WP(C) Nos. 8382/2023, 8421/2023 and 11013/2023 The three writ petitions before the Kerala High Court challenge the Kerala State Election Commission’s refusal to decide, as a preliminary issue, the maintainability of petitions under the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999. The petitioners (Usha Vijayan in WP(C) Nos. 8382/2023 and 8421/2023; Sindhu Jose in WP(C) No. 11013/2023) contend that maintainability hinges on jurisdictional facts, notably whether the petitioner belongs to a political party as defined in Section 2(xi) and whether such party is registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. They argue that since the Kerala Congress (P.J. Joseph Group) is not a registered party, the petition under Section 3(1)(a) should be considered non-maintainable and that this jurisdictional fact must be determined first before any adjudication on merits. The respondents, including the State Election Commission, counter that maintainability can be treated as a mixed question of law and fact and may require evidence; and the election proceedings are time-bound (within 120 days), hence the Commission may decide maintainability at a later stage or proceed to final adjudication. The court, after examining statutory provisions and precedents, held there is no illegality in the Commission’s approach and dismissed the petitions. The decision underscores the Commission’s discretion to decide preliminary issues or adjudicate on the merits within the time constraints.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the extension of the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) at Vadakkumnathan Temple, Thrissur, managed by the Cochin Devaswom Board. The petitioner, a devotee of Lord Mahadeva, seeks a mandamus to prevent any further extension of the TAC’s term and to compel the respondents to hold elections to elect new TAC members. The key legal framework invoked includes the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (Sections 76A and 31A; the Board’s rulemaking power under Section 122) and the Ext.P1 Rules for TAC formation, with clause 13 prescribing a two-year term from approval and permitting, under certain circumstances, an extension by up to one year, while capping total extension at three years. The Board’s rules—approved by the Court in 2011—also contemplate that a term is linked to the approval date and governance needs. The petition foregrounds the Covid-19 disruption and the need for accountability through elections every two years, urging strict adherence to statutory timelines. The court, after noting the applicable statutory scheme and the submissions, disposed of the petition by directing the 3rd respondent to convene a general meeting of registered devotees and to conduct elections within two months, without adjudicating the petition’s factual contentions.
This is a regular bail petition (BA 7878/2020) filed by M. Sivasankar, a senior IAS officer (5th accused) in ECIR KCZO/31/2020 of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) involving alleged money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The background traces a July 2020 Customs (Preventive) case against Sarith P.S. for smuggling 30 kg of 24 karat gold under diplomatic baggage, followed by ED and NIA probes into offences including UAPA. The ED contends the applicant played a significant role in laundering proceeds derived from gold smuggling and kickbacks relating to LIFE Mission projects; it points to WhatsApp exchanges and proximity to A2, the UAE Consulate official, including involvement in opening a bank locker with a Chartered Accountant and deposits/withdrawals. The applicant argues that even if the narrative involves proceeds of crime, Section 3 requires a clearer connection to proceeds of crime and the alleged deposits do not necessarily constitute laundered proceeds; he asserts substantial health issues and cooperation with investigations. The court evaluates the twin tests under Section 45 PMLA (as amended) and the applicability of the proviso for sick persons, balancing the likelihood of tampering with evidence, flight risk, and the stage of investigation. Ultimately, the court grants regular bail subject to stringent conditions, emphasizing the presumption of presence at trial and the need to safeguard evidence while considering the applicant’s health and service record.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. 1896 of 2023) filed in the Kerala High Court by the petitioner Johnson Stephen challenging the order in CC 755/2022 of the Judicial Magistrate, Perumbavoor, and Crime No. 967/2022 registered at Perumbavoor Police Station. The accused faces charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, alleged to have defrauded the victim by promising a job visa to Australia in exchange for Rs. 6.10 lakh. The petitioner contends that the victim initially sought to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C., claiming a full and final settlement (Annexure A2 shows Rs. 1,75,000 as liquidated settlement). The victim subsequently did not press the application, and the Magistrate’s order did not persist in granting leave or confirming compounding. The petitioner’s core argument is that once a petition for compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C. is filed, it has the force of acquittal; withdrawal of consent by one party is not permissible. The Public Prosecutor defended the procedure, arguing that compounding under Section 320(2) requires court leave for certain offences and that the act of compounding is subject to a judicial decision. The Amicus Curiae referred to several precedents emphasizing voluntariness, the nature of compounding, and the distinction between offences to which permission is required and those that do not require it. The High Court ultimately disposes of the Crl.M.C. by granting liberty to the crime victims to move a petition for compounding, if so advised, without quashing the proceedings immediately.
