This writ petition challenges Ext.P13 of the Joint Registrar (Co-operative Societies) which asserted that regularization of the petitioners’ service from a prior date was not permissible under the Co‑operative Societies Rules. The petitioners, two Salesmen employed on a commission basis at Neethi Stores (Aryankavu Service Co‑operative Bank Ltd.), had their appointments regularized by committee resolutions with effect from 31-05-2011 and 21-04-2012, after Government Order G.O.(MS) No.207/10/CO‑OP dated 27-11-2010 sanctioned the post of Salesman and included it in Appendix III. The Government and Pension Board later demanded orders approving the appointment, prompting the Joint Registrar to issue Ext.P13, which held that regularization cannot be back‑dated. The petitioners challenge Ext.P13, arguing that the post was sanctioned and the staff pattern fixed under Appendix III; thus no Registrar’s prior approval was necessary. Relying on Elampal Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Government of Kerala (2000) and earlier Kerala cases (Sherthallai Urban Cooperative Bank v. State of Kerala; O.P.No.8097/90; O.P.No.10078/85), the Court holds that regularization in sanctioned posts need not await Registrar approval and that changes in staff pattern require approval only under exceptional circumstances. Consequently Ext.P13 cannot be sustained. The Court directs fresh orders be issued by the Joint Registrar after hearing within six weeks, quashing Ext.P13.
Cont.Case (C) No.236 of 2020 This Contempt Case (Civil) No.236 of 2020 arises from alleged willful disobedience of directions in Annexure I judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.23662/2016 and connected matters, concerning Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) and pension entitlements. The petitioners, who are petitioners in W.P.(C) No.23662/2016, filed this contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, asserting that the EPFO failed to implement the directions of the Kerala High Court’s 2018 judgment regarding pension scheme provisions and options. The Supreme Court’s orders—initially dismissing the SLP against the 2018 judgment, later recalling and delivering a detailed judgment on 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.8143-44 of 2022 and connected matters (Sunil Kumar B. v. EPFO, AIR 2022 SC 5634)—clarified the legality of Notification No. G.S.R.609(E) (2014) and directed read downs, option extensions, and adjustments to the pension scheme. The Kerala High Court, in light of the 2022 apex court judgment, held that the petitioners’ claim to higher pension requires reconsideration by the EPFO in accordance with law. Consequently, the contempt petition was closed, with the directive that the EPFO undertake reconsideration of entitlement for higher pension consistent with the Supreme Court’s judgment, while preserving the petitioners’ rights under the 2022 decision.
TR.P(C) Nos. 800 of 2022 & 38 of 2023 Common transfer petitions arise from a strained matrimonial relationship between Lysa S (wife-petitioner) and Shine A M (husband-respondent). The petitions—TR.P(C) Nos. 800 of 2022 and 38 of 2023—seek transfer of O.P.(G/W) 1824/2022 and O.P. 1909/2022 from the Family Court, Attingal, to the Family Court, Kollam. Three children of the marriage and the petitioner reside within Kollam, while the respondent has counter-proceedings in Kollam as well. The petitioner claims non-maintenance and seeks reliefs in family court proceedings; the respondent, who has not appeared in these proceedings, is described as contesting related matters in Kollam. The court notes that three cases are already pending between the parties in Kollam and that consolidation would save judicial time and avoid conflicting decisions. Relying on Supreme Court doctrine—Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and another; Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel; Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap; Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh; and Aiswarya N.C.V. v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha—the court holds that the convenience of the wife and children should govern transfer decisions. Under Section 24 of the CPC, the petitions are allowed, transferring both OPs to Kollam, with directions for consolidation, transmission of records, and immediate posting of connected cases by Kollam Court.
