WP(C). Nos. 15455/2023, 15707/2023, 15723/2023, 15746/2023, 16068/2023, 1931/2024, 12242/2024 The batch of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court concerns the regulation of summer vacation and the conduct of vacation classes by private schools in the State. Petitioners include a Kerala CBSE School Management Association and several private institutions affiliated to CBSE/ICSE or recognized under the Kerala Education Rules (KER). They sought to conduct vacation classes during the summer break to complete syllabi in view of board examinations and to mitigate time shortages, arguing that the best interests of children require adequate instructional time while children also have a right to rest and recreation. The State and educational authorities contended that summer vacation calendars flow from the Kerala Education Rules and the Kerala Education Act, and may bind recognised schools, with the calendar being binding for KER-recognised institutions. The court analyzed the scope of executive power to regulate vacation, distinguishing between KER-recognised and non-KER schools, and emphasized the parens patriae obligation of the State to protect children’s welfare. It rejected the law propounded in I.S.S. English Medium, held that non-KER schools cannot be bound by the KER calendar, and permitted non-KER schools to hold limited vacation classes (7:30 AM to 10:30 AM) subject to future executive orders. W.P.16068/2023, a KER-recognised school, was dismissed on the calendar issue. Overall, the court balanced academic needs with children’s right to rest, invoking Article 31 of the UNCRC and the parens patriae doctrine while directing future regulatory actions.
BAIL APPL. NO. 10358 OF 2022 Rijas M.P., the petitioner in Bail Appl. 10358 of 2022, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 883/2022 of Elathoor Police Station, Kozhikode, registered for offences under IPC sections 376(2)(n), 354, 506 and 323. The prosecution alleges that in August 2021 the accused forcibly kissed the defacto complainant and later, after October 2021, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her in Dubai and Mumbai on several occasions, thereby committing the offences. The FIR was registered on 04.12.2022, and the investigation has since been transferred to Nadakkavu Police Station as Crime No. 1016/2022. The defence contends that the two were in a serious relationship and intended to marry; they traveled together to Dubai and Mumbai, and the complainant allegedly extracted money (Rs 4 lakh for a job, Rs 3 lakh subsequently) with cheques issued by her; the cheques were dishonoured; notices under Section 138 of the NI Act were issued; the FIR was registered in response to those notices. The applicant argues that the relationship dissolved when the complainant eloped with another man in April 2022. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing ongoing investigation. The judge, noting inconsistencies between alleged force and voluntary accompanying of the complainant, observed the presence of monetary transactions and delayed FIR, and ultimately disposed of the bail application, directing surrender for interrogation and subsequent release on bail with strict conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent tampering with witnesses.
CRL.M.C. No. 4806 of 2021 This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 4806 of 2021) filed before the Kerala High Court by accused Nos.5, 8 and 9 challenging quashment of proceedings in SC No.160/2021, arising from Crime No.26/2017 of Kumily police station. The case concerns a seizure of 25,500 ordinary detonators and 3,000 electric detonators found in a KSRTC bus during an Excise check in Kumily on 10 January 2017. Initially, accused Nos.1–3 were identified as the alleged transporters; subsequently, accused Nos.4–9 were added on the basis of their confessional statements and other materials. The judicial process culminated in laying charges under Sections 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The petition argues that the inclusion of the petitioners as accused rests solely on co-accused confessions, which are inadmissible against them, and that there is no independent evidence tying them to the crime. The High Court, after examining the materials, found no tangible evidence against these petitioners and noted that the fourth accused was exonerated by Annexure-E. The court ultimately allowed the M.C.C., quashing the proceedings against Nos.5, 8 and 9 and exonerating them.
