This is a writ petition (WP(C) No. 9667 of 2016) filed in the Kerala High Court by C. L. ANTO seeking extraordinary relief to regulate waste-management procurement by local bodies and government authorities across Kerala. The petitioner, a chief promoter and authorized representative of a cooperative society (NewsCo), challenges the award of tenders and certain actions by respondents including local self-government institutions and government departments in waste management arrangements, pressing for prohibitory and mandamus relief to enforce compliance with pre-qualification norms, policy guidelines, and international protocols. The prayers seek to restrain allegedly illegal award processes, direct adherence to the pre-qualification lists (Ext. P1) and purchase manual (Ext. P2), promote the petitioner’s participation in waste-management programs (Ext. P6/6a/6b), and ensure parity of law with similar cooperative societies, along with stringent directions to adhere to Central Rules, Kyoto Protocols, and other scientific parameters. The petitioner also demands scrutiny of funds to check nepotism and misallocation, and requests Vigilance action against the respondents. The respondents’ counter-affidavit (via Exts. R3(A)/R3(B)) indicates that a Panchayat committee cancelled Ext. P5 and called for a fresh tender, undermining the petition’s basis. Ultimately, the court closes the petition, noting that nothing substantial remains for adjudication. The proceedings illustrate rights, procurement governance, and governance challenges in state waste-management programs.
WP.(C)No.14342 of 2019 & con.cases The judgment addresses a cluster of writ petitions concerning encroachments on the Thiruvabharana Patha, the traditional route (from Pandalam to Sabarimala) used for carrying the Tiruvabharanam (sacred ornaments) to Sabarimala during Makara Vilakku. The main petition, WP(C) No. 14342 of 2019, filed by the Thiruvabharana Patha Samrakshana Samithi, seeks mandamus to implement a 2009 resolution (Ext. P1) directing removal of encroachments and to ensure the entire encroached stretch is cleared by 31.12.2009 by survey-based boundary fixing under the supervision of an Advocate Commissioner. Several connected petitions (including NSS Karayogam and other residents and gram panchayats) challenge notices and surveys under Land Conservancy Act and related rules, alleging procedural violations and illegitimate eviction actions. The court, after hearing, observed that encroachment removal must follow due process, including issuing individual mahazars with notices and giving the encroachers a hearing. It emphasized the board’s fiduciary/duties in administering temples and Devaswoms, invoking fiduciary-trustee principles to ensure fair treatment of encroachers. The bench directed issuance of fresh notices with mahazar, a personal hearing, and a time-bound completion of eviction, while safeguarding rights of certain petitioners (e.g., landless SC families). The judgment underscores accountability for delay in eviction actions since 2009 and mandates a structured follow-up with specific timelines.
W.P.(C) No. 17394 of 2022 and connected cases The batch of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court question whether seizure and confiscation of minerals, tools, vehicles or other articles under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) can be sustained in the absence of constitution of Special Courts under Section 30B of the MMDR Act. The Court clarifies that seizure, pending prosecution, is permissible under general CrPC powers; confiscation under Section 21(4A) is a court-bound remedy that can be ordered by the court competent to take cognizance of the offence, even if no Special Court has been notified. The petitioners argued that without Special Courts there can be no prosecution or confiscation, rendering seizure unlawful. The State respondents contended that police officers have powers under CrPC to seize vehicles suspected of MMDR violations and that Section 22 requires a complaint by an authorised person for confiscation, but seizure itself can be effected under Section 102 CrPC, with reporting to the competent authority. The Court analyses Sections 21(4), 21(4A), 22, and 30B, and discusses the relationship between seizure, prosecution, cognizance, and confiscation. Relying on precedents such as Construction Material Movers, Pradeep S. Wodeyar, Gangula Ashok, Prakash Nayak, and Abdul Majeed Kalathil, the Court emphasizes that the MMDR framework permits police seizure and later confiscation by the appropriate court, even in the absence of Special Courts. Ultimately, the Court holds that the petitions lack merit and dismisses them, directing petitioners to surrender seized vehicles and noting they may seek interim custody or other remedies through proper channels.
