Crl.MC.No.1671 OF 2021 (H) This is a criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 CrPC filed by eight accused challenging the final report in Crime No.1088/2012 and the subsequent proceedings in SC 255/2014 before the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad. The petition alleges that on 22.10.2012, amid political animosity between the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the respondents with a wooden stick causing simple injuries; however, the matter was subsequently settled amicably through the intervention of well-wishers. The respondents filed affidavits stating they have no subsisting grievances and are not desirous of pursuing the matter. The State, after ascertaining genuineness of the settlement, indicated no serious objection. The court found that though the police initially included a charge under Section 308 IPC, the injuries were simple and the ingredients of Section 308 are not attracted; all other offences are compoundable under Section 320 IPC. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the court recognized that where an amicable settlement exists and the offence is not serious, ends of justice demand that the proceedings be quashed. On that basis, the court allowed the petition, quashing the final report and all further proceedings against the petitioners.
This Land Acquisition Appeal (L.A.A. No. 97 of 2021) and connected cross-objections arise from Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 10 of 2018 before the Second Additional District Judge, Ernakulam, concerning 8.10 acres in Angamaly village acquired for Coast Guard Air Enclave Kochi. The Government invoked the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the 1894 Act, with possession taken after payment of a substantial portion of compensation. The acquisition was under 2013 Act framework from 01.01.2014, but Section 4(1) notification was issued in 2013; the appellant contends that the best evidence of value is the sale consideration shown in Exhibit A2 (Rs. 68,12,500 for 8.10 Ares) and claims higher market values based on Exhibits A2, A3 and A5 (Rs. 8,40,000 per Are) and potential value due to proximity to Cochin International Airport (claimed up to Rs. 11,18,272 per Are). He seeks enhancement under Sections 26–30 of the 2013 Act and Section 40(5). The respondents challenge the appellant’s classification (nilam vs dry land) and rely on A5 fair value and statutory criteria, arguing no eligibility for 40(5) since Section 40 is inapplicable where no Section 40 proceedings were initiated. The Reference Court’s award (Rs. 5,21,908 per Are) is set aside in part by the High Court, which fixes land value at Rs. 8,40,000 per Are. Cross-objections are dismissed; interlocutory applications are closed. The judgment clarifies the relationship between urgency-based acquisition and post-2013 compensation mechanisms, and emphasizes reliance on Section 26 criteria and the sale-deed-based evidence when appropriate.
WP(C).No. 23739 of 2016 (N) This writ petition (WP(C).No. 23739 of 2016) filed in the Kerala High Court by ten KSRTC conductors seeks a directive for counting provisional service, rendered prior to their regularisation, for the computation of pension and pensionary benefits, along with related reliefs. The petitioners assert that the issue is settled by Exts. P34 and P36—judgments of this Court (Sadasivan and others v. State of Kerala, etc.)—and by the Larger Bench decision in Francis v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (LB, 2015). The respondents acknowledge the merit of counting provisional service but caution that a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenges the Larger Bench ruling, so any order may be subject to the outcome of that SLP. After evaluating facts and existing jurisprudence, the learned judge concludes that the second respondent can be directed to include provisional service against pension calculations, including service prior to regularisation, with a caveat that the order is subject to the Supreme Court’s decision on the SLP. The court further directs that the decision be issued within two months from receipt of a copy of the judgment, and disposes of the petition accordingly. The decision leaves room for future modification pending appellate guidance on the larger constitutional question.