This writ appeal challenges a 21 October 2020 order of a Kerala High Court Single Judge that quashed government liability orders directing recovery of a monetary loss from a Government Pleader. The appellants — State of Kerala, the District Collector, and the Property Tahsildar (respondents in the writ petition) — sought to quash Exhibits P8, P9 and P10 on the ground that the government had followed the prescribed adjudicatory procedure under Rule 18 of the KGLOA Rules and the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963. The respondent-writ petitioner, M. M. Hussain, a former Addl. Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, argued that an order of assessment of liability by the Government itself without independent adjudication, evidence of loss, or due process was invalid. The Single Judge held that there was no neutral adjudication on quantum and that the loss, if any, was not established by evidence, and accordingly quashed P8 (and the related notices). The Division Bench, while upholding the need for due process, dismissed the appeal, noting the need for proper statutory implementation of recovery and the lack of demonstrated loss in the record. The case centers on natural justice, the scope of Rule 18 KGLOA, and the proper adjudicatory mechanism for recovering public funds from a government officer.
On 15 February 2023, the Kerala High Court, in SSCR No.4 of 2023, suo motu, examined a report by the Special Commissioner regarding the misbehavior of a Travancore Devaswom Board guard during the Makaravilakku crowd management at Sabarimala. The Special Commissioner’s report (regarding the guard Arunkumar S. deployed at Sopanam in front of the Sreekovil) noted that, amid a surge in pilgrims after Deeparadhana on 14 January 2023, the guard violently pushed pilgrims in the first row. The Board relieved the guard and the matter was pursued through affidavits, CCTV review, and orders. The court referred to statutory duties of the Board under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (Sections 15A, 24, 31) to ensure prompt rites, proper administration, and crowd management at Sabarimala, and to constitutional protections under Articles 25 and 26. Relying on precedents such as Sajeev Sastharam and Suo Motu v. TD Board (2022) for crowd-management norms and disciplinary expectations, the court emphasized that such misconduct must be addressed and recurrence prevented. The SSCR was disposed of with directions to the Board to ensure no repetition, and with a prohibition on deploying the additional 7th respondent for Sopanam duties henceforth, while disciplinary proceedings were to proceed against him.
O.P.(FC) No. 15 of 2023; O.P.(FC) No. 18 of 2023; O.P.(FC) No. 19 of 2023; Mat.Appeal Nos. 28 of 2023 & 30 of 2023 This High Court of Kerala matter concerns custody, visitation and compliance with interim orders in a family dispute involving Aysha C.M. (mother/petitioner) and Ali Abdul Latheef (father/respondent) regarding their minor child Aliyah Ali, aged 6½ years. The Family Court, Thrissur, by order dated 28.12.2022 in I.A. Nos. 2/2021, 3/2021, 5/2021 and I.A. Nos. 6/2021, 10/2022, granted the father daily WhatsApp/video call interaction with the child from 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., and interim custody on specified weekends and vacations, while also maintaining an injunction preventing removal of the child from the Family Court’s jurisdiction. The mother, currently in Qatar, contends hardship and argues the welfare of the child requires stability and the child’s continued presence with her abroad, as the child studies in Doha and the mother’s employment necessitates her relocation. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the injunction and certain interlocutory orders, while the father sought enforcement and continued contact. After hearing, the Court observed that the welfare principle governs custody disputes, and invoked jurisprudence including Rosy Jacob, Yashita Sahu, and Vasudha Sethi to emphasize the child’s best interests and the right to contact with both parents. The Court ultimately modified provisional orders, stayed certain prosecutions, and granted revised visitation and interim custody, while directing production of the child by 03.03.2023 and allowing ongoing interaction. The matter was disposed of in terms that reflect the child’s welfare and the realities of residing in Qatar.
