WP(C).No. 24434 of 2015 (D) This writ petition concerns the scope and effect of a deeming provision under Section 8A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, as applied to affiliation of a Primary Co-operative Society to an apex or regional MILMA union. The petitioner, a primary milk producers’ society formed in May 2012, sought ordinary membership of the fourth respondent Regional Union (MILMA). The fourth respondent eventually considered the application on 27.10.2014 (Ext. P6) after directions from this Court following a prior judgment (Ext. P5). The petitioner fulfilled the condition of purchasing shares after affiliation. Elections were notified on 14.07.2015 and the petitioner submitted nomination on 04.08.2015, but the Returning Officer rejected it via Ext. P10 on the ground that the petitioner had not completed one year since affiliation. The petitioner argued that Section 8A(2) deeming provision should be activated, making affiliation effective from 01.01.2014, allowing eligibility to contest by 14.07.2015. The Court, citing Ali M.K., K. Sivadasan Nair, and other authorities, held that the deeming provision operates to effect affiliation from the deemed date and that the petitioner was eligible. Consequently, the Court set aside Ext. P10, directing the Returning Officer to accept the nomination, subject to other statutory parameters, with no costs.
This writ petition, WP(C) No. 36908 of 2015, is filed in the Kerala High Court by 51 petitioners employed with Kerala Electricals & Allied Engineering Company Limited (KEL) seeking higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Scheme in light of the 2014 amendment. The petitioners contend that the amended scheme provides enhanced pension benefits and urge the Court to direct the Organization to grant such enhanced pension to them under the amended framework. The respondents’ Standing Counsel counters by noting that the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the 2014 amendment to the Employees’ Provident Scheme; accordingly the petitioners may file fresh applications under the amended scheme, which should be considered in accordance with the amended provisions and the Court’s directions in the Sunil Kumar B. decision. The Court, after hearing, upholds the amended scheme’s validity as per the Apex Court and disposes of the petition by permitting the petitioners to submit appropriate applications for enhanced pension under the amended scheme. If such applications are filed, they must be considered by the appropriate authority within the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation without delay. The decision thereby channels relief through an administrative process under the amended scheme rather than granting direct writ relief, while keeping the petition alive for eventual relief under the amended framework.
WP(C).No. 14875 of 2016 (H) V.K. Joseph challenges Ext.P2, a village officer’s demand for luxury tax of 16,000 from 2010 onwards, under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The matter traces to an earlier building tax assessment of 1,52,100 under the Act dated 24.04.2006, covering a building with a plinth area of 1219.39 square metres. The petitioner states that he paid the building tax assessed and that the apartments in the building had been sold to several persons, with relevant sale documents indicating conveyance and partial vesting of rights; consequently, further luxury tax demands should not attach to him to the extent of his remaining ownership of 133.69 square metres. Ext.P4 confirms tax payments up to 2010. The petitioner contends that luxury tax liability must be determined by the aggregate plinth area of a single owner, as per Section 5A and the definitions under S.2(e) and S.2(k), including Explanation II to S.2(e), and that once ownership changes hands, the liability should not be imposed on the original owner. The State's counsel argues that if relief from luxury tax is sought, the petitioner must apply to the assessing authority with material to show post‑assessment conveyances. The High Court cites State of Kerala v. Mammikutty to interpret 'residential building' and 'plinth area,' noting the non-obstante effect of S.5A and the need to harmonize the definitions. The petition is disposed with directions: file an application within four weeks; the assessing authority to decide; demands to be kept in abeyance pending final orders.
WP(C) Nos. 9247 & 10173 of 2021 The two writ petitions, WP(C) Nos. 9247/2021 and 10173/2021, were heard together before a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The petitioners are two partnership firms operating Bitumen Hot Mix Plants in the Vengola Grama Panchayat area: Unity Construction (represented by Rajeev P.K.) and M/S. Hira Constructions (represented by K.S. Muhammad). They sought to obtain licences and permissions via the MSME Facilitation Act, 2019, relying on Acknowledgment Certificates issued under Section 5, read with Sections 6 and 2(c), which they argued function as licenses/clearances for three years. The Grama Panchayat Committee, on 23.03.2021, issued Ext.P11 notices and decided to stop the functioning of all establishments causing pollution, despite objections from the Panchayat Secretary. Respondents contend the units generate pollution and that consent to establish/operate has not been conclusively granted, with PCB having not issued consent to operate. The court, relying on Lizy Aby v. State of Kerala (2021 (1) KHC 255), held that a Panchayat cannot issue Stop Memos solely on complaints of pollution without a proper finding based on material. The court found no material demonstrating any independent study or finding on pollution by the Panchayat. Consequently, Ext.P10 (the Panchayat’s decision) and Ext.P11 (the notices) were set aside, and the petitions were allowed. The matter was disposed of accordingly.