CRL.A.722 of 2016; CRL.A.860 of 2016 The two criminal appeals arise from the conviction of Sudhi and Latha for the murder of a widow-employee in Thrissur (SC 933/2013). The prosecution case is that A2 lured the victim to a residence with promises of work, aided by A1, and killed her for gain; the body was concealed in a septic tank and ornaments melted into a gold ingot, from which Rs. 55,000 were recovered. The State relied on circumstantial evidence: last seen together with A2 near the residence (two days earlier PW-10 and PW-11 corroborate), extensive call details between A1, A2 and the deceased, eyewitness accounts of A1 arriving at and A2 leaving with the victim, DNA matching the bones and the nose/chain, and recovery of MO3 (the deceased’s mobile) from Dindigul and subsequent seizure of the gold ingot MO7. The defence argued that the ingot form and identification of ornaments were unreliable (citing Chellappan v. State of Kerala), questioned the last-seen theory, and attacked the legality of arrest/recovery and the supporting documentary evidence (e.g., non-production of a Customer Application Form). The trial court convicted both appellants under IPC sections 302, 394 and 201 r/w 34 and imposed life imprisonment, 10 years and 7 years respectively with fines. The High Court, after analyzing the circumstantial chain, DNA evidence, jewelry description, call particulars, and the concurrent circumstances, held that the evidence forms an unbroken chain pointing to guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and dismissed the appeals. It upheld the conviction and sentences. The judgment appraises several precedents, distinguishes Chellappan, and reiterates the well-established standard for circumstantial evidence.
WP(C).39749/2017 (P) and connected cases These writ petitions challenge amendments to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Act 1 of 2019) aimed at amalgamating District Co-operative Banks (DCCBs) with the Kerala State Co-operative Bank (StCB). Petitioners, largely presidents or delegates of various district cooperative banks, contend that the amendments, including Section 14A and Chapter XC, interfere with the autonomy and democratic character of co-operatives, violate due process, and bypass required resolutions and shareholder consultation. Respondents (RBI, NABARD, the Government of Kerala, and statutory regulators) defend the amendments as a calibrated balancing of co-operative principles with market realities, supported by the Ninety-seventh Constitutional Amendment, directive principles (Article 43-B and Schedule II co-operative principles), and the overriding provisions of Chapter XC, including Section 74H and 14A. The Court conducts a detailed statutory analysis of Section 14, 14A, Chapter XC, Rule 13 of the KC S Rules, and the Notwithstanding provisions, concluding that Chapter XC overrides the ordinary merger framework and that the amalgamation process, though complex and multi-district, is legally tenable. The petitions are dismissed, with the Court noting the Administrator’s role as a conduit for statutory scheme rather than a policy-maker, and leaving room for final RBI approvals where required.
This writ petition by ten licensees of firearms challenges Ext.P2 notices issued by the Station House Officers directing the petitioners to deposit their licensed firearms in connection with the Legislative Assembly elections. The petitioners contend that the notices were issued without authority and without reference to any screening committee or licensing authority directive; some petitioners had already deposited firearms privately upon learning that such notices were being issued. The court recalls earlier orders in similar matters (W.P.(C).Nos. 3525 and 3727 of 2021) where it directed the District Police Chiefs and Station House Officers to explain the insufficiency of officers to direct deposit of firearms and to follow the procedure for impounding strictly in line with the Election Commission of India circular dated 01.09.2009, as noted in Saji Kuriachan v. District Collector, Ernakulam; Binesh G. Vadath v. District Collector; and Joseph v. District Collector. The court observed that in the present case there is no basis for Ext.P2 since the licensing authority has not issued any notices to the petitioners. The Government Pleader informed the court of a directive from the State Police Chief to desist from directing firearm deposits and to adhere to the EC circular. Consequently, Ext.P2 is set aside, and there is a direction to respondents 6 and 7 to return the firearms deposited by petitioners 9 and 10, enabling their release from the respective stations. The writ petition is disposed of.
WP(C).No. 24645 of 2016 (E) Faizal T.B., a 21-year-old eyewitness to the murder of A.C. Haneefa, seeks relief from the Kerala High Court alleging a pattern of manipulated investigations by the Chavakkad Police. Haneefa was killed on 7 August 2016; the petitioner, who rushed him to hospital and provided statements, claims that the murder was carried out by gang connected to a local politician Gopaprathapan. According to him, after the incident, eight crimes were registered against him and other witnesses, with final reports filed by the same Sub Inspector who recorded the FI statements. The petitioner argues this sequence reveals a concerted attempt to falsify the prosecution and undermine eyewitness credibility. He points out that the FIR in Crime No. 1264/2015 was recorded promptly but the FIRs in the other crimes reached the court only days later; the accused acts include unlawful assembly, mischief, and property damage, attributed to the petitioner and others. The petitioner seeks (i) directions to the investigating agency to conduct further investigation in listed crimes, (ii) to consider his 15 May 2016 representation to the State Police Chief, expeditiously. The court, noting procedural fairness concerns and citing Vinay Tyagi, holds that the investigation in the linked crimes appears unfair and orders fresh, independent inquiry by the same team that handles Crime 1264/2015, effectively reopening and unifying the investigations.