CRP Nos. 497 & 505 of 2011 This is a Kerala High Court civil revision petition challenging orders in two partition suits (O.S. No.432 of 1980 and O.S. No.411 of 1986) filed by the sons and daughters of Esthappanose seeking partition and possession of property. The revisions, CRP Nos. 497/2011 and 505/2011, were filed by Dulsy Stephen and two others in their capacity as legal heirs, challenging a revised preliminary decree passed after appellate proceedings. The Court recalls the 1986 decision in Mary Roy and Others v State of Kerala and Others, which held that shares ought to be allotted under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, rather than under the Cochin Christian Succession Act, 1907, and notes that the impugned judgments were set aside with a direction to reallocate shares accordingly, with liberty to sue for partition of any property left out. In the present petitions, the petitioners contend that the lower court committed gross illegality by issuing a revised preliminary decree without following the second appeal judgment’s directive to re-allot shares under the Indian Succession Act. The respondents submit a maintainability objection, suggesting that relief should be sought by second appeals, and challenge the delay in filing. The Court records that maintainability need not be decided here, but finds substantial delay and other defects justifying dismissal. Ultimately, the petitions are dismissed, preserving the earlier framework aligned with the Indian Succession Act as guided by Mary Roy.
This is an Original Petition (FC) under Article 227 challenging a Family Court, Thrissur, order directing custody of a seven-year-old girl to the respondent father, with limited visitation for the mother. The High Court assesses whether the Family Court’s custody determination, based on interactions with the child and a welfare report, was perverse. In court, the child expressed some reluctance to go with the father, while the petitioner (mother) contended that the child’s welfare would be best served by remaining with her, subject to appropriate visitation. The respondent argued that the mother’s living arrangement—her living with a person in a live-in relationship—renders the environment unsuitable for the child, and that custody with the father would better safeguard the child’s welfare, with support from both families. The Court relies on Rohith Thammana Gowda and Yashita Sahu to reiterate that custody decisions must prioritize the child’s welfare over mere wishes, while acknowledging the child’s perspective where appropriate. It notes safety concerns in the mother’s current environment but refuses to overturn the Family Court’s order. The court, however, modifies visitation: monthly contact for the mother, expanded interaction on alternate Sundays at the mother’s parents’ house (10:00 a.m.–12:30 p.m.), and daily audio/video calls (7:00 p.m.–7:30 p.m.). The petition is dismissed with these modifications.
CON.CASE(C) NO. 2155 OF 2020 This is a contempt of court matter before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, designated Contempt Case (Civil) No. 2155 of 2020, arising out of WP(C) 1986/2020. The petitioners (petitioners 1–35 and 37–48 in WPC 1986/2020) include a large group of individuals named in the file, listed in sequence, who appear to seek relief or enforcement in a matter connected with provident fund issues. The respondents are officers of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) including regional and sub-regional officers named in the record. The petitioners contended for compliance with a prior order of the court in the underlying WPC, prompting initiation of contempt proceedings. The matter is brought before Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and, on 8 March 2023, the court delivered a judgment closing the contempt in light of a controlling apex court decision. The judgment cites Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar and Another (MANU/SCOR/106874/2022) as authoritative precedent. Annexure I to the Appendix records a certified copy of the judgment in W.P.C No.1986/2020 dated 12.06.2020. The order is signed with the standard Sd/- of the judge, and the judgment reflects the Supreme Court’s approach to EPF-related contempt and remedial enforcement. The court thus closes the Contempt Case in reliance on the cited apex court decision, indicating no further contempt is warranted."