This is an appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC by K.K. Soman challenging a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, 1077 for possessing 4 litres of arrack. The prosecution case, based on an incident dated 10 January 2011 at Kaikottukundu, proceeds through seizure by Excise officials and a trial in which PWs 1–6 and Exts P1–P14 were examined. The Additional Sessions Court-II, Kasaragod, found the appellant guilty, relying on the testimony of official witnesses who arrested him and seized the contraband, along with a chemical analysis report (Ext P14) confirming ethyl alcohol in the sample. The defense argued the case was foisted by excise personnel, noted the absence of independent witnesses, and contended that Ext P12 (mahazar) was not attested and that vital articles (the contraband and samples) were not produced in court, curtailing the defendant’s right to challenge authenticity. The State contended statutory compliance and credibly testified by the official witnesses, with Attesting witnesses corroborating the seizure documents. The Kerala High Court, applying the Supreme Court’s rationale in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), held that police testimony can form the basis of conviction if credible, even without independent corroboration. The appeal was allowed in part, with the Court upholding the conviction and reducing the sentence to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.
CRL.M.C. Nos. 5733 of 2021; 4736 of 2022 Two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (Crl.M.C. Nos. 5733 of 2021 and 4736 of 2022) before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam were filed by the 1st and 2nd accused in Crime No.65 of 2009 (S.C. No.125/2012) challenging the final report filed by the Excise Range Office, Ernakulam, and seeking quashing of the ongoing proceedings in the Additional Court of Sessions-VIII, Ernakulam. The acts alleged relate to offences under the Kerala Abkari Act, including sections 6, 10, 55(a), and 58, connected with the possession and transport of 1814 bottles of Foreign Made Foreign Liquor (FMFL) transported in transit from a Delhi bonded warehouse to another bonded warehouse in Kochi via Green Fright carriers. The petitioners asserted that the liquor, though transported, was in transit between bonded warehouses and therefore not an import under s.6 or a transport under s.10 of the Abkari Act, citing Naresh Goyal v. Circle Inspector of Excise (2013) (2) KLT 726) to buttress the transit-qua-import/transport argument. The Public Prosecutor opposed quashing, arguing the final report and subsequent proceedings were legally initiated. The High Court examined the statutory framework, the fact pattern (bonded‑warehouse transit, customs orders, seizures, and penalties), and the cited precedent, ultimately accepting the petitioners’ contention and quashing the final report and all further proceedings against both petitioners."
BAIL APPL. NO. 244 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC by seven accused in Crime No.584/2023 of Panamaram Police Station, Wayanad District, challenging pre-arrest detention. The offences alleged are under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 r/w 149, arising from an incident around 1:00 am on 16 December 2023, where the petitioners allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, restrained the defacto complainant, and assaulted him with iron rods and sticks, causing grievous injury. The petitioners contend their innocence, noting that Annexure-2 FIR includes an offence under Section 308 IPC against the complainant, and that the overt act is alleged only against the 1st petitioner. They point out that the investigation has removed A4 from the array of accused, implying custodial interrogation is not necessary. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that personal liberty and non-interference with investigation warrant pre-arrest bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed, noting serious injuries (four stitches), custodial interrogation is necessary, and that several petitioners have prior antecedents; there are multiple cases against them, raising risk of tampering with witnesses and repetition of crimes.
O.P. (FC) No. 523 of 2022 This Original Petition (under Article 227) challenges a common ex parte judgment/order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode in four connected cases: O.P. No. 878 of 2017, O.P. No. 879 of 2017, O.P. No. 963 of 2017, and M.C. No. 288 of 2017. The petitioners—Muhammed Sajeer, Amina, and Fathima Shafeeque—were respondents in those proceedings; Sufaina M.M. is the sole respondent herein. The Family Court’s 12.10.2021 order allowed the four matters ex parte, granting a decree of dissolution (in O.P.878/2017), maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month with past maintenance of Rs.3,60,000 (O.P.879/2017), return of gold ornaments (O.P.963/2017), and monthly maintenance in the MC (288/2017). The petitioners moved I.A.1/2021 to set aside this common judgment/order, which the Family Court dismissed on 23.03.2022, holding no sufficient reason to recall ex parte orders. The High Court, in a Division Bench, held that entertaining a single interlocutory application to set aside four distinct judgments is untenable and contrary to the principle that each case requires separate consideration. Citing Paulochan v. Noble Enterprises to emphasize that defective petitions must be cured, the court set aside Ext. P4 conditionally, directing interim maintenance of Rs.4,00,000 (Rs.2,00,000 in 15 days and Rs.2,00,000 in one month). The Family Court is directed to revisit the four cases and pass orders accordingly. The case underscores supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct misapplication of procedure.
