This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, challenging the continuation of criminal proceedings against three accused in SC No. 997/2010 before the Sessions Court, Thrissur. The petitioners, Centurion Laboratories (division of Centurion Remedies Pvt. Ltd.), Ambalal V. Patel and C.B. Padmakumar, faced a complaint under Section 32 of the Act alleging offences under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(d) on a drug sample THROT (Levothyroxine Sodium tablets I.P.) deemed not to meet standards. The petition contends that Section 25 grants the right to have the sample retested at the Central Drugs Laboratory, and that this right was prejudiced because the complaint was filed on the very last day of the drug's shelf life, depriving them of a meaningful retest. Annexures show letters requesting retesting and the Drug Inspector's acknowledgment. The State, through the Additional DGP, argues that whether the petitioners objected to the test report and shelf life expiration are facts for trial and that Section 482 powers should not be exercised unless proven prejudice. The High Court finds that the petitioners did object to the test report on 30.03.2007 and that the drug's shelf life expired on the filing date, causing prejudice. Citing Medicamen Biotech Ltd. v. Rubina Bose and Zest Pharma, the court held continued prosecution would be an abuse of process and quashed SC No. 997/2010. CRL.M.C. allowed.
The petitioners – three individuals appointed as Riggers in Travancore Cochin Chemicals Limited (TCCL) on two-year fixed-term contracts in September 2019 – approached the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to permit them to continue beyond the contractual period. They had extended service by two months after expiry and had submitted representations for further extension; they alleged that their selection involved skill and training, that they belong to a disadvantaged group, and that terminating them would cause grave prejudice. The company argued that contracts ended in September 2021 and that a fresh list of eligible candidates was arranged, with only ad hoc extensions possible due to lockdown-related delays; it contended that there was no legal right to regularization and that admitting new candidates would be fair to other unemployed persons. The petition relied on decisions urging regularization of temporary employees, including State of Jammu and Kashmir v. District Bar Association and Manjula Bashini. The court canvassed the Constitution Bench decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and others, emphasizing that regularization cannot be ordered unless recruitment itself is in conformity with constitutional principles. Citing Umadevi and Surinder Prasad Tiwari, the court held that permanent absorption of casual or contractual staff contravenes the constitutional scheme, and that sympathy cannot override due process. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed, denying regularization and continued employment.
This Full Bench of the Kerala High Court examines whether Central legislation, namely the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the rules framed thereunder, will prevail over Kerala’s Special Rules for the Kerala Social Welfare Subordinate Service framed under the Kerala Public Services Act, 1983 (amended by Act 4 of 1984). The question arises from a reference order doubting a Division Bench ruling in O.P.(KAT) No.80/2013 and connected matters. Petitioners, two applicants, are on the rank list for Probation Officer Grade II under the Probation of Offenders Act rules; the mode of appointment is direct recruitment and transfer in a 2:1 ratio, whereas the state rules prescribe 1:2. The petitioners argued that Central rules must govern the ratio, and that repugnancy under Article 254(1)/(2) warrants central supremacy, save by President assent to state rules. Respondents contended that the President’s assent to Section 4 of the Kerala Public Services Act (1984 amendment) saves state rules, making them prevail. The bench clarifies the concept of assent, reservation for consideration, and the twin-requirement test for repugnancy. It overrules O.P.(KAT).No.80/2013 and distinguishes Mohanan, holding that central law prevails in repugnancy unless specific assent covers the state rules. The Tribunal’s order is set aside, directing follow-up of the Probation of Offenders Act’s ratio.