This writ petition concerns the absorption status and monetary retirement benefits of P.K. Ramakrishnan, who began as a Seasonal Labour Roll Mazdoor in the defunct Public Health Engineering Department and was absorbed into the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) as an NMR Plumber. The core dispute centers on the date from which Ramakrishnan should be treated as absorbed in the NMR Plumber category (allegedly 1.10.1977 by Ext.P2) and the consequent arrears, pay scales, seniority and retirement benefits. Ramakrishnan’s case traverses a complex history: absorption under GO(P) No.26/79 (dated 23.02.1979) enabling NMR absorption, retrospective regularization as NMR workers from 4.08.1977, and promotion to NMR Plumber from 01.08.1984; arrears paid for 01.04.1979 to 06.11.2002; audit objections seeking recovery of Rs.1,09,509; and multiple petitions challenging recovery orders (Ext.P7) and pay adjustments (Ext.P12, Ext.P14, Ext.P15). The petitioner relies on Ext.P3 Government Order and on judgments in similar Kerala Waters Authority matters (Ext.P18/Ext.P17) which, along with precedents in WP(C) Nos.12337/2008, 15491/2008 and 12263/2008, emphasize that NMR operators/absorption into a skilled cadre should not be treated as demotion. The Court ultimately holds that the petitioner is entitled to absorption as NMR Plumber from 1.10.1977 and to all monetary and retirement benefits, directing revising pay/pension and disbursement within set timelines. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition (WP(C) No. 27070 of 2021) by P. Harikumar challenging a deduction from gratuity and seeking reckoning of earlier service as regular pensionable service. The petitioner joined the Travancore Devaswom Board as a part-time Kazhakom in 1993 and, while serving, was deputed as a Departmental Nominee at various temples. He contends that the period served as Departmental Nominee should count toward regular service for pension calculations. Ext.P2 had initially regularised this service, but the Board later reversed it. On retirement in 2018, Ext.P3 saw gratuity paid after deducting Rs. 2,71,965 as an excess pay/allowances amount related to the Departmental Nominee period. The petitioner approached the Devaswom Ombudsman, obtaining Ext.P7, and the Board issued Ext.P8, which negated recovery in light of a Supreme Court decision in Rafiqu Masih, aligning with State of Punjab v. Rafiqu Masih in 2015. The petitioner argues, supported by Rafiqu Masih and KSFE v. Unnikrishnan Nair, that gratuity cannot be attached toward any liability or excess payment. The Board relied on Ext.R1(a) (a consent letter) and on the principle from Jagdev Singh that undertakings can bind payees; however, the court distinguishes the facts here, emphasizing that the gratuity Act’s supremacy (Section 14) and the 1995 Regulations prevail. Ultimately, the court allows the petition, directing payment of the balance gratuity within three months with 8% interest if delayed.
This Kerala High Court criminal revision challenges the conviction of the accused for offences under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, based on seizure of 30 litres of spirit on 18 June 2008. The trial court convicted Rajesh and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment and Rs. 1,00,000 fine; the Sessions Court on appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence. The revision contends two core deficiencies: (i) competence of the investigating officers (PW1, a Preventive Officer, and PW5, an Assistant Excise Inspector) and their jurisdiction in June 2008, with empowerment allegedly arising only after two 2009 SROs; and (ii) unexplained delay in investigation and filing of the final report, contrary to Section 50 of the Abkari Act. The petitioner relies on Chandran @ Chandrashekaharan v. State and Surendran v. State of Kerala to show that delay vitiates prosecution. The State counters that Pw1 was an Abkari Officer and that empowerment came into force; the investigation nexus is established, and guilt is supported by evidence. The Court, however, finds a long, unexplained delay of about 14 months before investigation and final reporting, a fatal flaw under the Abkari Act and supportive precedents. Consequently, the revision is allowed, the conviction and sentence are set aside, and the accused is acquitted, with bail bonds cancelled and refunds ordered as applicable.
This is a Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No.593 of 2015) before the Kerala High Court arising from an award in O.P.(MV)No.474 of 2011, lodged under Section 166 MVA 1988, seeking compensation for the death of Rajula, wife of the first appellant, mother of the second appellant, and daughter of the third appellant, who died in a motor vehicle collision on 23 May 2010. The accident involved a car (KL-54/A-7895) hit by a Mahindra pickup (KL-57/A-5821) owned/driven by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The Tribunal found rash and negligent driving by the pickup driver, and also that the pickup lacked a valid permit; consequently, the insurer was liable to pay the awarded compensation and recover from the owner-driver. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,09,000 with 9% interest and proportionate costs, directing the insurer to recover from the owner-driver. Dissatisfied, the appellants sought enhancement under Section 173 MVA, requesting higher quantum including conventional heads like loss of estate, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, while applying modern jurisprudence on just compensation. The High Court, while granting substantial enhancement, recalibrated income notions, added future prospects (40%), applied the standard multiplier (17), and fixed deductions (1/3) as per leading precedents such as Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, culminating in an additional compensation of Rs.11,92,000 with 8% interest.