WP(C) No. 25209 of 2020 (and connected cases) This batch writ petition judgment of the Kerala High Court by Justice Basant Balaji addresses the status of Unit Run Canteens (URCs) operated for armed forces personnel under the Canteen Stores Department (CSD). The petitioners, several ex-servicemen or dependents employed by URCs in various locations, challenged amendments to service conditions and sought mandamus relief. The court undertook a detailed constitutional analysis to determine whether URCs are “State” or “other authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution, which would render URCs amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Relying on Ajay Hasia, Ramana Dayaram Shetty, Sukhdev Singh, Zee Telefilms and other authorities, the Bench evaluated creation, finance and control as key tests. It held that URCs are not statutory creations of Parliament or State legislatures (AO/19/2003/QMG is an Army order, not a statute), are financed from regimental non-public funds (not the Consolidated Fund) and operate with SOPs under unit control rather than direct Government control. Accordingly, URCs are not “State” or “other authority” under Article 12, and the writ petitions are dismissed. However, the court granted liberty to petitioners to pursue remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act or other forums if available.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 789 OF 2022 Joseph George @ Shaji filed CRL REV.PET NO. 789 of 2022 under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., challenging concurrent judgments convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000 dated 30.12.2008 in discharge of a liability; it bounced for want of funds, leading to prosecution under NI Act. The trial court in S.T. No.2223/2010 convicted him and sentenced him to two months’ simple imprisonment, plus a fine of Rs. 50,000 with compensation to the complainant under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.; default in payment of fine attracted further imprisonment. The Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta, in Crl.Appeal No.86/2015, affirmed the conviction and sentence. The High Court of Kerala, in this revision, considered the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Cr.P.C. and revisited the law on presumptions under NI Act Sections 118 and 139, citing State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri and later cases such as Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, Kalamani Tex (M/s.) & anr. v. Balasubramanian, and Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda. It held that revisional power is supervisory, not a second appeal, and should not re‑appreciate evidence unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice. Ultimately, the petition was allowed in part: the conviction stood; the sentence was reduced to one day’s simple imprisonment till rising of Court with the Rs.50,000 fine, three weeks to pay compensation, and deferment of execution till 08.12.2022, with appearance required on 09.12.2022.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 4441 of 2022) decided by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court (Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.) on 20 July 2022. The petitioners/accused challenge the continuation of criminal proceedings in SC No. 98 of 2016 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg, arising from Crime No. 194 of 2014 registered at Vellarikkund Police Station. The offences alleged under IPC include 143, 147, 148, 341, 452, 323, 324, 326, and 308 read with 149. The prosecution contends that on 15.04.2014, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted respondents 2–4, causing injuries. Annexure A1 is the FIR; Annexure A2 is the final report; Annexures AIII–AV are affidavits sworn by respondents 2–4; Annexure AII is the final report. The respondents and IPS officials have verified the settlement affidavits, which state that there is no objection to quashing. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, the court exercises its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the dispute is private and further prosecution would be fruitless. The court observes the minimal injuries and that several accused had acquittals, and ultimately quashes the final report and all further proceedings in SC 98/2016 against the petitioners.
Thooliyath Usman, the defacto complainant in C.C. 782/2013, Perinthalmanna, challenged a magistrate’s order refusing to direct handwriting examination under Section 311A Cr.P.C. in a case arising from a private complaint alleging a deceit involving Rs 35 lakhs, where the accused allegedly promised profits on a stock-market investment and did not repay. The investigation led to charges under Section 420 IPC. During trial, the Assistant Public Prosecutor moved Annexure B under Section 311A Cr.P.C. to obtain the specimen handwriting of the first accused and to forward the Ext. P1 agreement to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The Magistrate dismissed the application, noting the independent witnesses’ testimony was inconsistent and that the handwriting report would be a weak corroborative piece. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed as not maintainable in light of the Supreme Court decision in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam. Challenging Annexure C, the petitioner moved this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court examined Subin A.S. and Radhakrishnan v. Saju Thuruthikunnel but found those decisions distinguishable on facts. Ultimately, it held that handwriting evidence is generally corroborative and not decisive, and that ordering an expert opinion would not enhance the prosecution case. After considering the record and law, the court declined to intervene and dismissed the petition.
