Meenakshi A. and her children challenged MACA No. 1983 of 2014 arising from the death of E.K. Prabhakaran @ Ravi in a motor-vehicle accident that occurred on 26.08.2011 involving bike KL-18F 2903. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, held negligence by the rider (1st respondent) and, because the rider was a minor with no valid driving licence, exonerated the insurer while holding the owner and driver liable, with an award of Rs. 6,85,400/- plus interest. The appellants contended that policy-violation alone cannot free the Insurance Company from liability to the victim, and demanded enhancement of compensation. They also pressed for recalibration of quantum in light of Supreme Court precedents on income and dependency, arguing for a higher monthly income than the Tribunal adopted. The Kerala High Court rejected complete exoneration of the insurer, holding that a policy-condition dispute between insurer and insured cannot defeat the victim’s claim, though the insurer may be entitled to seek recovery once the award is paid. On quantum, the court adopted Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to fix the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.8,000 as of 2011, recomputing loss of dependency to Rs.8,71,200, and after deducting Rs.4,55,400, added Rs.4,15,800 as enhanced compensation. Adjustments under loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral, and estate heads were made consistent with Satinder Kaur and related precedents. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal’s award was modified accordingly, with the insurer directed to deposit the total amount and recover after deposit from the first and fourth respondents.
This High Court of Kerala, sitting in a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal, disposed of MACA No. 2527 of 2014 by consent after admission. The appellant, Manoj Illikkal, sustained severe injuries in a road accident on 01.09.2007 when the bus he was travelling in collided with another bus driven rashly. He had inpatient treatment for about 17 days and ongoing follow-up care. He challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode’s award of Rs. 3,43,410 under OP(MV) No. 443/2008, arguing that compensation was inadequate. The appellant contended that he was a businessman earning about Rs.8,000 per month, but the Tribunal used a notional income of Rs.3,000/month, leading to low awards under heads such as Pain and Suffering, Loss of Amenities, Extra Nourishment, and Bystander Expenses. The insurer argued the Tribunal’s computations were correct and urged dismissal. The High Court admitted the appeal and assessed evidence, noting the accident’s severity and the appellant’s disability (36%). Relying on Supreme Court precedents—Ramachandrappa, Syed Sadiq, Vijay Kumar Rastogi, Satheesh E., and Sarla Verma—the court held that future prospects must be added to the notional income, and applied a notional income of Rs.6,000/month with 25% future prospects, adopting a 16 multiplier for disability. The court enhanced compensation across several heads, directed 7% interest, excluded 1095 days for delay, and permitted recovery from the insurer for the enhanced amount with costs.
FAO No. 35 of 2023 concerns an appeal from an order of the Sub Court, Punalur, dismissing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex parte decree in O.S. No. 25 of 2016 (originally O.S. No. 107 of 2013). The suit sought recovery of Rs. 19,65,717 with interest at 18% per annum. The ex parte decree was passed on 09.12.2020 after the defendants were absent; the appellants moved to set it aside under Order IX Rule 13 (I.A. No. 2 of 2022) with condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (I.A. No. 1 of 2022). The plaintiff opposed, noting that ex parte decrees had been passed against the defendants in 2014, 2017, 2018 and 2019 and that many such decrees had been subsequently set aside in similar proceedings, suggesting a pattern of protraction. The Sub Court dismissed I.A. No. 2 of 2022 but condoned the delay under I.A. No. 1 of 2022. The Kerala High Court, after hearing, relied on G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and Peeves Enterprises v. Muhammed Ashraf to endorse a liberal construction of “sufficient cause” and the discretion to set aside ex parte decrees, especially in the COVID-19 era when limitation extensions were effected. It allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order with a cost, restored the suit, and directed expeditious disposal within four months, with the parties to appear on 21.08.2023.