WP(C).No. 26248 of 2016 (E) This writ petition (WP(C) No. 26248 of 2016) before the Kerala High Court concerns a 63.85-acre property comprising nilam and dry land in Thiruvaniyur Village, Ernakulam. The petitioner, M/S Unistone Pavers & Blocks Pvt. Ltd., purchased the land intending to establish a cement block and paver block manufacturing unit. Ext.P1 shows consent to establish issued by the Kerala Pollution Control Board and Ext.P2 a permit from the Joint Director of Factories & Boilers, enabling commencement. The predecessor-in-interest approached this Court earlier (WP 19790/2014), which led to a direction to apply for a change of user under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, Clause 6(2) (Ext.P3). Pursuant to Ext.P4 (RDO order) changing the land use to non-agricultural, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 for a building permit. The Panchayat, however, raised a claim of a water channel (Ethachira) encroaching the land, prompting survey actions. Tahsildar’s Ext.P9 and Village Officer’s Ext.P10 reports, along with Ext.P7 location sketch, concluded there is no water channel or purambokku; the Thandaper Register and basic tax records similarly indicate nilam. The Court ultimately held the petition admissible and directed the Panchayat to consider the building permit application within one month from the judgment date. The decision relies on prior jurisprudence recognizing change of user under the KLU Order and on contrary evidence demolishing the water-channel claim.
WP(C) No. 33322 of 2016 & connected cases These batch of writ petitions were filed by students who had applied for the State entrance examination for admission to the five-year Integrated LLB course for 2016-2017. The petitions challenge Clause 28(a) of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, which prescribes an upper age limit of 20 years for admission, alleged to be ultra vires the Advocates Act and violative of fundamental rights. The petitioners relied on the notification issued on 28.07.2016 and the associated prospectus stating no upper age limit, the provisional admission process, and the rank list published for the entrance examination. They pointed to GO(Ms.)213/2016/H.Edn (21.10.2016) and a 22.10.2016 notification that introduced and enforced an upper age limit after the examination, arguing retroactive modification of the rules after the process had begun. The Bar Council of India had issued a direction (17.09.2016) to comply with Clause 28, following judicial observations in other fora. The Kerala High Court, while acknowledging conflicting decisions from Punjab & Haryana HC, Allahabad HC, and Madras HC, stayed the 21.10.2016 notification, permitting all candidates to participate. Finally, the court held that the interim order should be made absolute and disposed of the petitions, holding that candidates who completed the course are entitled to receive certificates, balancing justice with academic years already served.
WP(C).No.13534 OF 2020(N) The petitioner, K.K. George, a senior teacher at Aided UP School, Irumbuchola, Malappuram, challenges the appointment of the third respondent as Headmaster of the same school, contending violation of the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules (RTE Rules) and Kerala Education Rules (KER). The petitioner relies on Exts. P1 and P2, certificates showing qualifications (Account Test Lower and Kerala Education Act and Rules), and Ext. P4, GO dated 19.2.2018, which prescribes that the required qualifications for Headmaster include the Account Test and a pass in the Kerala Education Act and Rules; Ext. P4 thus codifies the qualification regime for promotions in such schools. It is submitted that a vacancy arose on 1.6.2018, and the third respondent, although senior and over 50, did not possess the prescribed qualifications but was promoted, with the second respondent approving the appointment in 2019. The petitioner had earlier obtained Ext. P5 (2018) judgment directing consideration of the petition; still, the second respondent’s approval went through. The respondents counter that the third respondent, having crossed 50, enjoyed exemption under Rule 45B(4) and that the judgment in O.P.(KAT) No.105/2019 limits against such exemptions only for Government schools, not aided ones. The court relies on Division Bench precedents (O.P.