This Original Petition (OP) arises from proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, wherein a petition under Section 12 of the Act sought DNA testing to establish the paternity of Ardra, the second petitioner born from a relationship alleged between the first petitioner and the respondent. The respondents contested the petition, disputing the marriage and the paternity, and contended that directing a DNA test would intrude into the respondent’s privacy and could affect the child’s status. The court examined whether DNA testing in paternity disputes can be ordered as a routine measure or requires a strong prima facie case and careful balancing of interests, citing a line of authorities starting from Bhabani Prasad Jena and Gautam Kundu to Sharda and Kamti Devi, among others. It emphasized that DNA tests should not be ordered as a matter of course and that the court must weigh the right to privacy (Article 21) and the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act against the need for truth and the welfare of the child. The court ultimately upheld the Magistrate’s order directing DNA testing and dismissed the petition, finding no merit to interfere with the impugned order.
This writ petition under WP(C) No. 9391 of 2021 has four retired senior professors challenging the university’s withholding of part of their March 2013 salary and portions of DCRG and pension commutation after they were relieved on attaining the age of 60. The petitioners allege that though retirement was fixed at 60 under the Calicut University First Statute, 1977 (Chapter 3) and Rule 60(c) of Part I Kerala Service Rules, they were allowed to continue teaching till 31 March 2013 to conclude the academic year. The university relief orders (Exts. P2, P3, P5) and communications show the decision to relieve them, while RTI information indicates the petitioners continued to perform duties beyond the nominal retirement age. The petitioners rely on the practice and precedents that permitted continuation and on the Supreme Court principle in Rafiq Masih that monetary benefits paid in excess of entitlement cannot be recovered, arguing there was no financial loss to the government and no misrepresentation by the petitioners. Respondents rely on statutory provisions and a Division Bench ruling (W.A. 617/2010) that statutes override Kerala Service Rules for retirement age. The High Court ultimately holds that the petitioners were permitted to serve through 31 March 2013 and that withholding salary and DCRG was improper, directing payment with interest if delayed.
This appeal arises from MACA No. 1423 of 2006 challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram’s quantum of compensation awarded under OP(MV) No. 449/2002 for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 23.12.2001. The appellant, Musthafa Kunju, a retired instructor who ran tuition classes from home, claimed substantial compensation for injury and disability suffered when a KSRTC bus collided with his scooter, resulting in head injury and fractures, with the wife killed. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,58,000 with 9% interest from 18.03.2012, against which the appellant sought enhancement. The Kerala High Court, noting deletions of some respondents in subsequent orders, proceeded to reassess the quantum. Relying on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) and Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011), the Court fixed the notional income at Rs. 3,500 per month (instead of the Tribunal’s Rs. 1,500) and held the notional earnings loss for two months, increasing the loss of earnings head to Rs. 6,000. It affirmed 25% disability, but applied a multiplier of 7 (age 60) and re-calculated disability compensation to Rs. 63,000. The Court also awarded Rs. 15,000 for loss of amenities and Rs. 5,800 for bye-stander expenses, among other heads, allowing enhancement of Rs. 64,300 with 9% interest and proportionate costs, directing deposit and release through the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed in part.
The petitioner, LabeeB Kuttiamu, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus to command the Special Tahsildar (LR) to conduct an expeditious enquiry and to dispose of S.M.No.452/2021 before the Land Tribunal, Tirur, in respect of 4.86 acres of land in Ezhuvathiruthi Village (Re-Sy.No.265/2) Malappuram, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The challenge arises from suo motu proceedings initiated by the Land Tribunal under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970 for assignment of the right, title and interest vested in the Government under Section 72 and for issuance of a certificate of purchase under Section 72K, read with Rule 14. The court references Narayanan Namboodiri v. Special Tahsildar (LR) and another (W.P.(C)No.28398 of 2017 and connected cases, judgment dated 14.03.2018) to emphasize queing and seniority principles, stating that tribunals should dispose cases in registration order and may obtain reports via Village Officers if Revenue Inspectors are unavailable. It, however, acknowledges the pendency and directs expeditious disposal in line with Narayanan Namboodiri’s directions. The court notes the total pendency of suo motu proceedings (4987) and, while disposing of the petition, directs the Land Tribunal, Tirur, to proceed strictly in accordance with law and the Narayanan Namboodiri directions, with no costs order.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2002 of 2013 Kurian, the complainant, has filed a criminal revision petition challenging an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha, dismissing his complaint under Section 203 CrPC after an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. The complaint relates to alleged impersonation and fraud in relation to a property sale. The first accused, the brother of the complainant, had executed a sale deed in favor of the second accused using a power of attorney; instead of the complainant’s thumb impression and photograph, the documents bore the impression of another person. The offences alleged are under Sections 419 and 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Magistrate conducted an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, examined the complainant (CW1) and two other witnesses (CW2 and CW3), and marked Exts. P1–P5. The Magistrate, by order dated 01.07.2013, held that there were no sufficient grounds to proceed and dismissed the complaint under Section 203. The High Court, while hearing, criticized the Magistrate for not properly considering the sworn statements and the material on record, including the possibility of relying on inherent improbabilities. It emphasized that the object of Section 202 is to ascertain truth, not to determine guilt, and that the lack of production of the original sale deed cannot rationally defeat the inquiry under Section 203. The Court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order, and restoration of the complaint for further inquiry. The matter underscores the proper tests for prima facie case and the scope of the 202 inquiry.