This writ appeal arises from the dismissal of WP(C) 41255/2022 by a learned Single Judge, challenging Ext.P12 issued by the competent authority under the National Highways Act, 1956. The matter concerns compensation under Land Acquisition proceedings (LAC Nos. 621/20 and 620/20A) for land acquired for the National Highway project. The background traces to OS No. 84 of 1986 before the Munsiff Court, Payyoli, with a preliminary decree dated 24.01.1987 and a final decree dated 30.09.1997 partitioning the property; petitioners were defendants Nos. 11 and 19 in the final decree. The petitioners allege a 1981 partition was not brought to the court’s notice due to alleged collusion between their mother and a brother, and contend that the preliminary and final decrees do not bind them. They further argue that, absent a separate suit, they are entitled to challenge title and that disputes over apportionment under Sec. 3-H(4) of the NH Act should be referred to the Civil Court. Respondents contend the final decree binds them and that no genuine dispute exists; compensation has already been disbursed as per LAC 621/20 and 620/20A. The Division Bench dismisses the appeal, but clarifies that petitioners may pursue a civil suit for title, and that the Single Judge’s findings will not bar such action; liberty is granted to raise all title contentions in the competent Civil Court.
The petitioner, A. Deepa, owner of 0.2795 hectares in Kodumba Village, Palakkad, seeks reassessment of Basic Tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 after obtaining Ext.P2 under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting non-agricultural use. Although Ext.P2 was granted in 2006, the land continues to be described as Nilam/Paddy Land in revenue records and Ext.P3 (Form-A, dated 31.08.2022) for re-assessment has not been acted upon by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner asserts that once an enabling order is passed under Rule 6(2) of the KLUO, 1967, the earlier land-use classifications become superfluous and a fresh assessment under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 is required, with necessary updates in the Basic Tax Register. The respondents counter that Ext.P2’s authenticity must be verified (it is from 2006) and the current land status must be ascertained before any reassessment. The court relies on Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and Others (2020) 4 KLT 448 and District Collector, Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani (2020) 4 KLT 612 to hold that when enabling orders exist under KLUO, revenue officials are obliged to consider a subsequent application under the Kerala Land Tax Act and re‑assess after verifying the underlying orders. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 and pass orders within one month.
Varghese George, the original decree holder, seeks relief under OP(C) 1860/2021 against Ext P5 (19.02.2011) in EP 81/1998 in LAR 289/1988, before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. The dispute traces to land acquired for Flood Bank cum Road at Pathanamthitta in 1986. A Land Acquisition reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 culminated in Ext P1; the second respondent challenged it leading to Ext P2, a decree modifying the award to Rs.9000 per Are with proportionate benefits and determining Sec.23(1A) benefits from 2.9.1985 to 10.10.1986, with interest under Sec.28 at 9% p.a. for one year from possession and 15% p.a. thereafter until deposit. After the death of the original claimant, Thankamma George and the petitioner along with respondents 3–6 filed EP 81/1998. Ext P3/Ext P4 records reflected the decree holders’ entitlement, while Ext P5 denied interest on solatium from 1987 and restricted it to post-2001. The petitioner alleges Ext P5 ignored Supreme Court precedents Sundar v. UoI and Gurpreet Singh v. UoI. The respondents contend Sundar does not apply (due to earlier decree and overpayment concerns). The High Court ultimately finds Ext P5 erroneous, sets it aside, and directs the lower court to dispose of EP 81/1998 in accordance with law, bearing Sundar and Gurpreet Singh in mind, and to do so within three months, thereby disposing of the original petition with directions.”
CRL.A Nos. 677/2018, 895/2018, 1009/2018, 1500/2018 This batch of Kerala High Court criminal appeals arises from S.C. No. 901 of 2016 in the Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, concerning a 2015 gangland killing in Kannammoola. The prosecution contends that accused Nos. 1–4 formed a criminal conspiracy with accused Nos. 5–8 to murder Sunil Babu, the deceased, in retaliation for prior rivalries. On 13 December 2015, they allegedly approached Kannammoola junction in two motorcycles and an Innova, attacked Sunil Babu, and caused fatal head injuries. The trial court convicted accused Nos. 1–4 under 302 r/w 34 IPC; 341 r/w 34 IPC; and 326 r/w 34 IPC, and convicted accused Nos. 5–8 under 120B IPC, while acquitting the 9th accused of several charges. The High Court’s judgment, delivered on 27 March 2024, partially allowed the appeals: it upheld the conviction of accused Nos. 1–4 only for 341 and 302 r/w 34 IPC, while setting aside 120B and 326 convictions for them; it reversed or set aside the 120B convictions against accused Nos. 5–8 and acquitted them. It also found the death homicidal and relied on ocular testimony corroborated by medical and ballistic evidence, while scrutinizing the credibility of two key eyewitnesses who were related to the deceased. The court analyzed FIR timing, disclosure statements, and the role of call records in establishing conspiracy, applying established jurisprudence on the credibility of related witnesses.