The petitioner, a former Secretary of the Thekkekkara Service Co-operative Bank (the 1st respondent), approached the Kerala High Court seeking disbursal of arrears of revised salary and pensionary benefits that were not paid following his retirement on 30.06.2019. The Society contended that the petitioner’s liability to the tune of Rs. 9,87,739 for losses could be recovered from his retiral benefits and invoked Rule 198(7) and 198(8) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, arguing that retirement benefits could be withheld in the pendency of disciplinary proceedings and until a non-liability certificate was issued. The petitioner argued that Rule 198(7) did not apply as no disciplinary proceedings were pending at retirement, and that the non-liability certificate was not issued within the statutory 30-day window; he asserted that the Society cannot unilaterally quantify damages and that the remedy lies under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The court relied on precedents holding that retirement benefits cannot be arbitrarily withheld and that a remedy under Section 69 is available, ultimately ordering disbursement of all eligible benefits within three months without deduction. The judgment underscores that statutory benefits must be disbursed and that damages, if any, must be pursued through statutory remedies rather than withholding retiral benefits.
International Organization for Human Rights Protection, a Trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, petitioned the Kerala High Court seeking registration of a self-help group under the name International Organization for Human Rights Protection and its Malayalam equivalent. The petitioner contends the proposed name and object are not barred by the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, or any other law, and that registration should be allowed. The background is that Ext.P4 circular issued by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) cautions against NGOs registering under names similar to NHRC or State NHRC and invokes Section 4 of the 1950 Act; Ext.P3 is the registration authority’s order rejecting the application. The petitioner argues Ext.P4 is not applicable to its facts and asks for registration of the name and for a mandamus to direct the Sub Registrar to register the Exhibit P2 application. The respondents contend the object of the association is not connected with human rights and that Ext.P1’s membership clause, along with the circular, justifies refusal. The Court considered the arguments, observed Ext.P4’s scope, and held that Ext.P3 could be set aside to permit fresh adjudication. It directed the 5th respondent to reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioner, within two months, and allowed the petition in part.
This High Court of Kerala, in a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC, reviews the quashability of charges arising from Crime No. 326/2007 of Manjeswar Police Station, linked to S.C. No. 424/2020. The sole petitioner, Muhammed Aslam, is charged with offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 308 read with Section 149 IPC, alleged to involve an unlawful assembly and assault. Co-accused were acquitted, and the parties separately settled the dispute, with affidavits from the victims indicating consent to quash. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, though he conceded the matter’s settlement. The court, relying on Supreme Court guidance (notably Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh and Narinder Singh), assesses whether private settlements in non‑compoundable offences can justify invoking the extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC. The court distills the Laxmi Narayan test: quashing is permissible where the offence is predominantly civil in character and the parties resolve the entire dispute; however, not for heinous or societal offenses (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or for offences under special statutes or involving public servants. It also notes that offences such as Section 307 IPC or arms offenses remain non‑quashable in principle, though a court may examine if the charge under 307 is merely a formal inclusion. Concluding that the dispute is private and the settlement bona fide, the court allows the CRL.MC and quashes all further proceedings against the petitioner.