This Division Bench of the Kerala High Court/HCU hears a Writ Appeal challenging Ext.P1, a 2019 order of the Joint Registrar under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, directing an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of the Thuruthippuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The petitioners sought to strike down Ext.P1 through a writ petition under Article 226, but the learned Single Judge dismissed on the view that the Joint Registrar’s subjective satisfaction cannot be challenged in a writ proceeding and that the petitioners may challenge the action taken on the inquiry’s report. The appellants contend that an inquiry under Section 65 is a serious power that can be invoked suo motu or on reports/applications listed in sub-section (1); it cannot be based solely on a complaint, and the authority must demonstrate essential necessity and application of mind. They rely on Ellakkal Service Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala (1997) and Melukkara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar (General) (2018) in support. The respondents counter that Ext.P1 satisfies Section 65 because a complaint disclosed serious irregularities, a report by the Assistant Registrar, and relevant documents formed the basis for ordering the inquiry. The court ultimately holds there is no merit in the appeal and dismisses it, with the Joint Registrar's satisfaction grounded in the record and subordinate report rather than mere complaint. The appeal is thus dismissed.
This criminal revision petition arises from a conviction under Section 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act for possession of sandalwood oil, alleged to have been illicitly removed from a Reserved Forest. In 1994–1995, sandalwood oil was seized from the petitioner’s firm Punjab Aromatics after a surprise factory inspection; the firm faced charges for possession of forest produce, with the trial court convicting under 27(1)(d) and acquitting under 27(1)(e)(iii). The appellate court upheld the conviction. The High Court, in revision, allowed the petition, holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the forest produce was illicitly removed from a Reserved Forest or that the petitioner knowingly possessed such illicit forest produce, relying on the principle that mere possession of forest produce does not automatically violate the Act. It distinguished the presumption under Section 69 as ownership rather than knowledge, and emphasized that the burden to prove illicit origin beyond reasonable doubt remains with the prosecution. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision between the same parties, Bharath Booshan Aggarwal v. State of Kerala, which clarified that knowledge of illicit origin is essential, and that possession and a production license do not, by themselves, establish illegality. The High Court ultimately set aside the conviction, acquitting the petitioner and terminating the prosecution’s case, while acknowledging the narrow scope of revisional power in such matters.
This is a first appeal from an order passed in I.A.3155 of 2008 in O.S. No. 84 of 2004, arising from a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,80,000 with future interest and costs, filed by the appellant plaintiff against multiple defendants. The suit had been dismissed for default on 4 August 2007. The appellant sought restoration of the suit under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, arguing that the application for restoration was within the period of limitation and that there was sufficient cause for restoration. The Additional Sub Court, Thalassery rejected the restoration application on 25 November 2008. The High Court, in a Division Bench, held that the restoration petition was within the statutory time limit and that the appellant had shown sufficient cause to restore the suit, applying liberal, purposive standards for “sufficient cause” and citing G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada (2000) 3 SCC 54 and Peeves Enterprises v. Muhammed Ashraf (2015) KHC 981. The court emphasized that litigation should be adjudicated on merits rather than terminated by default, and that the successful restoration could be conditioned with costs. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, restoring O.S. 84/2004 to file on payment of Rs. 5,000 costs to respondents 61–63 within three weeks, with a direction to dispose of the suit expeditiously (within four months).
