Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022; WP(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 This common judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court concerns a batch of Customs Appeals (Nos. 9–15 of 2022) and related Writ Petitions (9058/2022 and 27835/2021) arising out of multiple seizures, investigations and orders under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (SEZ Act). The substantive dispute centers on whether actions against an SEZ unit and associated import/export transactions should be governed by the SEZ Act or by the Customs Act, particularly where goods moved from SEZ to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) and where 4 kg of gold remained uncleared at an airport. CESTAT’s final order dated 17.02.2022 largely allowed the importer’s appeals, including relief concerning the release of 4 kg of gold, while creating jurisdictional questions about overlapping statutes. The High Court, after thorough analysis of jurisdiction, held that for the alleged illegality in DTA, the Officers of the Customs Department have jurisdiction under the Customs Act, 1962, and that the SEZ Act cannot entirely circumscribe such actions. The Court set aside CESTAT’s findings on the 4 kg gold to the extent indicated, remitting other issues back to CESTAT for fresh consideration, and disposed of WP 9058/2022 accordingly. The judgment emphasizes the need to reconcile SEZ and Customs Act authorities and to apply the correct jurisdictional framework to each set of facts.
BAIL APPL. NO. 911 OF 2023 The petitioner, Jaanmoni Das, is the accused in Crime No. 1540/2022 registered at Ernakulam Central Police Station, facing charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC related to a scheme to start Janmonidas Bridal Studio on MG Road, Ernakulam. The scheme allegedly involved an investment of Rs 1 crore, with promises of profit and a 30% share to the defacto complainant, resulting in a cumulative amount of Rs 29,75,000 received between 19 January 2021 and 22 January 2021, followed by alleged cheating. The bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was argued after the prosecution maintained that a serious offence had been committed, while the petitioner claimed there was no criminal offence and that it was a civil dispute that could be settled. The petitioner’s counsel asserted readiness to settle the matter; Rs 4 lakh had already been paid to one victim and the balance would be paid. The Public Prosecutor and victims’ counsel opposed bail, highlighting large sums collected and misappropriated with no recovery yet. The court acknowledged the seriousness but signaled willingness to grant bail if the dispute is settled within four months, with a proviso that failure to settle allows cancellation of bail. The order imposes stringent conditions: appearance before the investigating officer (IO) within ten days, a bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties, ongoing cooperation, no inducement or leaving Kerala without court permission, and biweekly check-ins until final report. It also reiterates the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement to justify granting bail on terms.
This writ petition challenges a Government revision order Ext.P18 under Rule 92, Chapter XIV A KER, in a dispute over appointment to UPSA/LPSA against permanent vacancies in the Department of Education. The petitioner seeks to be shifted to a regular vacancy from 04.06.2012 in preference to the 10th and 11th respondents and to obtain appointment and approval as UPSA and LPSA with consequential benefits. The petitioners urge that Ext.P18 is not a speaking order and violates the due-process requirements laid down in Sudheer T. vs. M.V. Susheela (2009 (3) KHC 991), arguing that a government revision must be decided in conformity with Article 166 of the Constitution and related Rules of Business. The court examines the nature of the revision and notes that Ext.P18 is not a speaking order, and that it fails to comply with the principle laid down in Sudheer T. Consequently, Ext.P18 is set aside. The court directs the Government to consider Exts.P7, P8 and P15 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 5–11, within four months, and to examine the applicability of Exts.P6, P20, P21 and P22 in light of the judgment. The petitioner is to produce a certified copy of this judgment for compliance. The decision emphasizes adherence to constitutional procedure in administrative revisional actions and due process for affected parties.