Bail Application No. 558 of 2024 This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Ajeesh, the fourth accused in Crime No. 1302/2023 of the Thrissur Town West Police Station, involving seven accused charged with offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 149. The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, heard the matter on 5 February 2024. The prosecution alleges that on 6 November 2023, around 11 p.m., an unlawful assembly at Poothole railway station formed with common intention to murder Sreerag, a friend of the de facto complainant. The accused 3, 5 and 6 assaulted Jiyas and Ajmal; when Sreerag intervened, the first accused restrained him and stabbed him with a knife supplied by the second accused. Sreerag’s attempt to rescue his brother led to further injuries to him; the fourth and seventh accused allegedly restrained the deceased as he was being taken to hospital. The petitioner argues total innocence, claiming false implication and that he was not present at the scene, being at the police station to secure his father’s release. He has been in custody since 8 November 2023; the final report has been laid and the investigation completed. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting the heinous nature, but conceded the long custody and lack of overt act against him beyond restraint. On review, the court found the material primarily implicates him only in restraint, with the investigation complete, and concluded detention was unnecessary, granting bail with stringent conditions, including a Rs 50,000 bond and two sureties, reporting requirements, travel restrictions, and standard anti-tampering clauses, citing Sushila Aggarwal for the principle allowing continued investigation during bail.
ITA 247/2019; 255/2019; 259/2019; 256/2019; 260/2019; 258/2019; 10/2020; 3/2020; 13/2020; 4/2020; 8/2020; 11/2020; 12/2020; 16/2020 This is a batch judgment of a set of ITA appeals filed by Hillwood group against orders of the ITAT (Cochin Bench) relating to block assessment under the Income Tax Act culminating from search and survey operations carried out in 2013-14. The core dispute revolves around the legality and evidentiary value of data recovered from three pen drives seized during a survey under Section 133A at a residence and the manner in which such data was used to estimate suppressed turnover and income. The Tribunal dismissed the assessees’ applications to raise additional grounds and accept new evidence under Rule 29 (65A/65B evidentiary issues) and upheld reliance on Hash Value Reports generated in 2014. The appellants argued that survey at a residence under 133A is impermissible and that the Hash Value data, being electronic records, must meet strict admissibility under Section 65B(4) per Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer; they also contended there was not adequate reason to admit new evidence or raise additional grounds. The Revenue argued that the pre-assessment notices, corroborative statements, and documents formed a valid basis for the block assessment and that Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction. The High Court, in a Division Bench, ultimately held that the Tribunal correctly decided the issues, and dismissed all appeals with no costs.
RP 1231/2022 & RP 157/2020 This is a Kerala High Court review petition matter arising out of a 2018 WP(C) judgment (No.37908/2018) concerning a settlement/gift deed over a subject property in the donor-mother’s hands and a dispute among her heirs. The Review Petitions (RP Nos. 1231/2022 and 157/2020) are filed by Rajan K. and Aniyankunju E. (brothers of the late James) and by Rosamma (in RP 157/2020), challenging the conveyance history and subsequent transfers following a settlement of the subject property by their mother to James. The petitioners contend that the settlement deed was in substance a gift, which could be unilaterally cancelled by the donor since James never accepted the gift and died, making the cancellation deed valid and resulting in a reversion to the donor. They further claim that after cancellation, the mother bequeathed the property by a registered will to them and others, and some portions may have passed to others, with partition suits pending. The respondents counter that the subject property rights were recognized in the writ petition and later vested in the petitioner and her heirs; unilateral cancellation, if any, is not admissible to defeat such vested rights. The court, after hearing, disposed of both reviews with directions, clarifying that the civil court will adjudicate the contentions in ongoing suits and that contentions may be raised therein, in accordance with law, without being bound by the impugned judgment.