(KAT) 105/2019, W.A. 1472/2017) to hold that promotion cannot be to an unqualified candidate when a qualified hand is available, and that Ext. P4 can govern such appointments. The writ petition is allowed, directing appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster with effect from 1.6.2018 and approval by the second respondent, with attendant benefits to be disbursed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1871 OF 2024 Ajith, the sixth accused in crime No.225/2024 of the Nedumbassery Police Station, approaches the Kerala High Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail in a multi-accused case arising out of an incident near Nedumbassery Airport on 19 February 2024. The offences alleged include sections 279 (rash driving), 323 (voluntary hurt), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) and 427 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 29 February 2024 and remains in custody. The prosecution case contends that the informant’s car was overtaken at high speed, collided, and the accused along with others assaulted him at the airport area, thereby attracting the cited offences. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the FIR belies allegations against him, asserts that section 308 is not attracted, and argues that the investigation is largely complete with recovery effected; hence, continued detention is unwarranted. The Public Prosecutor counters with concerns about ongoing investigation and the accused’s alleged criminal antecedents, suggesting risk of witness intimidation and interference with the investigation. The Court notes there is no specific overt act linking the petitioner to the alleged 308 offence and highlights the progress of investigation and completed recoveries. After balancing factors including custody duration and absence of a concrete overt act against him, the Court grants bail, directing a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, and enumerates conditions (appearance, no inducement, no new offences, surrender of passport, address, and compliance). The decision cites a Supreme Court principle via Sushila Aggarwal to permit continued investigation while on bail.
MFA No. 54 of 2004 & WP(C) No. 13341 of 2004 This batch of connected appeals concerns the ongoing eligibility of Sumanabai K., a government school teacher, for reservation benefits under the Scheduled Castes quota for the Thandan community. Thandans were included in the SC list in 1950, with later amendments dividing lines between Thandan as a caste identity and Thandan as a descriptor for Ezhava/Thiyya communities. By 1976, Thandans across Kerala were included as SC, but subsequent orders and amendments (1979–1987, 1984, 1987, and finally the Constitution (SC) Order Amendment Act, 2007) created distinctions that affected who could claim SC status for reservation. The petitioner, appointed in 1985, held certificates claiming Thandan status (1978, 1985). A KIRTADS enquiry (2003) reportedly concluded she did not belong to SC Thandan, and the Scrutiny Committee (2003) issued a show cause; a Government order terminating her in 2004 followed. The petitioner challenged these orders in MFA 54/2004 and WP(C) 13341/2004. The High Court, relying on precedents such as Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshana Samithi v. State of Kerala and R. Unnikrishnan v. Mahanudevan, set aside the Scrutiny Committee’s adverse finding and the 2004 Government order, holding that the petitioner’s appointment and continuance were proper on the basis of the pre- amendment SC status and that pensionary benefits must be paid within six months. The court allowed both petitions with directions to pay pensions and clarified that post-2007 descendants must establish status independently, while ensuring continuity of service for those appointed earlier.
WA No. 999 of 2018; WA No. 1041 of 2018 These two writ appeals challenge a common judgment dated 20 March 2018 by a learned Single Judge, which disposed of W.P.(C) Nos. 34521/2017 and 41631/2017. The petitions were filed by home buyers who had agreed to purchase apartments in the DEWA Pier 20 project, financed by a consortium led by Union Bank of India under SARFAESI. The core issue was whether the bank could proceed with the auction of plot C5 to recover the loan despite the home buyers’ investments and rights in the project. The Single Judge directed that the auction notice must reflect protections for the home buyers, noting an admitted claim of about Rs. 33.5 crore, and that the rights of the investors be safeguarded. On appeal, the Division Bench acknowledged the bank’s duty to recover public funds but held that the auction notice must disclose the existence of the home buyers’ claims and that details of liabilities should be disclosed to prospective buyers. It vacated the directive that purchasers settle the home buyers’ claims; instead, it directed a fresh auction notice in compliance with statutory provisions, including disclosure of the claim amount. The judgment cites several Supreme Court authorities to justify balancing creditors’ recovery with investor protections.