Mathachan, the appellant, was convicted under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Thodupuzha, in S.C.No.496 of 2005 arising from Crime No.90 of 2001 for illicit liquor manufacture at his property. The High Court of Kerala, in the Criminal Appeal No.1332 of 2007, heard on 24.02.2022, examined evidence including PW1 (detecting officer), PW2 (Village Officer), PW4 and PW5 (independent witnesses), Exts. P1–P6, and the material objects. The prosecution asserted possession and control over the seized liquor and the reliability of the sample linked to the seized liquor. The appellant’s counsel challenged identification (he was found 20 meters away), lack of proof of conscious possession, absence of arrest on the spot, and significant delays in producing the seized articles (four days) with no satisfactory explanation, arguing these issues create reasonable doubt. The court highlighted several concerns: the lack of a specific identity of the person at the spot, delays in custody of the seized material, and the absence of a seal description in Ext. P1 mahazar, which undermined tamper-proof handling. Citing Rajappan.V.P. v. State of Kerala and other authorities, the court found the prosecution failed to prove possession and link to the samples reliably, and approved the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence set aside, acquitting the appellant.
RESHMY.M., a teacher, seeks quashing of Ext.P10 and directions to ensure approval of her appointment as High School Assistant (Maths) from 13.06.2006 to 31.05.2011 at Malayattil Kesavan Nair Memorial High School, an aided institution. She was appointed during a period of ban on appointments in additional division vacancies and obtained Ext.P3 approval only in 2011. The revision petition Ext.P8, filed after earlier orders, was rejected by Ext.P10. The petitioner argues that GO (P) 317/2005/G.Edn. imposed a ban on hiring, which was later lifted by GO (P) 10/10/G.Edn. (12.01.2010) subject to conditions, including a bond by the manager and the creation of a list of protected teachers. The petitioner points to a principle established in a Division Bench decision (Suma Devi) that non-execution of a bond should be deemed as executed, obliging managers to make appointments from the protected list in proportion to those approved during the ban. The Government contends that appointments in added vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that bonds/GO 10/10 compliance is essential. The court holds Ext.P10 unsustainable, directs reconsideration of Ext.P8, and instructs the first respondent to consider GO 10/10 (if applicable) and deem bonds executed, with a hearing, within four months; the petition is allowed to the extent noted, subject to Supreme Court pending petitions.
Ravi @ Raveendran challenges the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Court (for the trial of cases relating to Atrocities & Sexual Violence against Women and Children), Ernakulam, convicting him under sections 450 and 376(2)(l) IPC and acquitting him under 342 IPC for offences alleged to have occurred on 19 December 2015 against a mentally retarded neighbour who was then 27 years old. The prosecution relied on the victim’s account (PW1) describing how, when she was washing clothes at her home, the accused trespassed, gagged her, dragged her to the bathroom, forcibly removed her dress, bit her breast and vagina, and fled after she cried; PW6 (the victim’s mother) and PW4 (the father) corroborated by recounting the incident and by Ext. P4 FI statement. PW12, a doctor, found a fresh hymen tear and evidence of penetrative sexual assault. The trial court imposed ten years’ imprisonment and fines for the 450 IPC offence and ten years plus fines for the 376(2)(l) offence, with acquittal under 342 IPC. The appellant contends the conviction rests on uncorroborated testimony, with contradictions and no independent eyewitness, and that the evidence does not exclude reasonable doubt. The High Court, while acknowledging the credibility of the victim and the medical corroboration, relies on established jurisprudence that a sexual-offence conviction may be based on credible sole testimony and that minor discrepancies need not destroy reliability, and thus sustains the conviction and the sentence. It also notes the immediate disclosure to the mother and medical findings as supportive, and dismisses the appeal as reasonable, upholding the order of conviction and punishment.
WA No. 297 of 2022 is an intra-court appeal challenging the dismissal of WP(C) No. 5043/2022 by a Single Judge. The writ petition sought to participate in Industrial Dispute I.D. No.33/2021 before the Labour Court, Kozhikode, by impleading the petitioner union; the appellant contended that the Labour Court erred by not entertaining the impleadment application. The learned Single Judge recorded a lack of material to determine the Labour Court’s action and dismissed the petition. On 2-3-2022, it emerged before the Division Bench that an advocate allegedly appeared for the appellant in the impleadment proceedings and later filed a Not Press Memo; the affidavit filed on 5-3-2022 alleged that the endorsement was made by a junior advocate without the party’s authorization, and that vakalat had not been held by the authorising advocate. The Court examined authorities including Manuel Sons Financial Enterprises (cited for the proposition that an advocate without vakalat cannot concede claims) and the Division Bench decisions: Chandramathi Amma and Lisie Hospital, which discuss the scope and validity of impleadment under the ID Act. The judgment holds that the Labour Court’s order accepting the Not Press Memo cannot stand; Ext.P-9 impleadment must be reconsidered on merits, with proper representation, and evidence not to be closed. The Writ Appeal is disposed with directions to proceed in light of these principles, clarifying the scope of impleadment and vakalat in industrial disputes.
