considering prior abandonment of eviction attempts as negating later bona fide need. The court relied on Muhammed Sajid v. K.P. Khadeeja and others (abandonment cannot defeat a later bona fide need) and the arm-chair test from Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta to evaluate sincerity, as well as Kurian K. Kuriakose v. Usha Cherian to emphasize that rent-increase actions do not automatically defeat a genuine eviction claim. The revision petition is allowed; the appellate order is set aside and the Rent Control Court’s order restoring eviction is reinstated, based on a genuine bona fide need demonstrated when the petitioner returned from the Gulf in 2010 and moved to start the proposed business.
This Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 710 of 2014) before the Kerala High Court concerns title to a plaint schedule property of about 10.25 cents out of 37.25 cents initially acquired by the plaintiff under Ext A1. The plaintiff claimed title and possession to the entire 10.25 cents remaining after the defendant’s encroachments, contending mis-description of the extent due to re-survey anomalies; He sold portions (13 cents to D1; 14 cents to D2) via Ext A2 and A3, leaving 10.25 cents in his possession. The defendants argued that after adjusting for a southern pathway and a western National Highway, only 27 cents remained; Ext A2 and A3 describe a boundary for the entire 27 cents; They claimed those 27 cents were sold to D1 and D2, leaving nothing for the plaintiff. The trial court found for the plaintiff; The District Court, on first appeal, reversed and dismissed the suit. The High Court considered a substantial question of law about the conflict between description by area and description by boundaries. Relying on Savithri Ammal and Chandrakumar, the court noted that while such conflicts may occur, the description in Exts A2 and A3 identifying the 27 cents by boundaries could be decisive. Ultimately the court held that the boundaries prevail in this case, and that the plaintiff failed to prove title or possession. The appeal is dismissed with no costs.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition (Crl.MC No. 3975 of 2013) decided by Justice A. Hariprasad on 20 August 2014. The petitioner, Rajesh R., faced charges in CC 867/2013 arising from Crime No. 293/2012 at Chottanikkara Police Station, including Section 279 IPC (rash or negligent driving on a public way) and Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP Act) for allegedly causing damage to public property (an 11 KV electric post) by driving a mini-lorry on the Kochi–Madura National Highway. The petitioner sought quashing of the PDPP Act charge. The core issue was whether charging both offences is legally sustainable given their different mental elements: rash or negligent driving requires no mens rea, while mischief under PDPP Act (Section 3(2)(a)) requires intention or knowledge to cause damage to public property, with ‘mischief’ defined by reference to Section 425 IPC. The court analyzed definitions of rashness, negligence, and mischief, relying on Basdev and Sushil Ansal to differentiate mens rea from reckless conduct. It held that mischief is committed with intent or knowledge of likely damage, and a rash or negligent driving act does not amount to such mens rea. Consequently, the PDPP Act charge cannot stand. The petition was allowed, the Annexure-A4 charge quashed, and pending interlocutory applications dismissed, with the matter proceeding accordingly on the remaining aspects of the case.
This Regular Second Appeal (RSA 1280 of 2011) arises from a suit filed by Sankaran (the plaintiff) challenging a Land Tribunal purchase certificate issued to Narayanan (the defendant) in respect of 2½ cents of property. The plaint alleges fraud and collusion in obtaining Ext.A3 (the Land Tribunal purchase certificate dated 22.6.1976) without impleading the plaintiff, who is the rightful owner of the property. The suit sought to declare Ext.A3 void, obtain a declaration of the plaintiff’s title over the property (plaint schedule item No.1 and No.2) and to dismantle and remove an unauthorised building. The trial court declared Ext.A3 void and awarded relief to recover the property; the 1st appellate court confirmed this. The defendant appealed arguing that civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain such challenges since the Kerala Land Reforms Act provides a specific forum; they relied on sections 102, 125 and other provisions to buttress the ouster of civil court jurisdiction. The High Court, after reformulating a substantial question of law, held that where fraud or collusion is alleged in obtaining a purchase certificate, the Civil Court is not barred by Section 125 and may entertain such challenges. Relying on decisions Makeeriyamnal, Unneema, Velappan, and Sree Karikad Devaswom, the court concluded that the bar does not apply in fraud cases. Nonetheless, the appeal is dismissed with costs, sustaining the lower court’s decision and the finding of fraud in Ext.A3.