WP(C) Nos. 7515 & 7583 of 2023 The petitions concern two adjacent landowners who purchased properties and sought mutation of title despite the lands being within the purview of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). The petitioners contend mutation and the corresponding basic land tax payments should not be blocked simply because the lands are paddy or wet lands and fall under the Act, arguing that mutation can proceed with suitable caveats while the Act proceedings run. The Government Pleader responds that mutation was withheld because the lands appear to be within the Act's ambit and had been converted without permission, making mutation inappropriate at present. The petitioners rely on the Kerala High Court's decision in Rappai and Another v. State of Kerala and Others (2014 KHC 5041) to emphasize that mere applicability of the Act cannot automatically bar mutation or transfer of land. The court agrees in principle that mutation can be effected subject to compliance with usual formalities and that land tax can be accepted, provided identification that the lands are subject to the Act is clearly noted. It also clarifies that if illegal conversion has occurred, authorities may initiate action under the Act, but such actions should not forestall mutation. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of directing mutation to be effected within one month subject to Act proceedings and standard formalities, with certificates indicating any Act proceedings.
This is a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by the sole accused, K. Premraj, challenging convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for presenting a cheque for Rs. 1,00,000 dated 12-11-2003 that was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The trial court convicted and the prima facie appellate court (Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thalassery) confirmed the conviction but modified the substantive sentence. The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, examined the evidence, the bank-executive and documentary material (Exts. P1–P7(a)), and the legal presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act, including the reverse onus on the accused and the standard of proof (preponderance of probabilities) to rebut the presumption. It discussed Rangappa v. Sri Mohan and Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar to underscore that there is an initial presumption in favour of a legally enforceable debt and that the accused must rebut it; it also distinguished Krishna Janardhan Bhat’s earlier view. The court reiterated the narrow scope of revisional interference, citing State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri and Kishan Rao. Ultimately, the revision petition was partly allowed: the conviction stands, but the sentence is modified to a one-day imprisonment with a Rs. 1,00,000 fine (to be treated as compensation under Sec. 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.), with a default term of three months; the accused is directed to surrender on 21-08-2023, and execution is deferred till 20-08-2023.
CRL.REV.PET Nos.3327/2005 & 43/2006 Two Criminal Revision Petitions (CRL.R.P. Nos. 3327 of 2005 and 43 of 2006) arise from convictions under Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act for offences punishable under Section 9. The petitioners (accused 1, 4 and 5 in the first petition and accused 3 in the second) challenge the admissibility and evidentiary value of a confession allegedly recorded by a Forest Range Officer during investigation. The core issue is whether the officer who recorded the statement was empowered under Section 50(8) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, to receive and record evidence, and if not, what weight such a confession bears, and whether a conviction can rest on it. The court surveys the statutory framework, including the non-obstante clauses in subsections (1) and (8), and the requirement in Section 50(9) that evidence recorded under subsection (8)(d) be taken in the presence of the accused. It distinguishes such confession from a judicial confession under CrPC. Relying on Motilal v. CBI, Ramesh Chandra Mehta, E.C. Richard, and Forest Range Officer v. Aboobacker, the court concludes that confessions before forest officers do not fall within the ambit of Section 50(8) and cannot be admitted as judicial confession; extrajudicial confession, if any, has limited probative value and requires corroboration. Citing Narayanan v. State of Kerala and Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, the court emphasizes the need for corroboration and cautions against reliance on such confessions alone. In light of the prosecution’s failures to examine key witnesses and connect recovered articles to the accused, the court acquits the accused and sets aside the convictions, allowing the revision petitions.