WP(C) Nos.17898 & 23279 of 2020 The two writ petitions arise from disciplinary proceedings against Smt. Usha U., the Head Teacher of Devadar Aided LP School Pulliyil, and the Manager of the same school. The petitioner in WP(C) No.17898 of 2020 (Usha U.) pleaded bias and lack of impartiality in the enquiry conducted under Rule 75 Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Act, and sought substitution of the enquiry officer and quashing of Ext.P5 show-cause notice and Ext.P6 enquiry report. WP(C) No.23279 of 2020, filed by the Manager, challenged the orders substituting the enquiry officer, alleging the enquiry had been tainted by information about incidents on 30.07.2020 that led to FIRs (Crime Nos. 318/2020 and 320/2020). The court, noting common issues, traced the sequence: notices issued in 2013; delays due to petitions; a previous decision in Manager, Devadar Aided Lower Primary School v. Usha U. (2020 KHC 343) reading down Rule 75(5) to restrict legal representation only when the Manager is not represented; a criminal backdrop against the AEO and counter-claims of bias; the court applied S. Parthasarathi and related bias principles to evaluate real likelihood of bias. It found circumstances showing a real likelihood of bias and quashed Ext.P5/P6 while upholding Ext.P7, directing a fresh enquiry by a different officer, and disposed of WP(C) Nos.17898 & 23279 of 2020 with specific directions for a timely, fair inquiry.
MACA No.1839 of 2012 (B) and MACA No.2316 of 2012 These two connected Motor Accidents Claims Appeals arise from a 11.01.2007 road accident on Amballur–Palappilly Public Road that killed Charles, the rider of a motorcycle. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda, assessed compensation at Rs.3,47,000 with 7.5% interest. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited preferred MACA 1839/2012 (B) challenging the Tribunal’s multiplier for dependency calculation (contending it was excessive or incorrect). The petitioners (Varghese, Rosily, Alexander, and Soniya) filed MACA 2316/2012 seeking enhanced compensation, asserting the deceased’s monthly income was Rs.6,000 and invoking 40% future prospects under the decisions of Ramachandrappa and Pranay Sethi, while also urging higher awards for loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of estate in light of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram. The High Court, in a common judgment by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, held the Tribunal’s multiplier of 18 to be correct under Sarla Verma and then allowed the second appeal in part, recalculating compensation for the claimants with higher income and future prospects, resulting in an enhanced award of Rs.7,56,200 with 7.5% interest from the petition date. The insurer’s appeal was dismissed, and the petitioners’ appeal was allowed in part, with the insurer directed to pay the enhanced amount.
C.M. Jayanand, an operating stage carriage operator on the Kozhikode–Thrissur route, challenges an interim order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that permitted the 4th respondent to operate beyond 140 km on the Thalassery–Thrissur corridor (195 km). The petitioner contends that the 4th respondent’s regular permit had expired and renewal was pending, and that the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, amended by the government, restrict operations beyond 140 km; hence the MVAA interim order is improper. The 4th respondent relies on a saved-permit doctrine, claiming the permit remains valid until a new nationalisation scheme or modification under the Motor Vehicles Act is introduced. The Division Bench’s decisions, particularly in W.A. No. 772/2022 and KSRTC and Others v. Saju Varkey, are invoked to support limits on distance and the concept of saved permits. The Court stayed Ext. P7 and later the Tribunal’s modified order, directed impleading KSRTC as an affected party, and ultimately disposed of the petition by directing the Tribunal to consider the appeal and the 4th respondent’s application expeditiously. The decision aligns with earlier Division Bench judgments on route limits, while emphasizing expeditious resolution of the dispute and proper party participation.