W.P.(C) Nos.1204 of 2023 and 1624 of 2023 Two writ petitions challenge land acquisition for four-laning of NH-66 (formerly NH-17) in Chirakkal, Kannur. The petitioner, Sree Kalarivathukkal Devaswom, represented by its Executive Officer, contends that a substantial part of the 4.5002 hectares acquired from Re-survey No. 144/5 (new No. 144/16) belongs to the Devaswom, a Jenmi under the Malabar Devaswom Board. Ext.P1 is a scheme establishing administration of Chirakkal Kovilakam Devaswams; Ext.P2 is Adangal Extract indicating the Devaswom’s title. Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 show that the Special Tahsildar (LA) referred the matter to the District Judge, Thalassery under Section 3H(4) NH Act after an initial award under Section 3G(1) was deposited. The land is waterlogged, complicating boundary demarcation, so mahazar and sketch were prepared on a survey subdivision basis. The Devaswom filed Ext.P5 seeking inclusion as a party and consideration of its title claims; the 1st respondent deferred entertaining such claim due to lack of documentary proof beyond the Adangal. The petitioners pray for mandamus to have Ext.P5 considered. The Court disposes the petitions by directing the CALA to consider Ext.P5 in light of applicable law (cited decisions) and to decide within a month of certified copy, emphasizing proper procedure and reliance on Adangal/Settlement registers in lieu of stronger title documents.
Lakshmikutty Amma, the appellant, was the petitioner in OP(MV) 1360/2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 02.08.2006 while alighting from a KSRTC bus KL-15/4515. The Tribunal held the bus driver negligent and the KSRTC vicariously liable, awarding Rs 77,650 with interest at 7% per annum and costs. The appellant challenged the quantum in MACA 2055 of 2010, contending that the compensation was not just and adequate. She argued that the tribunal erred in fixing a low monthly income (Rs 2,000) in the face of pleadings of Rs 4,000 and failed to take judicial notice of real-world earnings. Relying on Supreme Court precedents—Ramachandrappa, Syed Sadik, and Minu Rout—the High Court undertook a fresh computation. The Court fixed the monthly income at Rs 5,500 for a 49-year-old employee in 2006 and accepted a 16% disability certificate (Ext. A9) for loss of earning capacity, applying a multiplier of 13. It recalculated heads: loss of earning capacity Rs 1,37,280; loss of income Rs 21,000; bystander expenses were increased from Rs 10,000 to Rs 14,700 (additional Rs 4,700); inpatient treatment for 147 days warranted Rs 3,000; nourishment Rs 3,000; and Rs 10,000 each for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, totaling Rs 1,85,980. The appeal was allowed, directing deposit of Rs 1,85,980 with interest at 7% per annum within three months.
This is a criminal misc. case under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner Sanjay Zacharias to quash Annexure-1 (complaint) and Annexure-2 (FIR) in crime no.1494/2021 of Pala Police Station. The FIR alleges offences under sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, along with sections 469, 471 and 120B IPC, and section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, arising from a complaint by Stephen George, a former MLA and General Secretary of Kerala Congress (M). The complainant contends that the petitioner dishonestly forged electronic records and published sexually explicit materials on social media to tarnish the reputation of Jose K. Mani and Thomas Chazhikkadan, including forged IDs and posts on Facebook, WhatsApp and a blog page. The petitioner contends his innocence, alleges political vendetta, and argues that only section 67 (not 67A) would be attracted; he maintains there is no personal grievance and points to delay in filing. The Sessions Court had refused anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C., and the petitioner seeks quashing. The Court cites Union of India v. B.R. Bajaj to outline the parameters for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/482 to prevent abuse of process. After considering the materials, the Court holds that the alleged posting is obscene in context and attracts section 67A, rejects the defense’s interpretation, and finds the delay not fatal at this stage. Consequently, the petition is dismissed, and quashing is refused.