R.C.Rev.No. 376 of 2019; R.C.Rev.No. 377 of 2019 This judgment concerns two Rent Control Revision petitions (R.C.Rev.No.376 of 2019 and R.C.Rev.No.377 of 2019) filed by sitting tenants against eviction orders under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlords sought eviction on bona fide personal need to use the entire four-storied building for a clinic/hospital by the fourth tenant, a final-year MBBS student. The Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Thrissur, after joint trial of 20 RC(OP)s, held the need bona fide and directed eviction, a decision sustained by the Appellate Authority (I Additional District Judge), Thrissur. The revision petitions contested the bona fide nature of the need and pressed the second proviso to Section 11(3), or alternatively argued Section 11(8) should apply since the landlords occupy other parts of the building. The High Court, on hearing, upheld that the need was bona fide and that Section 11(3) and Section 11(8) are mutually exclusive, noting the tenants’ failure to prove the second proviso’s two limbs. The court relied on established precedents (e.g., Hassan Koya K., S.R. Sabu, Adil Jamshed Frenchman, and Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar) regarding bona fide need, the onus on the tenant to prove the second proviso, and the limits of revisional power. Ultimately, the petitions were dismissed, with six months’ time granted to the tenants to surrender vacant possession under specified conditions.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC No. 3687 of 2022) filed by 17 accused in Crime No. 250/2022 of Sreekaryam Police Station seeking quashing of further proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The FIR alleges offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 149, 341 and 323, for an assault on respondents 2 to 9 on 05 March 2022 at about 11 a.m. The petitioners contend that the dispute is private and has been settled; affidavits (Annexures A2–A9) sworn by the injured respondents state they have no subsisting grievance and no objection to quashing. The State, via Public Prosecutor, confirms that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the SHO, and the injured respondents reiterate they have no objection to quashing. The court notes the private nature of the dispute and, given the settlement, that continuing proceedings would not serve any purpose and the chances of a successful prosecution are bleak. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 4 KLT 108, the court holds that it can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioners. The order is passed by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. The matter ends with quashing of proceedings initiated by the FIR.
The petitioners, a company engaged in selling and distributing electronic and electrical home appliances, sought police protection to allow their own skilled workers to load and unload goods at the Chingavanam branch, after obstruction by the 3rd respondent’s group who claimed a monopoly over such work. Ext. P2 wage slips show the petitioners’ workers are engaged in handling sensitive items; the petition relied on Kerala Headload Workers Act, particularly Section 2(m), which defines a headload worker and, via an explanation, includes “delicate or sophisticated” articles requiring trained personnel. The petition cites Krishna Kumar v. D.S.P., Alappuzha, and Balakrishnan A. v. Circle Inspector of Police, to contend that protection can be granted to workers handling delicate goods. The 4th respondent contends that the petitioners’ workers are mainly helpers without requisite expertise, hence protection would be inappropriate. After considering the Act and the cited judgments, the Court held that the petitioners’ workers, who have long worked with the company and handle delicate electronic items, are entitled to police protection for loading/unloading. It directed respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection for this limited task, and clarified the protection applies only to loading/unloading of delicate items. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
This is a revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act challenging eviction orders passed by the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Nadapuram, and affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara. The landlord sought eviction of two tenants on the ground of bona fide need to occupy three adjoining shop rooms for starting a stationery business, given his imminent return from abroad and the economic crisis and nationalisation context. He argued that he requires space for the business and that one adjoining room is vacant, so eviction of two rooms would meet his needs. The tenant contended the landlord is affluent and has no genuine necessity; that the available vacant room plus the existing premises is sufficient, and that the second proviso to Section 11(3) requires proof that the tenant’s livelihood depends primarily on the tenancy and that no suitable substitute is available. The Rent Control Court recorded PW1 and RW1 and admitted Exts. A1 and B1–B8, finding the need bona fide and the first proviso inapplicable; the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals. The High Court, after examining the evidence and the governing authorities, held that the bona fide need findings were supported by the record and that the second proviso had not been established. It dismissed the revision petition, but granted six months to vacate, subject to conditions.
This is a motor vehicle accident claims appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, heard by a Kerala High Court single-judge bench. Petitioner P.V. Shilaja challenges the III Additional MACT, Thrissur’s award dated 30.06.2016 in OP(MV) No.1384/2009, arising from a 17.05.2009 accident on the Thrissur-Perumbillissery Public Road in which a bus allegedly driven rashly knocked her down. She sustained grievous injuries, was hospitalized for 14 days, and claims a compensation of ₹9,37,000 while the Tribunal awarded ₹2,78,414. The Tribunal found the second respondent-driver at fault, but respondents disputed the quantum and argued that the accident occurred due to the petitioner’s negligence. Ext.A11 and Ext.A1–A11 were marked; no oral evidence was adduced. The petitioner contends the notional income was under-calculated (₹4,000 instead of ₹7,000 per month), the disability percentage was incorrectly reduced (28.78% whole body to 22% functional), and future earning prospects were not adequately considered in light of Ramachandrappa, Syed Sadaq, and Pranay Sethi. The court re-evaluates notional income, fixes 25% permanent disability, and uses a multiplier approach to award enhanced compensation of ₹4,47,014 with 9% interest, partly allowing the appeal and directing deposit before the Tribunal within 60 days for distribution.