Viskons Projects, a Kerala-based partnership involved in infra development, challenged the respondent DMRC’s refusal to release its performance security after expiry of the Defects Liability Period (DLP) despite completion of works and a Taking Over Certificate. The contract KC32 for constructing a combined ASS/TSS building at Muttom Depot provided for a 10% performance security, with half refundable on Taking Over and the balance on signing the Performance Certificate after DLP, while the bank guarantee was extended to cover DLP-related obligations. The project faced delays due to floods (2019) and the Covid-19 pandemic. Arbitration was initiated (A.R. No. 33 of 2020) for disputed claims, while DMRC demanded extension of the bank guarantee and questioned the contractor’s rectifications. The petitioner contended that the DLP ended on 10.09.2021 and that Ext. P5, Clause 4.2.3, obliges the release of the bank guarantee after Taking Over; Ext. P10 joint inspection indicated most defects were addressed, with some issues beyond inspection or already resolved. The petitioner argued a public-law remedy under Article 226 is available against a State instrumentality for arbitral disputes, citing Unitec Ltd. and others, Kenny Manuel, and Millennium Delhi Broadcast LLP. The respondent’s maintainability challenge was rejected; the court held the Bank Guarantee must be released and directed DMRC to do so within ten days of the judgment, clarifying that arbitral proceedings do not bar public-law relief where warranted.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 102 OF 2006 This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition (CRL.RP No.102 of 2006) challenging the conviction of Satheesan for an offence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act, arising from a case where 8 litres of wash used for illicit arrack were allegedly found in two jerry cans on 11.10.1999. The trial court convicted him, sentencing him to three years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 with default imprisonment. The Sessions Court on appeal maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to three months’ imprisonment, keeping the fine unchanged. The revision petition argues that critical procedural deficiencies undermine the reliability of the prosecution case: arrest intimation was not proved; some independent witnesses turned hostile; there were significant gaps and contradictions in the investigation; delays in forwarding samples and unresolved chain of custody raise doubts about the chemical analysis and custody of exhibits. The petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt while relying on the independence of official witnesses. The State contends that hostile witnesses do not nullify the prosecution’s evidence and that substantial materials support conviction. The court, relying on precedents emphasizing strict compliance with procedural formalities (e.g., D.K. Basu; Baburaj; Sathi; Ramankutty; Viayan), holds that the prosecution’s lapses render the case doubtful, and ultimately allows the revision petition, acquitting Satheesan and ordering cancellation of bail, with liberty to refund any deposited amounts.
CRL.A Nos. 685/2018, 722/2018, 740/2018, 775/2018 & 790/2018 This is a consolidated judgment of the Kerala High Court disposing of five criminal appeals (CRL.A Nos. 685/2018, 722/2018, 740/2018, 775/2018 and 790/2018) arising from SC No.421/2009 (Sessions Court, Thalassery). Ten accused were convicted for offences including 143, 341, 307, and 302 read with 149 IPC; additional convictions included 147 r/w 149 IPC and 148 r/w 149 IPC. The incident occurred on 16.08.2007 at Mooriyad, near Kuthuparamba, during political rivalry between BJP/RSS workers and CPI(M) loyalists, resulting in the death of Pramod (deceased) and serious injuries to Prakashan (PW2). The appellate court examines the trial court’s conviction, the credibility of ocular witnesses PW2 (injured), PW3 and PW4 (occurrence witnesses), and the medical evidence (Exts P11, P12) and FSL findings, while addressing defence contentions of unreliable identification and investigation lapses. The court discusses the reliability of an injured witness (citing Brahm Swaroop, Pattipati Venkaiah) and the principle that the rest of the evidence must be weighed beyond investigation. It ultimately upholds the convictions and sentences, confirming the Sessions Court’s judgment and dismissing all five appeals. The decision emphasizes that in broad daylight, corroboration from multiple witnesses and medical evidence suffices for conviction, despite some minor inconsistencies in the testimony.