WP(C) Nos. 1477/2023, 10432/2023, 10438/2023 The captioned writ petitions, though individually styled, are materially connected in challenging Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (the ART Act, 2021). The petitioners allege infertility and reliance on assisted reproductive technology (ART); the central challenge is the upper age limit prescribed for ART treatment (women up to 50 years, men up to 55 years). The matter has been linked to a prior decision in Nandini K. v. Union of India and Others, 2023 (1) KLT 426, where this Court, after examining Section 5 of the Act, directed the National Board to address the liberty implications of the age cap, to permit ongoing ART in certain cases, and to consider transitional provisions. The Court in the present petitions notes that similar writ petitions have been disposed of in line with those directions, emphasizing that the issue is under consideration before the Supreme Court. The respondent government counsel urged delaying resolution until the Apex Court pronounces its view, but the Court finds it just to apply the earlier directions to the present cases as well. Consequently, the petitions are allowed to the extent that petitioners undergoing ART as on 25.01.2022 shall be permitted to continue treatment, with other directions and considerations to apply as in Nandini K. This ensures continued access to ART while awaiting policy reconsideration.
Petitioner M.K. Aravinda Babu, an A-class contractor, undertook two works for Travancore Devaswom Board: (i) earth cutting at Paattupurakavu Devaswom (Paravur Group) and (ii) construction of a retaining wall at Paattupurakavu Devaswom. He completed the works in June 2013 and was paid for part of the earth removal (300 cubic meters) though the contract records indicate 676.75 cubic meters were removed. On 09 November 2020, Ext.P3 was submitted before the 3rd respondent seeking payment of Rs. 2,10,000/-, contending that the petitioner did not receive the full quantity paid for and asking for encashment of his work bill within a time frame set by the Court, as well as consideration of Ext.P3 and payment of 12% interest on the pending arrears. The Travancore Devaswom Board argued that the claim is barred by limitation, and that a writ under Article 226 is not the proper remedy for contractual disputes. The Court reviewed jurisprudence establishing that writs are not to adjudicate contractual disputes involving disputed questions of fact, that there may be an alternative remedy, and that in contractual matters writ jurisdiction is generally inappropriate. On these facts, the Court held the claim to be time-barred and the petition to be unsustainable in writ jurisprudence, dismissing the petition with no order as to costs. The decision reaffirms that mandamus cannot ordinarily compel payment in contracts where disputes require civil adjudication and where limitation bars relief.
Sharukh Sharaf approached the Kerala High Court in WP(C) No. 2792 of 2023 seeking a correction of his date of birth in CBSE records from 08.03.2000 to 08.03.1999 and to propagate this correction to CBSE records. He relied on Ext. P1 (birth certificate), Ext. P2 (passport), Ext. P3 (Aadhaar), Ext. P4 (driving license), all showing 08.03.1999 as the date of birth, while the CBSE certificate reflected 08.03.2000. Ext. P6 is the application to update the DOB before the school authorities; the Respondents reportedly refused to amend the school record. The petitioner contends that Jigya Yadav v. CBSE (2021) SCC Online SC 415 governs such corrections and direction should be issued to CBSE to align its certificate with public records, subject to reasonable conditions. The learned counsel for CBSE urged disposal in light of Jigya Yadav’s observations. The Court, noting Jigya Yadav’s two-category framework—correction to align with school/public records and change based on new acquired names or other documents—directed CBSE to process the correction and issue a fresh certificate after due steps. It ordered the 4th respondent to forward records to the 3rd respondent within four weeks and the 3rd respondent to issue the certificate within six weeks thereafter, with no order as to costs.
CO Nos.86/2022 and M.A.C.A No. 2838/2015 This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal-cum-Cross Objections before the Kerala High Court arising out of an award dated 8 December 2014 passed by the Additional MACT, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.(MV) No.2492/2006. The petitioners (widow and two minor children) sought Rs 35,00,000 as compensation following the death of Preetha Kumar in a motor-vehicle collision with a Mahindra Jeep driven by the 5th respondent. The 3rd respondent insurer contested, arguing negligence lay primarily with the deceased and that the compensation claimed was excessive; other respondents remained ex parte. The MACT awarded Rs.35,10,935 with 9% interest and costs, apportioned 50:20:20:10 among petitioners 1–3 and 4th respondent. The insurer appealed and cross-objections were filed by the petitioners. The Court examined issues including the monthly income, allowances, and provisions for future prospects (50% uplift for age 30–40 under Rajesh Rajbir Singh), deductions for personal living expenses, funeral expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium (revising per Pranay Sethi and related judgments). It relied on decisions such as Jyni and Others on overtime allowances, and Pranay Sethi, Oriental Insurance v Kahlon, and Satinder Kaur to shape the quantum, especially reducing certain heads. The judgment modifies the award, enhances the petitioners’ compensation by Rs.5,000, and directs deposit of the balance with interest and costs, while reinstating the mother’s share to the petitioners under Hindu Succession Act provisions.