RP No.517 of 2019 in CRP No.1313 of 1990 This is a Kerala High Court review petition (RP No.517 of 2019 in CRP No.1313 of 1990) challenging an order dated 17 January 1992 disposing of the Civil Revision Petition. The review petitioners, Sahidulla and Sulekha Umma, seek condonation of an extraordinary delay of 9934 days (about 27 years) in filing the review after the CRP was disposed of. The record shows that the underlying CRP involved rights of the Taluk Land Board and related authorities regarding land matters at Perinthalmanna. The petition also references a writ petition W.P. No.22824/2003 filed by the first revision petitioner, which was disposed of by this Court on 04.06.2018, leaving open issues to remedy under law. The petition asserts that the delay arose from a combination of illness (depression) of the petitioner’s father who was conducting proceedings, misplacement of the case bundle, and the petitioners’ period abroad in the Gulf, which delayed prosecution. The respondents contest condonation, arguing there is no justifiable reason for such an inordinate delay, pointing to lack of credible evidence of Gulf employment, and noting that the writ petition’s disposal cannot revive jurisdiction. The court places heavy emphasis on Supreme Court precedents about condoning delay, distinguishing between inordinate and short delays, and requiring genuine bona fides. The petition is ultimately dismissed with all interlocutory applications also dismissed.
This is a consolidated writ petition judgment by Justice Devan Ramachandran delivering on 16 August 2022 in a batch of petitions by KSRTC employees challenging termination orders and seeking regularisation under a 2008 bipartite settlement, government orders, and subsequent Supreme Court directions. The core issue concerns regularisation of provisional empaneled employees who had served for eight years with 120 days of duty per year, and the legality of terminating such employees after they had obtained judgments or regularisation. The court reviews precedents such as Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2013) 2 KLT 258 and the Division Bench decision in WA No.354/2014, noting that the Supreme Court subsequently intervened through Civil Appeals Nos. 4435–4438/2017 and a 2017 SLP order, which clarified the admissibility of the 120 days duty condition and the retroactive reach of Government orders. The judgment holds that the impugned termination orders must be set aside, and directs KSRTC to hear petitioners and require them to prove that they satisfied ten years of service and 120 days of duty up to 21.12.2011. If proven, regularisation must be ordered within three months with pensionary benefits where applicable; if not, formal termination may follow. The decision binds all petitioners under Article 141 of the Constitution in light of the Supreme Court declarations.
This is a Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by Muhammed P.P. challenging the conviction and sentence in an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that the petitioner borrowed Rs. 5,40,000 and issued a cheque dated 19 May 2013 for that amount, which bounced for want of funds. Legal notice was issued and served, but payment was not made, leading to prosecution under NI Act. The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 9,16,000 to the complainant under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C., with default imprisonment. The First Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, confirmed the conviction on appeal. The revision petitioner contends that Ext.P1 cheque was not issued by him; rather the cheque was given to a friend of the complainant as security; he argues no evidence proves this, and the lower courts erred in relying on the documents (Exts.D1–D7) to prove the transaction. The High Court discusses the scope of its revisional power under Cr.P.C., citing State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri and other Supreme Court precedents to emphasize that revisional courts cannot re‑appreciate evidence absent a gross miscarriage of justice. The court ultimately dismisses the revision petition, upholding the concurrent verdict. It grants six months’ time to pay the compensation and directs the petitioner to appear by 26 March 2023 to undergo the modified sentence, with execution deferred until 25 March 2023.
MACA.56/2014 (Cross Objection No. 107/2017) An appeal by The Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. challenges an award under the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, arising from the death of Anil Kumar in a July 14, 2010 accident involving a lorry colliding with his motorcycle. The MACT awarded compensation to the widow and two minor children of the deceased and to another claimant, and the insurer challenged the amount and the Tribunal’s approach to future prospects. The cross objectors contend that the award under several heads — loss of dependency, love and affection, and loss of consortium — was inadequate; they seek larger sums and reconsideration of funeral expenses. The High Court agrees that negligence and liability were established, but the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in adding 30% towards future prospects and in the notional income assessed for the deceased. The cross objectors argue that the notional income should be higher and that the amounts under various heads should be enhanced. The court scrutinizes the evidence of occupation and income, noting that only the deceased’s SSLC book was produced and that there is no proof of self-employment or fixed wages. It holds that the 30% addition towards future prospects cannot be sustained on the facts. Reworking the dependency award to Rs. 7,56,000 (Rs. 6,000 monthly notional income, 12 months, 14 years, and 3/4 share) and increasing love and affection and loss of consortium, along with funeral expenses, the High Court increases the totals modestly. The appeal and cross objection are disposed of by directing payment of enhanced sums with interest and by requiring the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount within two months.