The Kerala High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, considers an original petition (OP(KAT) No.189 of 2023) filed by the respondents (Kerala Public Service Commission and its officers) challenging interim orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (OA 222/2023) that stayed actions under a show-cause notice. The sole applicant, Sajaya, seeks to quash Annexure A9 show-cause notice issued on 16.01.2023 under Rule 3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS & SSR, Part-II), directed at canceling the applicant’s advice memo in favour of appointment as a Lower Division Clerk (Tamil/Malayalam knowing) and to delete her name from the short list. The Tribunal’s interim orders dated 02.02.2023 and 02.03.2023 stayed further action for cancellation of the advice memo for a period, and extended the stay. The PSC contends that it is acting under statutory powers to rectify an evident mistake and that Rule 3(c) proceedings should not be thwarted by a stay; it relies on a binding Tribunal decision (OA 251/2022, Ext. P4). Sajaya argues that the show-cause notice is illegal and that the Tribunal’s protection should not be undermined, especially given past advisories and appointment orders. The High Court does not delve into the merits but directs procedural safeguards and permits the PSC to continue with the show-cause process with reasonable opportunity, while keeping any adverse outcome in abeyance pending Tribunal consideration. The petition is disposed of with directions as stated.
The St. Peter’s Higher Secondary School at Kolenchery, run by the St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s Orthodox Syrian Church, challenges a condition that a minority status certificate must be produced to admit students under the 20% community quota. The petitioner asserts long-standing minority status recognized by this Court in earlier judgments and argues that minority status confers the right to preserve seats and give preference within admissions to maintain the minority character, in line with Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. It had applied for a minority status certificate on 5 December 2018; the application was rejected pending action by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions, and the government has accepted that other institutions of the same corporate agency are recognized as minority. During 2019-20, the Court had allowed admissions to the community quota under an interim order (Ext. P4) and earlier judgments (Ext. P6–P8) have recognized the minority status of the petitioner. COVID-19 delayed progress before the National Commission, and the Government issued orders to recognize minority status for other sections of the same school. The Court, noting the settled law that minority status persists and that institutions may preserve minority seats, directs the 2nd respondent to permit admissions to the 20% quota for the 2021-22 year, subject to the petitioner filing an affidavit to produce the minority certificate by year-end. This ensures compliance while recognizing the school's minority character and previous judicial confirmations.
WA No.1237/2020 & conn.cases This batch of writ appeals challenges Ext.P8, a Government Order dated 18 November 2018 that directed identification of posts and reservation of vacancies for persons with disabilities (PWD) in backlog across aided educational institutions, in line with the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act. The appellants, an array of private aided institutions run by the NSS College Central Committee, the NSS schools, and affiliated bodies, contend that Ext.P8 cannot be enforced because no posts in their institutions had been identified under Sections 32 and 39 of the 1995 Act or Sections 33 and 34 of the 2016 Act, and that private aided institutions fall outside the scope of the 2016 Act’s reservation framework. They rely on constitutional provisions (Articles 16, 15) and case law such as Indra Sawhney to argue that government-imposed reservations in appointments to teaching and non-teaching staff in private institutions are impermissible, except as otherwise valid under enabling provisions. The respondents argue that establishments includes aided institutions and that Ext.P8 seeks to fulfill statutory obligations under the Acts and to implement apex court directions (Sunanda Bhandare Foundation, Ravi Prakash Gupta, Dalco Engineering, National Federation of the Blind). The Kerala High Court, attributing to a change in jurisprudence and the statutory framework, holds that the 1995 Act and 2016 Act do apply to aided educational institutions and that identification and reservation are mandatory, but ultimately dismisses the appeals, upholding the learned Single Judge’s dismissal.
This is a Rent Control Revision filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, by the tenant challenging an eviction order under Section 11(3) issued by the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Koyilandy, on 27.10.2016, and confirmed on appeal by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (1st Additional District Judge), Kozhikode, on 02.08.2017. The landlord sought eviction on bona fide need for her daughter PW1 to start a tailoring shop in the petition schedule building. The Rent Control Court granted eviction under Section 11(3), while rejecting eviction under Section 11(4)(iii). The tenant challenged the 11(3) order in RCA No. 299/2016, which was dismissed, and thereafter moved for revision before this High Court. The core issue is whether the first proviso to Section 11(3) applies, given the landlady’s alleged possession of other premises (as per RTI Ext.B1) and the lack of vacancy of the landlady’s other rooms. The court surveys a body of jurisprudence on bona fide need, vacancy, and the balance between landlord’s rights and tenant protections, including precedents that limit revisional review to legality, regularity and propriety rather than re‑weighing evidence. The court ultimately declines to interfere with the concurrent findings, but grants six months for vacant possession with conditions, citing COVID‑19 considerations.