Cont.Case (C) No. 2401 of 2019 This Contempt of Court Case arises from alleged willful disobedience of Annexure A judgment dated 12.10.2018 in WP(C) No.38408/2016 and connected matters, issued by the Kerala High Court, and directives in the 2015-2016 EPF cases. The petitioners, N.K. Suresh and Thankamani K.V., retired employees of Kerala State Beverages Corporation, filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) had not implemented the High Court’s directions and the Supreme Court’s subsequent orders on pension benefits. The Supreme Court, by 2022 judgments in Civil Appeals Nos. 8143-8144 of 2022 and connected matters, held the validity of the G.S.R. 609(E) (2014) and read down certain pension provisions, directing extended option periods and alignment with post-amendment terms. The Kerala High Court observed that the entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by the EPFO in light of the 2022 decision. The respondents contended that reconsideration should be undertaken accordance with law. On 11 October 2023, the court closed the Contempt Case, while reserving petitioners’ rights regarding the outcome of reconsideration by EPFO as per the 2022 Apex Court judgment. The order reflects the hierarchy’s stance that EPFO undertake a legitimate recalibration of pension entitlements under the updated scheme.
OP(C).No.2713 OF 2014 arises from a suit for recovery of possession in O.S.258/2006 in the Sub Court, Kozhikode. The petitioners, Pavangad Sreenivasan and Pavangad Subramanian, claim plaint A and B schedules as properties of Pavangad Illom, tracing title to Unnimaya Antharjanam, born of her relationship with Chirukandan Vaidyar, and allege that the defendants are successors of Chirutha, the second wife of Chirukandan. The B schedule lands were not included in the decree in O.S.21/1876 as an acquisition of Chirukandan, but were allegedly possessed by Unnimaya, and subsequent revenue settlements recorded in the name of her descendants. The defendants, however, contend that plaint B schedule properties are not identifiable and deny the existence of Pavangad Illom. During trial, the court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to identify and measure the disputed lands. The Commissioner’s report indicates portions in the defendants’ possession, portions in third‑party possession, and an overall lesser extent than claimed, with old structures still standing. The plaintiffs sought remand of the report, arguing improper identification and reliance on survey records; the defendants argued that revenue entries (Adangal) do not confer title and have no presumptive value. The High Court held that Ext.R1(e) cannot alone prove title and revenue entries cannot confer title. It refused to direct a fresh identification but allowed plaintiffs to raise objections before the Commissioner. The petition is dismissed, with liberty to pursue objections before the Commissioner.
This writ appeal challenges a February 19, 2021 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 4406 of 2021, arising from SARFAESI Act proceedings initiated by HDFC Bank for two loans (₹50,00,000 and ₹3,30,408). The petitioner contends that no notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI was issued and that he proposed to regularize the loan by paying in 12 installments, with an ongoing EMI. He only learned of the application through a WhatsApp message from the bank; further, a representation to restructure was made (Ext. P13) but could not be acted upon due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The writ petition in turn sought (i) quashing Ext. P12 (Advocate Commissioner’s notice for possession), (ii) a mandamus restraining coercive proceedings, and (iii) consideration of Ext. P13 for restructuring. The High Court noted that Exts. P6–P11, stay orders by a Full Bench, had stayed coercive proceedings and that the total arrears were substantial (₹19,74,088). The court held that it would not entertain writ petitions challenging SARFAESI proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedents, and dismissed the appeal. The operative order allows possession steps to proceed under the SARFAESI framework, and the petitioners’ challenge to the Advocate Commissioner’s letter was rejected. The decision reinforces that alternate remedies under SARFAESI limit High Court interference in such proceedings.
BAIL APPL. NO. 2943 OF 2019 This is a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by K. Dellibabu, accused in Crime No.229/2019 of Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam, charged under IPC Sections 406 and 420. The prosecution alleges that Dellibabu, a scrap dealer through Srivari Enterprises, induced the de facto complainant to invest about Rs. 96.79 lakh with a promise of sharing profits, but failed to provide profits or return the principal, allegedly amounting to cheating and misappropriation. The petitioner contends this is a monetary dispute and, even if the allegations are accepted, there is no offense under 420/406 IPC; he is willing to cooperate and is presently in Chennai. The de facto complainant opposes bail, asserting large sums were collected with dishonest intent and that forged documents were produced in court. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing substantial sums involved and the need for custodial interrogation. The High Court, after evaluating the materials, notes the nature of the dispute and that the question of commission of offenses is for investigation. Relying on established bail jurisprudence and COVID-19 related prison guidelines, the court grants bail with conditions: the petitioner must appear before the IO within three weeks; upon any arrest proposal, furnish a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties; shall not leave Kerala without permission; shall cooperate and follow COVID-19 safety norms; bail may be canceled for violation.