CRL.A No. 31 of 2023; CRL.A No. 248 of 2023 This Kerala High Court judgment arises from two criminal appeals (CRL.A. Nos. 31 of 2023 and 248 of 2023) filed by accused Moosa Kunnugothi and Noorjahan Bandaragothi challenging their conviction and sentencing in C.C. No. 6 of 2016 of the Court of Sessions, Kavaratti (Special Court for POCSO). The victims allege a conspiracy to kidnap and sexually assault a minor girl (PW2) in 2016, with acts including kidnapping, confinement, rape, carnal intercourse against the order of nature, video recording for pornographic purposes, and publication in social media. The trial court sentenced the accused on multiple IPC offences (363, 366, 366A, 368, 376(2)(i) and (n), 506, 109, 120B) and POCSO Act provisions (4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17), along with IT Act provisions (66E, 67A, 67B) and 377 IPC. On appeal, the High Court revisits the prosecutrix’s testimony (PW2), corroboration standards, and the role of translator/witness language, while reviewing medical evidence, age proof, and documentary corroboration. Notably, the bench upholds most convictions but sets aside the conviction under 376(2)(n) for repeated rape due to lack of proven repeated acts on multiple dates. The court emphasizes the Sterling Witness doctrine, cautions on language recording, and affirms other circumstances, including the video evidence and abetment. The appeals are allowed in part, with interlocutory applications closed.
DBP No.17 of 2024 & WP(C) No.2783 of 2024 This is a consolidated dispositions on two petitions: a suo motu Devaswom Board proceeding (DBP 17/2024) and a Writ Petition (WP(C) 2783/2024) arising from alleged irregularities in the Thrikkaviyoor Mahadeva Temple Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) under the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB). DBP 17/2024 was initiated on 06.02.2024 based on complaints dated 02–03.02.2024 by temple devotees; WP(C)2783/2024 is filed by devotees seeking mandamus under Clause 18 of the Bye-laws and Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, directing action against the TAC and consideration of representations. The Court analyses Section 31A(1)-(3) and the Rules framed thereunder (bye-laws) including Clauses 2 (objectives), 3 (membership), 9 (duties of office-bearers), 12 (Board’s powers) and 18 (prohibitions). It notes governance concerns: absconding president, resignations of seven TAC members, police notices, and pending enquiries. Relying on Sunil Kumar C. (2022) KHC 663, the Court emphasizes safeguards against illicit fundraising by TACs. Ultimately, it directs the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner to convene a meeting of the registered Mandalam within three weeks to constitute a new TAC; until then, temple affairs shall be under direct control of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Group Officer, with accounts audited and an independent enquiry to be completed within three months, and an Ombudsman report as needed.
The petitioners, Prasannan (licensee of Toddy Shop Nos. 7, 8, 11 and 12/2011-12 in Group II of Thiruvalla Excise Range) and his relative, are arraigned in Crime No. 17/2012 of the Thiruvalla Excise Range for alleged offences under the Abkari Act. On 27 March 2012, about 7:25 pm, a jerry can containing 50 litres of toddy was reportedly unloaded from a car owned by the second petitioner at Toddy Shop No. 11. Annexure I (Crime & Occurrence Report) and a mahazar were prepared, charging sections 55(a) and 67(b) of the Abkari Act. The petition seeks quashing of Annexure I on the ground that even accepting the facts as true, the acts would not attract 55(a) or 67(b); rather, it would attract only section 56(b) in light of the decision in Pradeep v. State of Kerala (2010) 3 KLT 99. The court observed that the first petitioner held licenses for transporting toddy and that Annexure II permits transporting toddy within prescribed limits (75 litres, valid till 31.3.2012). The analysis showed alcohol content within permissible limits (5.28% v/v). Consequently, the court held that a prosecution under 56(b) could proceed and that the offence could be compounded under 56(a) and 67A. The CRL.M.C. was allowed, effectively quashing 55(a) and 67(b).