Petitioners, four individuals and the fifth petitioner, a company, seek registration of petitioners 1 to 4 as headload workers attached to the fifth petitioner’s establishment under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. The registering authority and the Appellate Authority rejected the applications, citing objections from the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, and noting the absence of endorsement on service records by the Assistant Labour Officer, and arguing that registration would affect the Board’s revenue and the employment opportunities of existing registered workers. On appeal, the court notes the legal framework recognizing a right to work under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). It examines precedents—Rajeev v. District Labour Officer and Manzoor v. District Labour Officer—holding that the decisive criterion for registration is the employer’s willingness to engage the applicant as a headload worker, not whether the applicant had previously worked in the establishment as a headload worker; this is consistent with the Gangadharan C.P. decision and the Full Bench in Raghavan. The court finds that certification of service records is not a condition precedent for registration and that concerns about loss of Board revenue are untenable. Accordingly, the orders are set aside and petitioners 1–4 are directed to be registered as headload workers attached to the fifth petitioner’s establishment, with identity cards to be issued within a month.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Revision Petition filed by Sundaran challenging the conviction under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. The trial court, in S.C.No.385/2002, Payyannur, convicted Sundaran for possessing 20 litres of wash at his residence and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, in default six months’ simple imprisonment. The Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery, in Crl.A. No.270/2007, affirmed that conviction, and the revision petition before this Court seeks to overturn those judgments. The petitioner argues four principal grounds: (i) PW5, the investigating officer, had no jurisdiction to conduct the investigation within the Pappinissery Excise Range; (ii) the evidence fails to establish conscious possession by the accused; (iii) the seizure mahazar lacks the sample seal or its description; and (iv) the forwarding note lacks the sample seal. The Court notes the absence of clear jurisdiction for PW5 and scrutinizes the evidence of possession, while citing Ravi v. State of Kerala for the proposition that mere ownership of a building does not prove possession of seized contraband. The court also relies on K. Bhaskaran and Smithesh to emphasize the necessity of seals in mahazar and forwarding notes for tamper-proof evidence. Ultimately, the revision is allowed; the conviction and sentence are set aside and Sundaran is acquitted with his bail bond cancelled. The judgment accentuates the need for proper investigation and secure chain-of-custody in Abkari cases.
Kitex Garments Limited, importer of plastic bags embossed with the GERBER mark, sought exemption from customs duty under Notification 21/02/Cus dated 01.03.2002, under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, for bags used to pack babies’ garments. The dispute arose when the Customs Appraiser did not grant the exemption, and the petitioner paid the applicable duty under protest, intending to challenge the decision via an appeal once an order under Section 27 of the Customs Act could be issued. The petition relied on Exts. P7(a)–P7(j) (letters of protest) as evidence of a dispute and a request for an order under Section 27 to enable filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) issued Ext. P13 rejecting the refund request on the ground that duty was paid without demur and no dispute existed. The petitioner contends Ext. P13 is illegal and unconstitutional, asserting a statutory right to an order under Section 27 to permit statutory appeal against denial of the exemption. The court found the disputes to be primarily factual rather than legal and relied on Escorts Limited v. Union of India (1998) and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (2004) to note that an order under Section 27 is issued where a dispute exists. It quashed Ext. P13 to allow fresh consideration by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Import) and directed a reconsideration under the law. The writ petition is ordered.
The petitioner Ravi L.N., a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Hindi) at Catholicate H.S.S., Puthukal, Malappuram, approached this Court in WP(C) No. 8407/2019 challenging the denial of upgradation of the post of HSST (Hindi) from the academic year 2002-03. The contention centers on Ext.P2, a staff fixation order showing the post existed since 2002-03, and Ext.P5 (GO/Order) of 15-07-2013 which purportedly permitted creation of posts for 368 aided Higher Secondary Schools only prospectively, thereby denying retrospective upgradation. Counsel for the petitioner argued that three earlier judgments of this Court—K.V. Sreejith & Others v. State of Kerala & Others; Cyriac Stephen v. State of Kerala & Others; Lissimole.M v. State of Kerala & Others—establish a common principle that when government posts are created, they must relate back to the date they become eligible based on student strength, not merely the date of creation. On the other side, the Government Pleader asserted that Ext.P2 shows three consecutive years (2002-03 to 2005-06) where student strength was insufficient to accommodate the post, making Ext.P5 and similar orders prospective. The Court, noting the binding ratio in the cited judgments, allowed the petition, setting aside Ext.P4 to the extent it restricted the petitioner’s appointment to 22-07-2013 and directing reconsideration of the petitioner’s claim in light of the declared law, with opportunity of hearing and expeditious disposal, and preserving eligible benefits pending further orders.