W.A.No.1659 of 2024; W.A.No.1487 of 2024; W.A.No.468 of 2025 This Kerala High Court writ appeal concerns mutuality and the GST treatment of services provided by a doctors’ association to its members. The Indian Medical Association (IMA), Kerala State Branch, challenged retroactive amendments to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and corresponding Kerala GST Act (KGST), introduced by Finance Act 2021. The amendments, notably Section 7(1)(aa) and the Explanation, declared that supply of goods or services by a club/association to its members would be taxable and that the association and its members shall be deemed two separate persons for GST purposes, with retrospective effect from 01 July 2017. IMA argued that mutuality—where a club provides services to members who essentially are the recipients themselves—had historically exempted such transactions from tax, a position supported by classical common law cases and many Supreme Court authorities. It asserted that the amendments circumvent constitutional limits (Articles 246A and 366(12A), and related provisions), and that retrospective taxation, unless justified, breaches fairness and the rule of law. The Single Judge had declined the broad relief but flagged unfair retroactivity. The Division Bench ultimately allowed WA1659/2024, invalidated the impugned provisions as ultra vires, while dismissing WA1487/2024 and WA468/2025 as to be without merit. The judgment emphasizes that mutuality cannot sustain GST on club-to-member services, distinguishes Calcutta Club, and holds the GST regime must be read with constitutional boundaries.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a partition suit concerning the plaint schedule property in Marady Village, where the trial court held a 26 sq.m. portion (out of Sy.No.378/21/2) to be partible and directed partition among the parties. Ext.B1, a registered sale deed dated 1994 marketed in connection with the marriage of the 3rd defendant, was relied on by defendants 2 to 4 to claim title to a portion of the property. The Sub Court’s 2019 judgment reversed the trial court’s decree, holding that Ext.B1 could be ignored because the plaintiff was not a party to that deed, relying on Sankaran v. Velukutty. The High Court scrutinized this reasoning and the cited authorities. It held that a pucca sale deed cannot be dismissed merely on non-party status in a partition suit and that the plaintiff’s rights are not automatically extinguished by Ext.B1; it discusses the difference between cancellation and declaration of a deed, citing Suhrid Singh to explain court-fee implications for declaratory relief versus cancellation. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the appellate court’s reversal was erroneous and set it aside, restoring the trial court’s decree with modification: only the property not covered by Ext.B1 is partitionable, with the parties’ shares remaining as per the trial court’s preliminary decree. The matter is adjourned sine die for final decree proceedings should excess property be available.
WA No. 523 of 2023; WA No. 531 of 2023 These writ appeals arise from two common judgments in W.P.(C) Nos. 14545 of 2022 and 30088 of 2022, challenging AICTE-based age of superannuation for teachers in aided polytechnics. The core issue is whether AICTE Regulations, particularly those maintaining a 65-year age of superannuation, can override state service conditions under Article 309 of the Constitution. The petitioners, teachers in various aided polytechnics, contended that AICTE Regulations issued under the AICTE Act, including Ext.P1 (2010) and Ext.P3 (2019), should be implemented in toto, invoking Section 24 of the AICTE Act and the rationale that AICTE standards prevail in maintenance of technical education. The State and AICTE argued that AICTE cannot compel the alteration of conditions of service of state employees and that age of superannuation is a policy matter within Article 309, to be determined by the State. The court examined authorities including Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar (2013) 8 SCC 633 and O.P.(KAT) Nos. 133/2019 and 542/2019, distinguishing some decisions while applying the principle that standards maintenance (appointments/qualifications) may be governed by AICTE Regulations, whereas age and other service conditions remain within the State’s domain. Ultimately, the court held that AICTE Regulations cannot override the State’s age-related service conditions and dismissed the appeals. The decision emphasizes the limits of AICTE preeminence in age-related matters and preserves state autonomy under Article 309.