Remsi A., the mother, challenges the Family Court, Chavara's interim custody order dated 04.11.2022 (Ext. P3) in I.A. No. 1/2020 in O.P. (G&W) No. 647/2020, which awarded overnight custody to the respondent father and laid out a detailed schedule for weekend visitation, holidays, and vacations, with exchange to be effected through the court officer. The High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to examine whether the welfare of the eight-year-old Mohammed Salwan requires modification of custody arrangements. The petition contends the Family Court did not interact with the child before granting overnight custody, a factor emphasized by the Supreme Court in custody jurisprudence such as Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and subsequent decisions. The court acknowledges the welfare primacy in custody matters and the necessity of considering the child’s best interests, including the child’s need for affection from both parents and the psychosocial impact of ongoing parental disputes. While citing Yashita Sahu and Vasudha Sethi, the judgment notes that orders must incorporate visitation rights where custody is disturbed. The Court sets aside Ext. P3 to direct the Family Court to reconsider the matter after interacting with the child, and to pass fresh orders within a month, leaving open the legal/factual contentions. Till then, visitation rights remain as per Ext. P3. The decision underscores that welfare of the child prevails over parental rights, while ensuring continued contact with the father.
This Kerala High Court judgment arises from an original petition filed by the State of Kerala and concerned departments challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) order in O.A.475/2016 dated 03.12.2019. The Tribunal held that the respondent, Sheela P., who had been working as a Part-Time Sweeper in the Government Press, Kollam since December 2004, was legally entitled to regularization under Annexure A1 G.O(P) No.501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.2005, on a sweeping area reportedly around 200 sq.m. and with compensation arrears. The State contended the factual basis for the claim—especially the exact commencement of service and the area—was incorrect, and argued subsequent GO provisions (G.O(P) No.61/2010/Fin dated 09.02.2010) restricting regularization in temporary establishments should apply. The High Court reaffirms the Tribunal’s factual findings on the sweeping area and the applicant’s service since 2004/2005, but also notes the legitimate effect of GO 61/2010 was not to erase accrued rights under GO 501/2005. Relying on a Division Bench decision (W.A. No.2199/2009) and the earlier SOMA in M. Sobha, the Court holds that the applicant’s right to regularization cannot be extinguished by subsequent orders. The Court partially allows and slightly modifies the Tribunal’s direction, directing regularization from 25.11.2005 (not 27.12.2004) with implementation within two months.
This writ petition challenges a government reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA) to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad, regarding the denial of employment to K.V. Unnikrishnan as temple manager of Sree Thirunavaya Ayyappa Kshethram. The petitioner was appointed in 2005 and removed in 2007 when temple administration was entrusted to the Kozhikode Samoothiri Raja (Temple Devaswom). The District Labour Officer referred the dispute to the Government, which then referred it to the Tribunal under IDA. The issue framed for adjudication was whether the denial of employment was justifiable and what relief, if any, the petitioner was entitled to. The 1st respondent contended that the temple falls under the HR&CE Act and the dispute should be resolved by the Deputy Commissioner under that Act, not by the Tribunal; the Tribunal treated this as a preliminary issue and, relying on Cherinjumpathy Thampuratty v State of Kerala, held that the reference was invalid, incompetent, and not capable of adjudication. The petitioner challenged Ext.P2, arguing that once referred, the Tribunal must decide the reference. The High Court, however, held that Government references can be challenged, and that HR&CE Act governs temple disputes, so the Tribunal’s Ext.P2 was lawful and the writ petition was dismissed. Ext.P2’s award upholding invalidity of the reference was not interfered with, and the writ petition was dismissed.