This is a Kerala High Court review petition (RP No. 970 of 2019) challenging the order in MFA No. 17 of 2012, which dealt with the vesting and exemption of land under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (Vesting Act), and related statutes. The petitioners—13 individuals led by E. J. Abraham (deceased) and his successors—sought exclusion of certain lands from vesting and exemption under sections of the Vesting Act (notably S.2(f)(1)(i)(B) and S.3), contending that at least part of the lands consisted of rubber plantations and were either not vested in the Government or eligible for exemption. The original proceedings traced back to Forest Tribunal proceedings and a sequence of remands, with the Tribunal initially finding 40 acres of rubber plantation and 10 acres potentially subject to exemption after assessing identity and possession, and the court entertaining arguments about liability under S.84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The appellate path clarified that remand involved both S.3(2) and S.3(3) and required identification and possession beyond the ceiling area to be considered on remand. In the review, the High Court emphasized that there is no rehearing in review and that the scope is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The petition was dismissed with no order on costs.
Five petitioners (Vipil Krishnan; Abhilash B; Anvarsha; Sethu Jayan; Maneesh Prem) faced charges in CC No.361/2018 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, arising from Crime No.361/2018 of Museum Police Station. The offences alleged include Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 427 and 506(ii) read with 149 IPC, based on an incident on 28.03.2018 where the petitioners allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted victims, and committed mischief. The petition under Section 482 CrPC seeks to quash the proceedings on the ground that the parties have resolved their dispute and no longer wish to pursue prosecution; affidavits from victims in support were filed. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing merely on the strength of settlement but conceded the dispute has been settled. The court anchors its analysis on State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, and references Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, to delimit the exercise of 482(1) against non-compoundable offences, especially where the offences are private in nature and not heinous or systemic in public interest. The court ultimately holds the dispute to be private, accepts the settlement, and quashes the entire CC proceeding against the petitioners, while noting the need to consider antecedents and conduct in such inquiries.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 6559 of 2022) filed in the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam by the sole accused, Ubaid A.M., challenging a common order passed on 10 November 2022 by a Special Judge, Kasaragod, in Cr.M.P. Nos. 3101/2022 and 3126/2022 arising from Crime No.128/2022 of Melparamba police station under NDPS Act. The petitioner sought to quash Annexure-A4 (the common order) which had denied default bail and extended investigation beyond the statutory period under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The prosecution had sought an extension under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act for up to one year. The core legal issue was whether the Public Prosecutor’s report (Annexure-A2) complied with the proviso to Section 36-A(4), requiring the report to explicitly disclose investigation progress and the specific reasons for detention beyond 180 days. The Kerala High Court examined relevant authorities: Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (TADA), Sanjay Kumar Kedia, Appukuttan, and Nayantara Gupta, to interpret the mandate of 36-A(4) and the role of the Public Prosecutor. The Court found Annexure-A2 deficient for failing to demonstrate progress and reasons, and held that the statutory bail right cannot be defeated. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and statutory bail is granted subject to typical conditions. The decision reinforces the protection of liberty and tightens procedural compliance for extension requests in NDPS cases.