FAO (RO) Nos. 205 & 206 of 2016 This is a Kerala High Court judgment rendered by Justice P. Somarajan on 22 June 2022, concerning two First Appeals From Order (Remand) filed against a remand order in OS No.1148/2005 and AS Nos. 397/2015 and 398/2015 arising from a suit seeking declaration of title and injunction. The core issue is whether the first appellate court could remand a case for adjudication of undervaluation of relief and deficit court fee at the trial court, after amendments to include a declaration relief. The appellate court had set aside the trial court decree and remanded the matter, directing the trial court to evaluate undervaluation and collect deficit court fees, with liberty to admit fresh evidence. The Kerala High Court held this remand to be impermissible, emphasizing that undervaluation and deficit fees must be dealt with as preliminary issues under Section 12 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, and not after evidence is recorded, and that remand cannot substitute proper enforcement of the fee regime. The judgment relies on precepts from We-Build Pvt. Ltd. v. C. Kamaleswaran and Mannan Lal v. Chhotaka Bibi, among others, to reaffirm the correct procedural course. The court ultimately sets aside the remand order, allows the appeals, and directs further proceedings before the first appellate court with a date fixed for appearance.
BA No.1701 of 2024 is a Kerala High Court bail application dealing with pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC in Crime No.46/2024 of Kenichira Police Station, Wayanad. The four petitioners—Shaji K.G., Shaijesh, Ajesh K.S., and Shijumon E.G.—are accused along with others in offences including sections 341 and 323 IPC read with 34, with later incorporation of sections 325 and 307 IPC. The informant and Manoj allege that on the night of 26 January 2024, after Manoj hired the first petitioner’s jeep for a fare dispute, the first petitioner demanded more money; the accused allegedly assaulted both men. The prosecution contends a common intention to cause injury or death, and the investigation has added Section 307 IPC. The petitioners contend innocence and false implication, asserting they were temple festival officers and that the altercation stemmed from a fare dispute; they claim no custodial interrogation is necessary and point to lack of recoveries. The Public Prosecutor argues ongoing investigation and serious injuries to Manoj, supported by medical certificates, and that custodial interrogation is necessary. The court scrutinizes medical records and statements, notes conflicting accounts, and concludes the first petitioner has no exceptional ground for pre-arrest bail, while petitioners 2–4 are entitled to pre-arrest bail with conditions. The order also cites authorities emphasizing bail’s exceptional nature and the need to protect the investigation.
WP(C) Nos. 37213 of 2009; 368 of 2010; 369 of 2010 Three writ petitions filed by the President of the Peringode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. challenge Labour Court, Kozhikode's awards under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, directing payment of back wages and arrears to the second respondent in each case. The Bank contends that Ext.P8 awards wrongly extended to retrenchment issues and to the employer–employee relationship, and that the Bank's counter statement and memorandum (Exts P6–P7) were not considered. The Labour Court had relied on the petitioner's common order and order of retrenchment and relied on the arguments to allow full claim. The Court finds that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating on the validity of retrenchment and by going beyond the limited scope of Section 33C(2). The Court cites Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd v. The Workmen and Another and other decisions to emphasize that Section 33C(2) petitions are limited to back wages/arreas and do not permit re‑examination of the entire labour-employer relationship. The petitions are allowed; Exts P8 and P9 are quashed; the Labour Court is directed to proceed with the claim petitions in accordance with law, after hearing both sides, expeditiously, within six months.