Equity Intelligence India Private Limited (the petitioner) is a portfolio manager registered under SEBI regulations and invests surplus funds in equities, including parking funds in bank accounts. The 1st respondent issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asking why profits from the sale of shares should not be treated as business income. The petitioner relied on CBDT Circular Nos. 4/2007 and 6/2016 to argue that gains on sale of listed shares held for more than 12 months should be treated as capital gains and not as business profits. Ext. P2, the assessment order, treated short-term gains of Rs. 1,43,14,697 and long-term gains of Rs. 3,08,67,375 as business income. The petitioner sought rectification under Section 154 (Ext. P6), contending that Ext. P2 ignored Ext. P3 (CBDT Circular 6/2016) and that CBDT circulars are binding under Section 119. The respondents maintained that Ext. P6 is not a valid remedy as it addresses merits and that parallel proceedings are involved. The court held that the rectification petition cannot correct merits and is not maintainable where an appeal is pending; it dismissed the writ petition, clarifying that the statutory appeal will be decided in accordance with law, with no costs. The judgment relies on binding nature of CBDT circulars and the standard of mistake apparent from the record to limit rectification.
The writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeks a mandamus to direct the Special Tahsildar (LR) to expeditiously conduct an enquiry and dispose of S.M.No.299/2020 pending before the Land Tribunal, Pattambi, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The suo motu proceeding, initiated on the basis of a Village Officer’s report, concerns assignment of the right, title and interest vested in the Government in respect of 0.0805 hectares of land in Re.Sy. No.302/4, Block 20, Thenkurissi-II Village, Palakkad District, and the issuance of a certificate of purchase under Section 72K read with Rule 14. The petitioner, an 81-year-old senior citizen, contends for expeditious disposal, while the respondent pleads the overall pendency of suo motu proceedings, currently running into thousands, as a constraint. The Court cites Narayanan Namboodiri v. Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms) and others, endorsing directions regarding seniority-based disposal, use of Village Officers for reports, and expeditious processing for senior citizens. It directs the Land Tribunal to dispose of S.M.No.299/2020 strictly in accordance with law, adopting the Narayanan Namboodiri directions, and prioritizing senior citizens, with the Land Tribunal’s overall timetable to be observed. The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs, and the matter remains subject to further orders if required.
WP(C).No. 21853 of 2018 (F) This writ petition challenges the order of the District Registrar (General), Kannur, dated 9 May 2018 (Ext. P-5), which held that Ext. P-2 cancellation deed could be registered only treating it as a conveyance under Article 21(i) of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act and demanded stamp duty of 8% plus a penalty. The petitioner, Aysha, had executed Ext. P-2 canceling Ext. P-1 partition deed No. 1184/2017 (SRO, Panoor) because the partitioned property’s peculiar shape impeded construction. After her husband’s death, her share devolved among eight heirs. They sought to cancel Ext. P-1 and register a fresh partition through Ext. P-2. The Sub Registrar treated Ext. P-2 as a conveyance; Ext. P-5 directed duty and penalties under Article 21(i). The petitioner contends that, per Cleetus & Anr. v. Sub Registrar & Anr. (2012) ILR Ker 177, cancellation deeds attract stamp duty under Article 15 (Rs.250, later Rs.500) and not under Article 22; hence Ext. P-5 is illegal. The respondents argue for a statutory remedy via Sec. 44(2) of the Kerala Stamp Act. The court sides with the petitioner, noting the Cleetus precedent, but ultimately holds Ext. P-5 illegal and ultravires, directing registration after payment of Article 15 duty and returning documents. The petition is disposed of with directions for timely compliance.
W.P.(C) No.8457 OF 2021(F) ALKEM Laboratories Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus to the District Police Chief and the Station House Officer to provide adequate police protection for the petitioner’s business operations in Alappuzha and to ensure a peaceful working atmosphere for its managers. The petition alleges that, despite orders concerning the transfer and termination of medical representatives, the fourth respondent association (KMSRA) and its members obstruct the company’s field visits, appear at hospitals in large numbers, abuse staff, and threaten them. The petitioner submitted Ext. P2—an earlier police complaint—to the Station House Officer seeking protection and subsequently approached the High Court for relief. The fourth respondent counters that disputes are the subject of ongoing conciliation proceedings before the District Labour Officer and asserts no intent to obstruct field visits, urging the court to allow conciliation while protecting order and life. The court, after considering pleadings and law, cites the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and its general duties and functions, and directs police protection if needed, directs cooperation with conciliation, and permits democratic protests that do not obstruct official duties. The judgment emphasizes balancing civil liberties and law-and-order concerns, and directs the Government Pleader to communicate the outcome to the concerned officer on the same day while preserving the right to protest within lawful bounds.