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the BNSS by Sabar, the accused in Crime No. 494/2025 of Kodungalloor Police Station, Thrissur, charged with offences under Section 406 IPC for misappropriation of company funds during 2021–2023 while employed as the manager of the complainant's company, Dreem Colers. The prosecution case rests on a private complaint that was forwarded to police under Section 173(3) BNSS. The petitioner submits that custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and he is prepared to abide by stringent conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The High Court notes that the maximum penalty for the offence is three years, and that bail is the general rule with jail as the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement and later decisions including Siddharth v State of UP and Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, Anzar Azeez, and Joginder Kumar to underline the primacy of personal liberty and the need to distinguish between power to arrest and justification for arrest. Relying on these authorities, the court concludes that custodial interrogation is not necessary in this case. Accordingly, the court grants bail subject to conditions: the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks; furnish a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; not leave India without court permission; refrain from committing similar offences; cooperate with the investigation; and the bail may be canceled if conditions are violated. The decision reflects the principle that the investigation can proceed while safeguarding the accused's rights.
WP(C) No. 14342 of 2019 & connected cases The matter concerns encroachments on the Thiruvabharana Patha, the traditional route from Pandalam to Sabarimala used to transport Tiruvabharanam during Makara Samkrama. The petitioner, Thiruvabharana Patha Samrakshana Samithi, a religious society, sought to enforce Ext. P1 (resolution dated 26.10.2009) for removal of encroachments by 31.12.2009, including measuring the path with a survey team under an Advocate Commissioner and providing police protection during eviction. Since 2009, encroachments were identified across several villages, with surveys and Land Conservancy proceedings invoked. The petition argued that despite RTI inquiries and various proceedings, encroachments persisted and the path’s sanctity and public interest required expeditious, transparent action. The respondents argued that due process under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and allied rules/regulations must be followed, including notices and mahazars, with due regard to rights of affected persons and bodies such as the Panchayats and Devaswom. The High Court, after examining the record and the parties’ submissions, disposed of the petitions with directions to issue fresh notices with mahazar to encroachers within two months and to complete evictions within three months, while safeguarding legitimate interests of those with titles and rights. The judgment emphasizes natural justice, timely action, and fiduciary duties of Devaswoms.
Mat.Appeal No. 423 of 2016 Sunila, the appellant-wife, challenges the Family Court, Thiruvalla, order in O.P. No.1114 of 2012 (decreed 18 January 2016) which declared Ashok Kumar as the title holder of the schedule property and ordered restoration of possession, finding Sunila to be merely a name lender in the sale deed. The respondent contends that he purchased the property in Sunila’s name using his own funds and that a housing loan was availed in Sunila’s name for construction and for setting up a soft-drink factory, with the property subsequently mutated in Sunila’s name. Sunila insists the schedule property was purchased with her own money, comprising sale proceeds of gold ornaments and parental support, and that there is no credible proof that she contributed funds from employment or other sources; she had claimed a Noida residence in her own name as evidence of independent funds. The Family Court found that the entire consideration came from the respondent’s resources and that mutation in Sunila’s name did not confer beneficial ownership on her, therefore holding that Sunila is a trustee and the respondent is the true owner. On appeal, the High Court reviews the evidence, including bank withdrawals (Exhibit B4), the sale deed (Exhibit B1), and testimony of RW1 and RW4, and upholds the Family Court’s finding. The appeal is dismissed; the schedule property remains with the respondent as title holder, with Sunila as a mere name lender. The court discusses fiduciary relations and benami considerations under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and related jurisprudence.
Karvy Innotech Ltd, a public limited company engaged in IT-related services, challenged a Kerala VAT assessment for the year 2016-17 under the KVAT Act, arguing violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. The assessment originated after notices under section 25(1) alleging undisclosed turnover; the initial reply was filed in May 2018. In January 2021, a fresh notice proposed a much higher escaped turnover. The petitioner sought more time and a hearing, and was granted several adjournments with a warning that no further adjournments would be allowed. Despite these adjournments, the petitioner did not appear or file objections by the due date (01.03.2021), culminating in Ext. P11, the assessment order dated 03.03.2021. The High Court rejected the challenge, noting that the petitioner had been afforded substantial opportunities to present its case and that mere non-response cannot be equated with denial of hearing. The court emphasized that interference in tax matters is limited to violations of fundamental rights, jurisdictional excess, or contravention of natural justice, referencing established authorities. It held that the assessment was issued in accordance with law and dismissed the petition, while permitting the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies.