This intra-court appeal challenges a government revenue recovery notice (Ext.P9) issued against K. P. Suresh Kumar, the former Manager of Sree Vitoba High School, Kayamkulam, for recovery of salary amounts paid to the Headmistress during suspension. The writ petition sought quashing Ext.P9 and a declaration that no personal liability rested on the Manager, arguing that any liability for the loss incurred should fall on the educational agency and not on the Manager’s personal assets. The facts trace Ext.P3 (the suspension of Headmistress R. Maya) and Ext.P4–P8, including the Devaswom’s involvement, the extension request, and the Government’s denial of the revision, culminating in Ext.P9. The respondents relied on Kerala Education Rules (KER), notably Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A and Rule 7 of Chapter III, together with Section 12(2) of the Kerala Education Act, to justify recovery, including circumstances where the Manager’s actions cause monetary loss. The appellate court examined whether the suspension beyond the prescribed period could be sustained after Educational Officer’s direction to reinstate, and whether successor liability applies. It ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the impugned judgment and permitting recovery against the Manager in the relevant statutory framework.
WP(C) Nos. 10093/2022 & 21797/2022 The Kerala High Court, in a common judgment by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, adjudicates two writ petitions challenging administrative actions regarding appointment to HSST (Mathematics) in CMS schools. Petitioner Sherin Francis C. alleges that an earlier appointment from 2007–2012 in a Leave Without Allowance vacancy should yield reappointment when a retirement vacancy arose; she challenges an order denying reappointment (Exhibit P11) and a notification (Exhibit P8) for recruitment to the post. Petitioner Shijo David C. contends that he, as an HST (Mathematics), should be appointed to HSST (Mathematics) and relies on the principle that vacancies should be filled by transfer in certain circumstances (citing VK Girija v. Reshma Parayil) and other cases; he challenges the DGE’s order (Exhibit P3) rejecting his claim. The CMS management argues that after amendments to Rule 43 and Rule 51A of the Kerala Education Rules, cadre strength cannot govern vacancies, and that the appropriate procedure must be followed, with strategic reliance on decisions like Reshma Parayil and Jayasree. The court treats common issues collectively and ultimately disposes of the petitions by directing the 1st respondent to consider pending revisions and representations and to pass orders within four months, after ensuring hearing to all parties. A unified approach addresses questions of seniority, cadre strength, by-transfer claims, and due process in appointment to HSST posts.
The writ petition concerns a financial dispute where HDFC Bank sought to erase encumbrances from an Encumbrance Certificate (EC) pertaining to a property subject to an equitable mortgage created in 2012. After default on loan repayment, the bank invoked the SARFAESI Act to realize the secured asset. The EC, however, contained multiple attachments alleged to be after the mortgage date, hampering the bank’s ability to proceed with sale under SARFAESI. The petitioner contends that, per Sajitha Nizar alias Sajitha P.M. v. Secretary, Keechery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2020 (6) KLT 68), the attachments post-dating the mortgage should be effaced. Respondents contend the attachments were issued by competent Civil Courts and cannot be erased; Ext. P4 (the EC) purportedly shows attachments. The court observes that, generally, subsequent attachments cannot override the bank’s primary right to enforce its security on the basis of the existing equitable mortgage. Relying on the Sajitha Nizar precedent, the judge directs the 1st respondent to erase the entries of attachments over the property as reflected in Ext. P4 (entries 3–11) within two weeks. The order preserves respondents’ rights to pursue any legal remedies, including recovery of sale proceeds or challenging the sale, as advised.