The present MACA arises from an award under OP(MV)675/2016 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Taliparamba, for injuries sustained on 28-11-2013 when the appellant-prasant Prasad Joseph’s motorcycle collided with another vehicle. The appellant, who was left in a vegetative state requiring continuous care, sought Rs.15,00,000 in compensation, but the Tribunal granted Rs.18,92,100. The appellant’s counsel argued the Tribunal underestimated his notional income, since he was employed as a Coolie earning about Rs.15,000 per month, and should be guided by the principles in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. to determine income and future prospects (25%). It was argued that the appellant’s disability and daily needs justify substantial additional compensation: attendant costs (as per Kajal and Abhimanyu Partap Singh line of authorities), and costs for medical consumables and potential future treatment. The insurer contended the Tribunal’s calculation was fair, noting a 90% disability certified by a Medical Board. The Kerala High Court, after reviewing evidence and precedents, enhanced several heads: raised permanent disability to Rs.17,01,000, increased loss of earnings to Rs.45,000, allotted Rs.8,40,000 for Attender Expenses, Rs.2,52,000 for Medical Consumables, and Rs.1,00,000 for Additional Medical Treatment, while retaining other heads. Interest on enhanced amounts was fixed at 7.5%, with a two-month deadline for deposit and exclusion of 103 days for delay. The appeal was partly allowed, adjusting the quantum while maintaining the overall framework of compensation.
This Kerala High Court appeal arises from MACA No. 2350 of 2014 challenging an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, in O.P.(MV) No.294 of 2012. On 25 April 2012, Sankunni Nair, a pedestrian, was struck by a motorcycle driven rashly, sustaining serious injuries and dying on 29 April 2012. The petitioners (wife and children of the deceased) sought compensation of Rs 8,22,500. The Tribunal held the motorcycle rider negligent, and directed the insurer to deposit Rs 7,62,500 with 9% interest and costs. The insurer challenged several aspects, including the deduction of one-third of the deceased’s income for personal expenditure, the correct multiplier, and the applicability of Pranay Sethi guidelines on heads of damages such as loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. Evidence primarily from the insurer’s side and Exts A1–A14 reflected the deceased’s dependents status. The High Court examined these findings and concluded that the Tribunal erred in the dependency assessment and in the application of heads of damages. Reassessing compensation with a multiplier of five and a half-yearly factor, the Court computed Rs 3,46,140 for loss of dependency and added modest sums for other heads, arriving at Rs 5,39,140. The insurer is directed to pay this amount with 9% interest within two months, after crediting 50% already deposited, while citing the Pranay Sethi framework as guiding principles.
WA Nos.1555/2018, 1657/2018, 1661/2018 This group of writ appeals challenges orders under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and related appellate determinations. The核心 issue is whether the unions had discharged their initial burden to prove that the employees were engaged from dates claimed. The learned Single Judge had held that the unions’ dates of engagement were not supported by material on record, and that the appellant-employer’s evidence did not necessitate accepting earlier engagement dates merely on the unions’ ipse dixit. The primary authority and the appellate authority had accepted the earlier dates proffered by the unions because the employers had failed to produce contrary evidence, but the court found this approach improper; evidence or documentary material needed to be adduced to establish such dates. The court relied on Section 7A (determination of moneys due) and Para 26-B of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme to emphasize that the dispute regarding eligibility dates must be resolved with proper evidence, not conjecture. While several earlier authorities were cited by the appellant, the High Court ultimately affirmed the finding that the unions had not discharged their initial burden, and dismissed the writ appeals. The outcome maintains that the case does not hinge on the applicability of the EPF Scheme, but on proof of employee engagement dates.
The Kerala High Court, in WP(C) No.12383 of 2020, heard a large group of IREL (India) Ltd employees at Chavara, Kollam, seeking higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme as amended in 2014. The petition asserts that the amended EPF Scheme provides enhanced pension rights, and the petitioners request directions to grant higher pension to the employees under the amended framework. The respondents concede that the core issue is the validity and effect of the 2014 amendment, and they rely on the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the amended scheme in Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B. (2022(7) KHC 12), which creates a pathway for petitioners to file fresh applications under the amended scheme. The court accepts that the Supreme Court ruling permits such fresh applications, and directs that if the petitioners file appropriate applications for enhanced pension, they must be considered by the competent authority of the EPFO without delay. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a clear procedural route: petitioners may file fresh applications under the amended scheme; the organization’s authorities are to process them promptly in line with the Supreme Court directions. The decision reinforces the validity of the amended scheme while providing a concrete mechanism for beneficiaries to pursue enhanced pension rights.