CRL.R.P. No. 3348 of 2007 This is a criminal revision petition filed by P. Joy Thomas, the 1st accused in CC 505/1997 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mattannur, under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The prosecution alleged possession of 25 packets of Karnataka arrack on 9 Oct 1996 and the accused’ s attempt to transfer contraband to another to evade arrest. The trial court convicted him and sentenced three months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 25,000, with default imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed, and the petitioner challenged the conviction in revision. The petitioner contends that key prosecution witness PW3 was hostile; arrest memo/arrest intimation were not produced; specimen seal on the sample was not affixed in the mahazar; and there was no forwarding note of the sample for chemical analysis. The High Court, invoking its revisory power, examined the strict compliance with Abkari Act formalities, citing Baburaj v. State of Kerala and D.K. Basu, Sathi, and related authorities, to emphasize the necessity of strict compliance given the Act’s harsh penalties. It scrutinized the arrest and seizure documents, the absence of an arrest memo, lack of specimen seals, and missing forwarding note, including the chain of custody for the sample. Finding substantial gaps, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted the petitioner, setting aside the lower courts’ judgments and ordering liberty.
The petitioner, Hilton Stones and Aggregates LLP, seeks a measurement sketch in respect of lands for commencing quarrying operations. Ext. P6 is the application; Ext. P13, a rejection order by the 2nd respondent (Tahsildar), held that the predecessors possessed excess land beyond the permissible extent under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and thus the measurement sketch cannot be granted. The petitioner contends that possession of excess land by predecessors cannot be a valid basis to deny the issuance of a measurement sketch, and pendency before the Taluk Land Board cannot justify denial of the sketch. The counter affidavit from the 2nd respondent asserts that the prior owners held excess land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and that the petition cannot be granted during the pendency of ceiling proceedings. The petitioner relies on Wayanad Granites v. District Collector (2023 (4) KLT 874) and a 20.07.2023 judgment in W.P.(c) No. 22695 of 2022, arguing that revenue certificates or surveys cannot be denied for such reasons. The court heard submissions and, applying the cited precedents, held that Ext. P13 cannot be sustained. It directed the 2nd respondent to issue a measurement sketch countersigned within one month from certified copy of the judgment, clarifying that the decision concerns survey sketches only and not mining leases. The judgment disposes of the petition, leaving open the merits of mining lease. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of.
WA 48/2020 (and allied connected cases) This batch judgement deals with challenges to the amendments introduced to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) by the Kerala Finance Acts of 2017 and 2018, in the context of reassessment/epression notices issued under Section 25(1) of KVAT. The High Court examines whether the amendments substituting ‘five years’ with ‘six years’ (Finance Act 11/2017) and the corresponding extension clause for assessments expiring up to March 31, 2017 (third proviso) and its extension up to March 31, 2019 (Finance Act 5/2018) operate retrospectively or prospectively, especially after the 2016 Constitution (One Hundred and First) Amendment and the subsequent repeal of KVAT when KGST Act came into force. The Court analyzes the scope of legislative competence of the State to amend the KVAT Act post-CAA, the effect on vested/accrued rights of assessees, and the interplay with the saving provisions under KGST, Articles of the Constitution, and longstanding precedent on retrospective legislation. It concludes that the amendments are prospective in nature, and that the assessments cannot be reopened beyond the amended time limits for the years in question; accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed.
W.P.(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These batch writ petitions challenge Government Order GO(MS) No.121/2022/G.Edn dated 7.7.2022 and the accompanying Plus One/12th admission prospectus for Higher Secondary courses, arguing that the State cannot reserve management quotas or compel private aided schools to declare the managing community. The petitions trace the history of seat allocations since 1991 (GO 18/91, GO 29/91) and the 2005 reform (GO 206/2005) that merged community quotas with management quotas. They contend that the 2022 order reduces management quota to 20% and introduces a 10% community quota based on declaration of community, which is unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, and violates the principle that there shall be no quota reserved for management or for a community backing the institution. The State answers that policy decisions are within executive domain and justify the 20% management quota and 10% community seats to protect meritorious students from the same community. The High Court, however, holds that the 10% community quota is arbitrary and unconstitutional, while the 20% management quota may stand as policy. The court directs that the 10% community seats be treated as open merit seats to be filled through the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP), and disposes of the petitions. Admissions already made on declared community are not disturbed.