This writ petition by M/s. Roy Construction Co. challenges Exhibits P15 and P15(a) workload reports that label the firm’s work as ‘work under arbitration’ and thereby exclude it from future Military Engineering Services contracts. The underlying contract, awarded in 2011 for repairs to the Southern Naval Command Officers’ Mess at Kochi, faced prolonged delays due to site handover issues, approvals, and under-certification of payments. An arbitrator was appointed and later a technical expert, with some of the contractor’s claims allowed and counterclaims rejected. While arbitration was pending, the respondents generated quarterly workload reports marking the contract as having ‘work under arbitration’ and endorsed adverse remarks against the petitioner, which the petitioner says effectively blacklisted him from competing in tenders. The petitioner argues that no show-cause notice was issued with specific grounds, violating the respondents’ own manual and the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 and 16. The respondents contend the adverse remarks rest on unresolved defects and non-completion, and that the arbitration history justifies withholding new contracts. The learned Judge held that the lack of a proper show-cause and the stigma of blacklisting without due process violates constitutional principles, and accordingly allowed the petition, directing the respondents to permit participation in tenders and to treat the petitioner’s bids according to law, while not necessarily quashing the earlier workload entries.
This writ appeal challenges a Kerala High Court Single Judge’s order directing the Government to publish Ext.P8 notification to regularise temporary Guest Room Keepers employed by the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. The petitioners (respondents 1–7 in the writ petition) were appointed in 2014–15 as Guest Room Keepers on a temporary basis and continued in service; they sought regularisation through Ext.P7, with Ext.P8 the gazette notification sought to implement it. The Government delayed action during elections, and later Annexure A-III withdrew Ext.P7. The Single Judge directed the State to publish Ext.P8 and held that subsequent promotions would be in accordance with applicable rules. The State and the Bank challenge the judgment in this WA, arguing that Ext.P7 was illegal for bypassing regular selection and that creation of posts for regularisation is ordinarily an executive prerogative, citing Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Umadevi jurisprudence. They also rely on a Division Bench decision (W.A.No.2084/2018) emphasizing Umadevi’s principles. After hearing both sides, the Division Bench remitted the matter for reconsideration by the Learned Single Judge, set aside the impugned judgment, and ordered the WP to be restored for fresh consideration. The court directed further pleadings and expedited hearing, noting that the merits will be decided by the Single Judge on remand.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act challenges the Special Judge’s order dismissing CRMC 7/2023 in Crime No. 660/2022 of Ramamangalam Police Station, Ernakulam District. The sole accused, Deepak K. Balakrishnan, faces charges under IPC sections 354A(1)(i), 506 and 376(2)(n), and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution contends the victim, a member of a Scheduled Caste, was subjected to rape after administering some liquid at MGM Polytechnic Engineering College on 18.11.2022, with repeated assaults between 18.11.2022 and 07.12.2022. The defense maintains the relationship originated as a love affair; the complaint is false, and there is no prima facie case; anticipatory bail should be granted, as Sections 18 and 18A do not apply. The court examined the evidence, including a compact disc and call transcripts, and observed that the narrative may reflect a strained relationship, but the alleged sexual violence could be inferred from the materials as a prima facie case. Relying on apex court precedents on anticipatory bail in SC/ST cases, the court held that when prosecution materials establish a prima facie offence under the Act, anticipatory bail is barred; when materials are insufficient, bail may be granted. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, upholding the trial court’s order and denying anticipatory bail.
Swapna Ashraff, proprietor of Quality Foot Wear Agencies in Thrissur, challenged two orders of the District Labour Officer denying registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules to four headload workers in her establishment. The petition argues that denying registration on the date of inspection, when the workers were not actively employed, contradicts this Court’s decision in Rajeeve v. District Labour Officer (2010) (4) KLT 783, which recognizes that prospective headload workers need only the physical ability to perform headload work, with an added condition for attached workers that the employer is ready to employ them. The respondents contend that the petitioner failed to produce employment registers for the workers subjected to registration. The court examined Rule 26A, Rule 6 of the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983, and the Shop and Establishment Act permissions. It noted that a prior-work requirement (as suggested in W.P.(C) No. 26774 of 2008) directly contradicts Clause 6 of the Scheme and is unsustainable. The judgment holds that registration of prospective workers can be granted based on physical ability, while registration as attached workers requires employer readiness. Consequently, Ext.P7 and Ext.P9 are quashed, and the District Labour Officer is directed to register the workers under Rule 26A and to issue identity cards under Rule 6 within a month, with further steps for identity cards to be pursued by the petitioner within 15 days of copy of the judgment.