This is a Kerala High Court revision petition by Scariya Paul challenging an order awarding compensation for trees felled and diminution in land value caused by construction of 400 kV transmission lines across his 15-cent property at Kodencherry, Kozhikode. The original petition sought enhanced compensation for the loss in value of trees and the land after the lines were laid, claiming the award was inadequate and that the land value had been fixed on an improper basis. On remand, the trial court determined the yield from trees and assessed all components of diminution in land value, considering the property's locational features, accessibility, and the effect of the lines on the dwelling. The court fixed land value at Rs 20,000 per cent and held 50% of the land value as the diminution, noting that the lines were drawn at a height of about 10 metres above a portion of the house. The petitioner argued that the land value should be higher and pressed Exts A15 and A16 as appropriate comparables, while the respondent contended the petition schedule property's status as a wetland with no direct road frontage and that the existing valuation already accounts for locational features, amenities, and access. The High Court affirmed the impugned order, citing P. Raghavan v. KSEB and KSEB v. Livisha, and dismissed the revision, directing payment of the enhanced compensation within three months.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC, filed by Shareef Kaliyadukka, the sole accused in Crime No.519/2010 of Bekal Police Station, seeking to quash proceedings in L.P.C.No.6/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg. The case originated on a statement by the defacto-complainant alleging offence under Section 324 IPC. After investigation, the final report was filed and registered as C.C.No.1091/2010, later transferred to the long-pending register as L.P.C.No.6/2013 due to non-appearance. The petitioner and the defacto-complainant reportedly settled their dispute, with the defacto-complainant filing an affidavit stating he has no grievance and injuries were not serious. The Respondents include the State of Kerala and the defacto-complainant. The petitioner contends that, in light of the settlement and absence of a potential conviction, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be a waste of judicial time, and since the offence is non-compoundable, the court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash. The Public Prosecutor notes a prior acquittal in 2008 and that no other crime is pending. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court ultimately holds that quashing is warranted to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, given the private nature of the dispute and lack of public interest.
This writ petition challenges the recruitment process of the Cochin Devaswom Board for LDC/Junior Devaswom Officer/Devaswom Assistant posts under By-transfer and Direct Recruitment categories. Exhibit P1, issued on 18-12-2019, notified four vacancies, with a condition that the select list would expire on advice against those four vacancies. A common OMR test was conducted on 5-12-2021, and Exhibit P2 (11.04.2022) published a select list of 11 candidates. The petitioner alleges that respondents 11–13, included in the list, did not meet the 40% cutoff, and that appointments were made from Exhibit P2, with the last advice dated 30-04-2022, beyond the four notified vacancies. Respondents contend that the Board calculated marks on 95 (due to the deletion of five questions from the 100-mark test) and that 40% of 95 (38 marks) determined eligibility; they assert the rank list was prepared for all vacancies, not only the four, and that vacancies in by-transfer and direct recruitment could be filled as per statutory rules. The court examines Section 9 of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 and Rules 7(12) and 7(13) to assess the validity and duration of the select list, holding that the list remains in force for the period prescribed and that vacancies arising during validity must be advised. The petition is dismissed.
This writ petition (WP(C) No.28343/2022) before the Kerala High Court challenges proceedings dated 16.08.2022 issued by the CMD of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (FACT) regarding conduct of a referendum to determine recognised bargaining agents among workers at the Udyogamandal complex. The petitioner, FACT Workers Organisation, argues that eight unions are recognised in the plant but most are nominal and several divisions have very small workforces; thus the order to segregate divisions and conduct a referendum undermines the democratic basis for bargaining and breaches statutory norms. The court traces precedents from the Supreme Court’s FCI judgment and earlier Kerala cases (including OP No.20083/1995 and a 1997 decision), noting that elections or referendums must reflect the representative strength of unions and may be conducted by secret ballot under central norms. The respondents contend the challenged order complies with judicial directions and that the referendum was already ordered and is being implemented. The court ultimately finds the impugned order lawful, observing strict compliance with prior directions and dismissing the writ petition as sans merit while directing expeditious compliance with the referendum framework. The judgment reiterates the secret-ballot norms for assessing union representation in Central PSUs, as refined by the FCI framework.
The batch writ petitions challenge a common general transfer order issued by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), affecting thousands of drivers and conductors across depots in the State. Petitioners, all KSRTC employees – drivers and conductors from depots such as Mannarkad, Palakkad, Ernakulam, North Paravoor, Adoor, Payyannur and others – allege violation of the bipartite service settlement, wrong circle seniority, and displacement of families, arguing that the general transfer order should have followed the circle seniority and the incumbency norms, timely April transfers, and data-management protocols (G-spark). They contend that the order violates Article 14 of the Constitution and the terms of the settlement, and that compassionate or other exemptions should apply to some. Respondents counter that transfer is an incidence of service with wide administrative discretion, and that a single, state-wide transfer is necessary for efficient operation, especially given KSRTC’s financial stress. The Court, while acknowledging admin exigencies and policy considerations, emphasizes that transfers are not to be treated as punitive and that guidelines are non-statutory. Relying on precedents (Gujarat Electricity Board, Nixy James, Babu, etc.), the Court holds no automatic interfere-with in most petitions but grants partial relief in the 41369/2023 matter, deferring the transfer for the 1st petitioner and directing sympathetic consideration within four weeks. The judgment is delivered by a Single Judge (Raja Vijayaraghavan V).