RP No. 510 of 2019 in WP(C) 23707/2018; RP No. 511 of 2019 in WP(C) 23707/2018; RP No. 512 of 2019 in WP(C) 22962/2018; RP No. 515 of 2019 in WP(C) 22168/2018; RP No. 516 of 2019 in WP(C) 22168/2018 These review petitions arise from writ petitions challenging the State’s seat matrix admissibility for self-financing medical colleges run by minority institutions protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The petitioners, Christian and other minority educational bodies, contend that the admissions framework unlawfully sub-divides minorities by reserving seats for subgroups and dependents of trusts and religious sub-sects, thereby undermining the minority’s unfettered right under Article 30(1). The court, in a joint judgment by Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Shircy V., reiterates that Article 30(1) protects minorities as a whole and prohibits internal division within a minority for admissions, even if such divisions are bonafide or intended for uplift of marginalized groups. It emphasizes inter se merit within the minority group and holds that the State cannot telescope Article 26 rights into Article 30(1) or subdivide the minority to grant preferences to sub-sects. Relying on T.M.A. Pai Foundation and subsequent jurisprudence, the court concludes that merit-based admission in minority institutions must be within the larger minority community, and that the seat matrix as approved by the ASC/State is invalid. The review petitions are rejected, with no costs.
This is an appeal against an acquittal in a cheque-bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant, K. I. Jacob, plaintively alleges that the first respondent, K. E. Philip, borrowed Rs. 1,50,000 and issued a post-dated cheque dated 20 March 2007 (Cheque No. 422420) in discharge of that debt. The cheque was presented for payment on 21 March 2007 and again on 02 April 2007, both times dishonoured for “exceeding the arrangement” with a notice served on 11 April 2007. The trial court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The appellant contends that the trial court disregarded the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and documents Exts. P1–P8, failed to apply the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act, and wrongly accepted the defence that the cheque served as security for an earlier loan. The respondent claimed Ext. P1 was given as security for a 2005 loan of Rs. 25,000, and that the cheque’s signing and subsequent bank records show a different chronology. The Kerala High Court reversed the acquittal, holding Ext. P1 proves execution and issuance, the presumptions under 118 and 139 apply and are unrebutted, and that the earlier loan theory is unsubstantiated. The court convicted the respondent under Section 138, sentencing Rs. 1,50,000 with four months’ imprisonment in default and directed that the amount be paid as compensation to the appellant.
WP(C).No.14742 of 2020(P) Abdul Rasak, a tenant running a jewellery shop in premises owned by Ibrahim Kutty, challenges Ext.P-3, a stop memo issued by the Kuzhimanna Grama Panchayath directing him to cease business for non-renewal of the trade license. He had applied for renewal for 2020-2021 (Ext.P-2), which was acknowledged, but no decision was conveyed within the statutory 30-day window, even after excluding lockdown, leading him to invoke the deemed license provision under Section 236(6) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The landlord-tenant dispute under Rent Control proceedings and strained landlord relations form the backdrop to the renewal dispute. The petitioner contends that Ext.P-3 was issued without hearing, violating natural justice, and asserts that landlord consent is not required for renewal, citing Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum (2016) 14 SCC 263 and Marimuthu v. D.G.P. (1999) 3 KLT 62, arguing that consent is relevant only at the original grant. The court ultimately quashes Ext.P-3 for lack of hearing and remits the renewal application to the 2nd respondent for decision after due hearing of both petitioner and landlord, within a short time frame, while considering deemed license and the non-consent renewal principle. The decision reinforces due process in licensing, particularly amid the pandemic.