Yunus and others v. State of Kerala is a Kerala High Court criminal Misc. case under Sec. 482 CrPC, involving 13 petitioners/accused in the 2009 case registered for offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427, and 308 read with Section 149. The petition seeks quashing of proceedings on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue prosecution, supported by affidavits from the respondents. The State/Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing but acknowledged no other crimes against the petitioners and the respondents’ statements indicating no lasting grievances. The Court recalls Supreme Court principles from State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to regulate the exercise of the extraordinary power under Section 482 when non‑compoundable offences are involved and a settlement has taken place. The Court emphasizes that such power is limited to private, non‑heinous offences and that it should be exercised with consideration of gravity, injuries, antecedents, and public interest. After analysis, the Court concludes that quashing the proceedings would promote peace and justice, given the amicable settlement, absence of serious offense, and no ongoing societal harm. The petition is allowed and the final report and subsequent proceedings are quashed.
Arb.A Nos. 14 and 15 of 2023 These arbitration appeals arise from a Commercial Court (Ernakulam) order dated 30.08.2022 in AOP Nos.27 and 24 of 2021. The appellants, comprising Southern Railway head office and related railway units along with the Union of India, challenged the order under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with accompanying delay applications. The sole Respondent is M.P. SarasAN. The appeals were admitted on 20.09.2023 with interim stay; the matter was later aligned with a legal question on the proper forum for appeals under the Commercial Courts Act. On 31.05.2024, reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision, Alexander Luke v. Aditya Birla Money Ltd. (ILR 2024 (1) Ker. 829; 2024 KHC OnLine 107), which held that even when a dispute arises under the Arbitration Act, the court for consideration is the Commercial Court, and the appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act lies to the Commercial Appellate Court (District Court). Consequently, the High Court held that Arb. Appeals Nos.14 and 15 of 2023 are not maintainable here, directing the memoranda to be returned to the Deputy Solicitor General to be filed before the District Court, Ernakulam. The trial records should also be returned. The matter remains stayed and the parties are to appear before the District Court on 18.06.2024. Annexures include copies of the Arbitration Award (2018) and related documents. Bench: Division Bench (Anil K. Narendran, J. and Harisankar V. Menon, J.).
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition by the sole accused in S.C.497/2019 and S.C.498/2019 arising from Crime No.434/2019 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, seeking to quash the B charge or stay the B-charge trial pending completion of the A-charge trial. The two survivors, aged 13 and 12 at the time, allegedly experienced sexual offences after karate classes and at a nearby location, with the accused described as a karate instructor. The Special Court had framed A and B charges under the PoCSO Act and IPC; B-charge formed the subject of the petition. The petitioner contends that continuing the B-charge trial while A-charge proceedings are ongoing would prejudice his defense and violate CrPC provisions, particularly Section 224, and related sections binding joinder and trial of offences. He asserts that charge-within-one-case with multiple heads against the same person should be managed under Section 224, including possible stay or withdrawal of remaining charges. The State and the Amicus Curiae counter that Section 224 applies only to charges containing more heads for the same person in one case and does not justify staying a separate B-charge for a different victim. The court discusses sections 218-223, 219(1), and 31 CrPC, noting that separate trials are generally permissible and that Section 224 is inapplicable here. Ultimately, the court dismisses the Crl.M.C. petition, clarifying the limits of Section 224 in PoCSO cases and commending the Amicus Curiae while leaving trial management to the courts below.