This writ petition (Article 226) by the Travancore Devaswom Board challenges Ext. P5, a notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, for acquiring a portion of land belonging to Thuravoor Temple. The petitioner sought to quash the notification and later Ext. P10 (11.01.2022) denying its request to alter the highway alignment, pressing for a reconsideration of Ext. P9 (the Board’s representation) after a detailed scientific study of an alternate alignment. The petition argued that the acquired land includes Devaswom land and that the temple pond would be harmed by the proposed alignment. On admission dates, the respondents asserted that the temple pond would be unaffected under the proposed alignment and that the Devaswom land issue would be addressed at an appropriate stage under Section 3G of the Act. The counter-affidavits emphasize that alignment decisions must comply with IRC norms to ensure safety and design speed (80-100 km/h) and that the court’s role in evaluating project alignment is limited. The petition referenced Union of India v. Kushala Shetty to contend judicial intervention is warranted to protect temple lands; however, the court ultimately disposed of the petition, recording that the Devaswom-land claim would be examined under Section 3G at an appropriate stage and that the temple pond remains unaffected by the acquisition.
This writ petition challenges the validity of Section 207 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as amended, and the accompanying property tax regime on buildings owned by educational institutions. The petitioner, Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust, runs a dental college, an engineering college, and arts-and-science and teachers’ training institutions in the unaided sector, and seeks exemption from property tax for its buildings. The core challenge is directed at the amendment that confines exemptions to buildings used exclusively for education under institutions owned, aided or funded by the Government, including hostels, and argues that this produces an unreasonable, discriminatory classification against unaided private institutions. The petitioner seeks writs of certiorari and mandamus to exempt its buildings and to declare the amendment violative of equality guarantees. The court surveys prior authority: initially, the provision did not distinguish between aided and unaided institutions (Usha P. Panicker). Subsequent amendments narrowed exemptions, creating an intelligible differential under Article 14, and distinguishing self-financing institutions from Government-owned or aided ones. It cites Sree Narayana Gurukulam College of Engineering v. State of Kerala (2016) and The Manager, Vimal Jyothi Engineering College (2019) to affirm that the issue lies in fiscal policy and not in academic matters, and that exemption is a privilege for those under governmental control and auditing. Consequently, the petition is dismissed, with quantum of tax left open for determination by the authorities.
Akash Rajeev, a six-year-old child, was injured as a pillion rider when a lorry collided with the motorcycle on which he was traveling with his father. He filed OP(MV) No.121/2016 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking ₹17,60,000 as compensation for grievous injuries. The Tribunal awarded ₹6,12,800, prompting this MACA challenging the adequacy of the compensation. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal overlooked a 20% permanent disability shown in Ext.A8 and treated it as a whole-body disability, contending that the functional disability would justify higher compensation, including future prospects and even loss of marriage prospects. The insurer’s counsel argued the Tribunal’s computations were fair and, citing Master Mallikarjun, urged dismissal of the appeal. The High Court noted that the Tribunal adopted a notional income for the child of ₹92,000 per year, following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Assainar, and observed that this was adequate and fair. It distinguished Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, which dealt with an older child and adopted a much lower income, and held that it would not disturb the Tribunal’s findings on notional income. The court partially allowed the appeal, increasing compensation under Pain and Suffering to ₹2,00,000 and Loss of Amenities to ₹1,50,000, while keeping other heads intact, and directed recovery of the enhanced amount with 8% interest; future medical costs remain open to appropriate proceedings.