This is an appeal by Ratheesh challenging a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court/Special Court under IPC sections 324 and 376 r/w 34 and under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, following a rape allegation against him. The victim, a 60-year-old woman from a marginalized community, testified that she was assaulted in a forest shed while two minor boys witnessed part of the incident; her narration underwent several recalls, with the trial court noting numerous omissions, contradictions, and embellishments in subsequent testimonies. The prosecution examined 27 witnesses and produced multiple exhibits, but the defence raised serious concerns about the reliability of PW1’s testimony, lack of a proper test identification (TIP), and inconsistencies between the First Information Report (FIS), the 164 statement, and the later statements. Medical evidence did not conclusively establish rape; reports showed injuries inconsistent with rape, and spermatic material was not decisively linked to the accused. Notably, concerns were raised about investigation by an officer below the rank required under SC/ST (POA) Rules, and about the propriety of multiple recalls under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Kerala High Court scrutinized these issues and, relying on several precedents, held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, acquitting Ratheesh and allowing the appeal, while criticizing the trial court’s procedural lapses. The decision emphasizes careful evaluation of witness testimony, the admissibility of 313 statements, and the limits of evidentiary reliance in sexual offence cases.”
This is an Op. (Rent Control) petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the delay in disposal of I.A.8/2021 in R.C.P.102/2017 before the Rent Control Court (Addl. Munsiff-II), Kozhikode. The landlords (petitioners) filed R.C.P.102/2017 under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 seeking eviction of their tenant. The Rent Control Court, by an order dated 19.01.2022 (Ext.P4), held that the denial of title by the tenant was not bona fide, and the matter was carried to the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA 31/2022, where the tenant sought interim stay (Ext.P5 and Ext.P6). The landlords contend that despite the absence of any interim order from the Appellate Authority, I.A.8/2021 (under Section 12) is being adjourned, while the tenant’s rent arrears have reached Rs. 19,44,156 as of 30.04.2022. The court reviews Sections 12(1)-(4) of the Act, emphasizing that a defaulting tenant must pay or deposit admitted arrears and continue to pay thereafter, failing which proceedings may be stopped and eviction ordered. It cites J. Ramkumar v. Ashok Jacob, Shiraz K.V. v. Binny Emmatty, and Abdul Razak P.M. v. K.C. Thomas to underscore the objective of Section 12 and the need for time-bound disposal of petitions and appeals. The High Court ultimately directs the Rent Control Court to decide I.A.8/2021 expeditiously, within two months, with due regard to any interim order by RCA 31/2022.
OP(Crl) No.452 of 2016 & Crl.M.C Nos. 2090 of 2020, 2091 of 2020, 2096 of 2020, 2099 of 2020, 3569 of 2020, 3574 of 2020, 3577 of 2020 and 3601 of 2020 This batch of connected criminal petitions challenges the quashing of final reports (charge-sheets) filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) Thrissur in a multi-accused matter arising from Guruvayur Devaswom. The core controversy centers on the alleged improprieties in creating three new posts in the Guruvayur Devaswom in 2012 (Foreman Grade-I, Store Keeper, Head Draughtsman) and the subsequent promotion of the second accused (N. Raju) to the post of Foreman Grade-I in 2013, including the fixation of qualifications and the process of appointment. The Managing Committee, acting under Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978, Rules and Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983, sought sanction from the Devaswom Commissioner for creation of posts; Ext.P9 (2012) and Ext.P11 (2013) reflect such sanction and promotion decisions. The court analyzes whether these actions amount to illegal conspire to obtain pecuniary advantage under Section 13(1)(d) IPC and PC Act, 1988, considering the pay-protection orders and the retroactive ratification of appointments. Relying on principles of ratification and the absence of dishonest intent, the court concludes that no criminal misconduct is established against the petitioners and accordingly quashes the final reports against them. The decision emphasizes that post-creation and subsequent ratification can validate actions retrospectively and limit criminal liability for the petitioners.