This is a criminal revision petition under sections 397 and 401 CrPC challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The sole accused, M. Muhammadali, was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Hosdurg in CC 62/2019 for issuing three post-dated cheques (Rs 6,00,000; Rs 4,00,000; Rs 5,50,000) in discharge of a sale of trees on immovable property owned by the complainant and co-owners. Two cheques were encashed; the third dishonoured for funds insufficient. The trial court sentenced the accused to simple imprisonment for four months and to pay Rs 5,50,000 as compensation under CrPC 357(3), with a default imprisonment provision. The Additional Sessions Court—III, Kasaragod—confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to one month imprisonment with the same compensation. The revision petition before the Kerala High Court contends that appellate interference should be cautious, as revisional jurisdiction cannot re‑appreciate evidence as an appellate court. The court discusses the scope of revisional power, relies on several Supreme Court precedents confirming that revisional courts should not substitute their own view for concurrent findings unless a gross miscarriage is evident, and examines the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act. The court ultimately allows the revision in part: the conviction is upheld, but the sentence is modified to one day’s imprisonment till rising of the court and an order to pay Rs 5,50,000 as compensation, with six months to comply; non‑payment triggers six months’ imprisonment. The judgment is delivered by a Single Judge on 22-09-2022, with a judgment dated 22-07-2022 being the operative order.
The Kerala High Court, in CRL.MC 5360 of 2023, heard a petition by accused Nos. 1–3 seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No. 1002/2023 of Varkala Police Station. The accused faced charges under sections 120-B and 307 read with 34 IPC. They contended that the entire disputes had been resolved by settlement, supported by affidavits (Annexures A2 and A3). The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the quashing, emphasizing that the offences include a serious, non-private element (Section 307 IPC) and that the matter is at the FIR stage; reliance was placed on State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, which discusses the circumstances under which quashing under Section 482 CrPC can be entertained, particularly after final report. The court referred to Laxmi Narayan and the line of decisions it summarises, including Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, State of M.P. v. Deepak, State of M.P. v. Manish, J. Ramesh Kamath, State of M.P. v. Rajveer Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh, and State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar, to articulate the controlling principles: quashing is generally permissible for non-compoundable offenses with civil/private character, particularly where disputes are settled, but not for heinous offences with a societal impact such as 307 IPC or arms offences.
The High Court held that the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash should not be exercised to nullify prosecutions involving serious offences, and that the court must assess whether the 307 IPC inclusion is real or merely a matter of form, based on the evidence, the nature of injuries, and weapons, which can only be evaluated after investigation/charge framing. Since the final report had not been submitted, the court was not inclined to quash on the basis of settlement alone. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with liberty reserved for the petitioners to approach the court after a final report is submitted. The order was delivered by a Single Judge, Raja Vijayaraghavan V. Annexures A1–A3 accompany the Appendix. The decision emphasizes that settlement cannot override public interest where serious offences are involved, while still acknowledging the potential relevance of settlements in appropriate, non-serious contexts.
Petitioner Suresh Kumar, a 52-year-old occupant, runs a workshop in a shop in Chengannur under the old Ward No. 19 (Door No. 1; present 20/3). He is described as a statutory tenant holding over, with a Rent Control Court eviction petition (RCP No. 2/2020) pending before the Chengannur Rent Control Court. The dispute centers on renewal of a municipal licence. The municipality declined renewal, and the petitioner’s appeal (Exhibit P5) was also rejected. The Health Inspector noted arrears for 14 years and the municipality demanded payment and the creation of a new D&O licence under Section 447 of the Act, arguing the licence renewal could not be processed without clearing arrears and obtaining required permissions. The petitioner contends that, as a statutory tenant holding over, no fresh consent from the landlord is required for renewal and relies on Swapna Jestus v Pulpally Grama Panchayat (2013) to argue that delay in filing renewal can be condoned by payment of a late fee, and on Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum (SC) to claim that consent is unnecessary in such renewal considerations. The High Court ultimately held that a fresh renewal application should be considered without insisting on landlord consent if tenancy is not disputed, after hearing both sides, and directed that Ext. P6 not be acted upon and that the municipality process the fresh licence application expeditiously in accordance with law, with notices to the landlord and opportunities to be heard.