The Kerala High Court, in a consolidated hearing of CRP Nos. 211/2021 and 418/2019, examined the ambit of the proviso to Section 51 CPC and the conditions for exempting a judgment-debtor from arrest and detention under a money decree. The debtor, Rajendran R., sought protection from an arrest warrant issued during execution proceedings for failure to pay the decree amount. The court reviewed the statutory framework—Section 51 CPC proviso and Order XXI CPC Rules 38 and 41—together with constitutional safeguards under Article 21, emphasizing that imprisonment for non-payment can be avoided only where the judgment-debtor proves “utmost good faith” and absence of any bad faith, concealment, or transfer of property after suit initiation. The court discussed the derivative concept of “no means” and held that while the decree holder may offer evidence of the debtor’s means, the burden ultimately rests on the debtor to prove that he has no means to pay, or only a nominal portion, since the date of decree. It traced a lineage of authority starting from Xavier v. Canara Bank (1969 KLT 927), noting the role of unavoidable circumstances and the need for direct evidence of assets. It also cites Kuppuswamy v. P.G. Menon (1992) and Rajappan v. Shaju (2009) to illustrate the development of the doctrine that the decree holder should present some basis for inference, but the debtor must render full disclosure. On the facts, the court found a lack of direct evidence and non-disclosure of assets, upholding the trial court’s findings, and dismissed both petitions. The warrants of arrest thus remain in force.
This writ appeal challenges the Kerala Public Service Commission's rejection of a relinquishment filed by the fourth respondent, who relinquished her claim for appointment from the ranked list for the post of Computer Assistant Grade II in Kerala universities. The appellant, Smitha M.G., was Rank 3 in the supplementary list published on 03.10.2016; the fourth respondent, ranked 2, relinquished her claim by Ext.P3 on 16.08.2019. The Commission rejected the relinquishment as not strictly complying with Rule 18(ii) of the Rules of Procedure, and the writ petition filed by Smitha was dismissed by the Single Judge. It was alleged that Ext.P3 complied with Rule 18(ii) since it contained name, address, signature and attestation by a Gazetted Officer; the only issue was failure to sign in the designated box. The Commission argued that non-compliance persisted because the signature was not affixed in the prescribed place, relying on Rule 18(ii) and authorities that emphasize strict adherence to recruitment rules. The Division Bench held that Ext.P3 fulfilled the Rule 18(ii) requirements; the missing signature in the box did not invalidate the document since the signature was present and properly attested. The appeal was allowed, and the Commission was directed to advise the petitioner for appointment in the vacancy to which the fourth respondent was advised, within two months from the copy of the judgment.
WP(C) NO. 2247 OF 2010; WP(C) NO. 17360 OF 2014; WP(C) NO. 27818 OF 2020; WP(C) NO. 34620 OF 2019 These batch writ petitions challenge government notifications Ext.P1 (G.O. 44/95/Co.op) dated 14.03.1995 introducing the Kerala Co-operative Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 and Ext.P2/Ext.P3 enabling exemption from the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and enrollment in the Kerala State Cooperative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994. Petitioners, employees of Badagara Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd, claim the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF & MP Act) along with the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 are more beneficial and that exemptions allowing transfer to the 1994 scheme infringe their accrued rights. They seek declaration that they are entitled to remain under the EPF/1995 regime. A Division Bench had held that transfer of membership from the 1995 scheme to the 1994 Self Financing Pension Scheme could be sought by employees who opt for it, and that EPF Fund transfers could occur with exemption. EPFO and Government argued exemptions/Exclusions can be granted only to establishments under sections 16(1)(b) or 17(1C) after due process. The present judgment (4 Aug 2022) narrows the earlier liberal view, holding that individual employee transfers require due process and establishment-level exemptions. Interim directions to continue under the 1995 scheme are vacated. The court directs transfer of contributions to the 1994 scheme within six weeks, with processing and disbursement of pension within three months thereafter. The petitions WP Nos. 2247/2010, 17360/2014, 27818/2020 and 34620/2019 are disposed of accordingly.