This is a motor accident claims appeal (MACA 3534/15) from the Kerala High Court challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod’s award in OP(MV) No.7/2013 for the death of Divakaran M following a road collision on 11.09.2012. The appellants, his wife Saraswathi T., his mother, and son Vishnu, seek enhancement of compensation beyond Rs.12,91,327 awarded by the Tribunal. Counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal erred by adopting a notional monthly income of Rs.4,000 instead of the claimed Rs.6,000, and relied on Ramla v. NIC and Ramachandrappa to insist on a proactive, evidence-based determination of income, especially where the deceased’s earnings were unascertainable. The court was urged to adopt Rs.8,000 per month as the minimum income in 2012, add 40% future prospects, and apply a 1/3 deduction for personal expenses. The appellants also pressed for higher sums under Funeral Expenses, Loss of Amenities, and Bystander’s Expenses, while arguing for an enhanced Loss of Dependency and Loss of Consortium, based on Pranay Sethi and Sarala Verma principles. The Court ultimately partly allows the appeal, recalculates Loss of Dependency at Rs.13,44,000, increases Loss of Consortium, reduces Funeral Expenses to Rs.15,000, and grants Rs.15,000 for Loss of Amenities, while deleting certain heads and altering interest. The insurer is directed to pay the enhanced amount with adjusted interest within two months, excluding 165 days of appellate delay.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA) from the Kerala High Court, challenging an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, on 03 February 2014 in OP(MV) No.154/2008 arising from a road accident on 21 April 2007. The appellant (Viswanathan K.S.) and his wife were injured when his car KL-9 Q 5497 was allegedly struck by a pickup van KL-11 S 8842 driven rashly. The Tribunal held the van driver negligent and the insurer liable, and awarded ₹3,81,000 plus interest against respondents 1–3 jointly and severally. The appellant contends the compensation was inadequate, arguing for higher amounts for medical treatment, future treatment, loss of earnings, loss of seniority, and non-economic heads such as pain, suffering, and loss of amenities. Conversely, the respondents defend the Tribunal’s quantum as just and seek no further enhancement beyond the original award. The High Court reassesses the evidence (exts and medical records) and, finding deficiencies in the Tribunal’s quantum, recalculates compensation: it increases loss of earning by reflecting sick leave and half-pay, revises permanent disability to 17% with a multiplier of 13, grants additional sums for bystander expenses, transportation, nourishment, and loss of amenities, and awards a total enhanced sum with interest. The judgment ultimately allows the MACA and orders the insurer to pay the revised amount with interest and costs within two months of certification of copy.
Kinattukara Metal Crusher filed W.P.(C) No.15541 of 2022 in the Kerala High Court seeking a mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent (District Collector) to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 in accordance with Ext.P1 judgment within a time frame. The petitioner, a partnership firm, conducts quarrying operations in government puramboke land at Anavilasam Village, Udumbanchola Taluk. An application for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) was submitted on 31.01.2019 for quarrying in 4.90 acres in Survey No.172/1 (Re-Survey No.154/1) in Block No.66. The application was referred for a detailed report to the 3rd respondent, but no action was taken, and the petitioner repeatedly pressed for a report through Tahsildar and the District Collector. In the interim, a Government Order (GO) dated 28.01.2021 issued guidelines for grant of NOC for mining in government puramboke land. The petitioner contends that the application should be considered under the law in force at the relevant time and that the GO is not binding since it is not a notified rule under Section 15 of the MMDR Act. The State counters that the GO is mere guidelines, not rules, and governed by executive action; there is also no challenge to the legislative competence of the State. The High Court ultimately held that the petitioner’s prayer could not be granted as there was no challenge to the GO, no directions for early consideration were sought, and the petition was dismissed. The court underscored that Ext.P2 could not be compelled to be acted upon outside the guideline framework, and the matter did not warrant interference by mandamus.