This Kerala High Court writ petition concerns the cancellation of a CRPF appointment on grounds of pendency of a criminal case. The petitioner Harilal E.K. had applied for the post of Constable (General Duty) in 2018, qualified in the selection, and received an appointment order on 15 February 2021. He joined on 17 March 2021 but disclosed a criminal case registered in 2018, which resulted in cancellation of the appointment (Exhibit P1) after the Group Centre’s verification and inquiries. The petitioner contends that mere pendency cannot deprive him of his indefeasible right to appointment, especially since the case was not pending at the time of application; further, he argues that an honourable acquittal under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. (Ext. P5, 3 March 2022) undermines the basis for cancellation. The respondents rely on policy guidelines, joining reports, and established precedent that suppression of material information justifies termination. The court examines Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, noting that suppression must be specific and not founded on information not asked for; it concludes the cancellation is untenable because the pendency did not exist at application time and the certificate of character did not require disclosure. The court directs the respondents to permit joining on the basis of the appointment and to examine the acquittal within two months, with further orders to be issued accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4498 OF 2025 This High Court of Kerala bail application concerns Mohammed Shafeeq T.I., the 1st accused in Crime No. 10/2025 of Kavaratti Police Station, Lakshadweep, along with two other accused, under alleged offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)A of the NDPS Act and Sections 3(a) and 7 of the Lakshadweep Prohibition Regulation (LPR). The prosecution contends the offences are bailable, while the accused argue denial of bail by the Judicial Magistrate, purportedly without sufficient reason. The police claim the petitioner is a habitual offender with five prior cases, yet the NDPS offence itself is shown to be bailable, with a maximum penalty of up to three years for the LPR offences. The High Court acknowledges the seriousness of the allegations but reiterates that NDPS offences can be bailable, and that bail is a basic right subject to statutory conditions. Relying on established jurisprudence (Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement; Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India; Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement; Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala), the Court emphasizes that the rule is bail and the jail is the exception. The Court grants bail on conditions: bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, no departure from India without permission, no commission of similar offences, and potential for cancellation if violated. The ruling underscores the principle that fair trial is essential and that subsequent bail-cancellation applications remain available to the jurisdictional court.
This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case concerns a quashing petition filed by Aneesh P. Soman and others in Crl.M.C. No.8139 of 2017, challenging the proceedings in CC No.1911/2016 arising from Crime No.338/2016 of Pettah Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The petition seeks to quash the offences under Sections 498A and 324 read with Section 34 IPC alleged against the petitioners. The petition argues that matrimonial disputes are at the core of the allegations and that the evidence in the final report (Annexure A1) does not disclose any prima facie case against petitioners 2 ( Chandanavalli ) and 3 (Soman P.S.) and 4 (Asha P. Soman). The 4th petitioner is alleged to be devoid of incriminating facts, merely involved in a few vague statements, and faces relocation abroad. The respondents contend that the material in Annexure A1 shows cruelty at the matrimonial home and that there is no occasion to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court relies on Supreme Court precedents—Preeti Gupta (2010) and Kahkashan Kauser (2022)—to caution against false or omnibus 498A allegations, while distinguishing Meera v. State (2022 KHC 6034) on its facts. Ultimately, the court quashes the proceedings only against the 4th petitioner, leaving the rest intact, with the caveat that this order has no bearing on the other petitioners.”
WP(C) Nos.38290 and 38495 of 2023 These twin writ petitions challenge the open tender process for Kuthaka items at Sabarimala Devaswom during the Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1199 ME (2023-24). The petitioner, Sumesh Kumar R, participated in the 14.11.2023 tender for Kuthaka items 5 and 31 and emerged as the second highest bidder for both items; the highest bidder was Jayadeep Sasidharan. The petitions seek a mandamus to declare the petitioner as the highest bidder or, in the alternative, to re-tender the two Kuthaka items. The central issue is the validity of remittances made within an extended time window granted by the 3rd respondent in Ext. R2(a) (extending banking time to 12:00 noon on 15.11.2023) and whether remittances made on 15.11.2023 or 16.11.2023 satisfy the tender conditions (Ext. P2). The court scrutinises Ext. P1 list, Ext. P2 general and special conditions, and Ext. R2(a) along with documentary evidence (Exts. R2, R5, R7, P3, P4) to determine compliance with the time limits. It holds that the 5th respondent’s remittance through cheque dated 16.11.2023 cannot be treated as within the extended time for Kuthaka item 5, and certain remittances for item 31 were not timely, prompting a re-tender for item 5 and a statutory audit. The petitions are disposed of with these directions.