W. P. (C) No. 1336 of 2016 This writ petition, filed by the Vadakara Municipal Area Auto Rickshaw Thozhilali Co-ordination Committee, challenges Ext. P2, a decision of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) dated 27.11.2015, which withdrew a restriction that auto-rickshaw permits within Vadakara Municipality would be granted only to residents of the municipal area. The petition traces the history of permit allocation and the pre-existing judgments in WPC Nos. 27381/2013, 13819/2015 and 29172/2015, which directed consideration of applications by non-residents in some contexts and mandated periodic reviews. The petitioner contends that the RTA’s withdrawal of the residency condition is unlawful, exceeds jurisdiction, and imperils the livelihoods of permit-holders and traffic management in the town. The Court examines statutory provisions (Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) and constitutional mandates, finding no explicit legal authorization to restrict permits by residency and noting the Municipality’s obligation to provide cart stands and regulate traffic. The judgment places emphasis on welfare-state principles under Articles 38 and 39, the right to livelihood, and the government’s duty to enable traffic management and public welfare, while urging coordination to enhance parking infrastructure using modern measures. The court ultimately holds that Ext. P2 does not suffer illegality, but calls for improved parking facilities and traffic regulation.
This Kerala High Court case concerns OP(C) No.1242 of 2022 challenging an election petition initiated under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The respondent, Rahul Raj. R, sought to void the election of Sulochanan V.S. to Amabalathara Ward 67 in the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation on grounds of false statements in the nomination, with the petition filed under Sec.164. During trial, the respondent moved IA No.2/2022 seeking leave to amend the petition to include a relief that the second-placed candidate be declared elected if the petitioner’s election is declared void (Ext P3). The Principal Munsiff’s court granted Ext P5, allowing the amendment, which the petitioner challenged. The High Court examined whether there was illegality in Ext P5, noting Sec.168 of the Act permits a petitioner to claim that another candidate has been duly elected, but emphasized that the second-placed candidate was not a party to the petition and the relief is time-barred. It cited Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (2022 SCC Online SC 1128) to state that amendments introducing a new case foreign to the pleadings should not be allowed. Consequently, Ext P5 was set aside, Ext P3 dismissed, and the matter remitted to dispose of OP(Election) No.1/2021 in accordance with law, with a direction to ensure proper party array and timely proceedings.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1858 OF 2024 Rafeeh, the sole accused in Crime No. 79/2024 before the AIR Customs, Cochin International Airport, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC in B.A. No. 1858 of 2024. On 15.02.2024, the Air Intelligence Unit intercepted him at Nedumbassery and recovered 1599 grams of 24-carat gold (market value Rs. 1,01,04,081) and 683 grams of gold paste (market value Rs. 37,32,507). The prosecution contends an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act. Rafeeh contends he is innocent and wrongly implicated; asserts no criminal antecedents and that custody since 15.02.2024, with recovery already effected, indicates investigation is practically complete. The prosecution counters that the investigation is nascent and could reveal wider involvement; release could enable witness tampering. The High Court, guided by precedents emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the regularity of bail unless strong reasons for detention exist, finds that continued custody is unnecessary at this stage. Citing Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh, and State of Kerala v. Raneef, the court grants bail subject to stringent conditions, including a Rs.1,00,000 bond with two solvent sureties, regular appearance before the IO on specified days, no inducement or tampering with witnesses, surrender of passport, furnishing address and contact details, and a mechanism for cancellation or modification of conditions. The order reflects a balance between individual rights and public interest, with post-bail investigative powers acknowledged in line with Sushila Aggarwal’s principle.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These batch writ petitions challenge Government Order GO(MS) No.121/2022 dated 07.07.2022 and the Plus One admission prospectus governing private aided higher secondary schools in Kerala. The Kerala High Court, in a single-judge bench led by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, holds that while the 20% Management Quota in private aided HSS can be maintained as a policy decision, the accompanying 10% Community Quota to be reserved for the community of the management is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The Court directs that those 10% seats be treated as open merit seats and filled strictly through the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP). It also clarifies that admissions already made on the basis of declared community shall not be disturbed. The decision traces the history of admission quotas since 1990, notes the series of Government Orders (1991, 2003, 2005, 2005) and the Divisional Bench’s earlier quashing of similar community quotas, and emphasizes the executive power to formulate policy, while limiting judicial intervention to constitutional or statutory infringements, or manifest arbitrariness. The judgment disposes of all connected petitions with these directions, and disclaims any vested right to a 30% management quota under prior regimes.
