CRL.A Nos.1575/2006 and 1715/2006 These are consolidated criminal appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging the Kalpetta Court of Session’s verdict in SC No.51/2002, which convicted A1 (N.V. Joseph) and A3 (A.P. Chandran) for offences under Sections 489B and 489C IPC in a 1994 counterfeit currency case. The prosecution alleged that A7 counterfeited ₹500 notes and sold them to A3, who passed them to A2, who then sold to A1 and others; the chain allegedly involved MO1, MO6–MO12, and MO7 notes recovered from various locations. The trial court convicted A1 and A3, acquitted A2, A4, and A6, while A5 and A7 died; the appeals question the validity of the conviction, highlighting that key evidence included a confession by A3 and the alleged recovery at A7’s residence. The High Court scrutinizes evidentiary issues: admissibility of the confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (citing Joseph v. State of Kerala and related authorities), delays in producing material objects (Rajan v. Kerala; forwarding notes), and the strength of the 489B/489C elements with reliance on witness testimony (some witnesses hostile). It ultimately allows A1’s appeal, upholding his conviction, while setting aside A3’s conviction and acquitting him. The court emphasizes unimpeachable recoveries, proper connection to the discovery, and explains delays as administrative rather than fatal.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3052 OF 2023; 3054 OF 2023; 3057 OF 2023; 3061 OF 2023; 3063 OF 2023; 3255 OF 2023 A consolidated High Court of Kerala order on six bail applications filed by Praveen K.P. alias Praveen Rana in matters registered by CBCID Thrissur. The petitions, numbered 3052, 3054, 3057, 3061, 3063 and 3255 of 2023, involve offences under IPC sections 406 and 420 and the BUDS Act, with the Investigating Officer of the Crime Branch EOW also party to the proceedings. Heard on 5 May 2023 by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan, the matter centered on whether the petitioner should be granted statutory bail given that the investigation was not complete. Counsel for both sides submitted that the investigation was ongoing and that the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail; the court relied on established bail jurisprudence, notably the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and on the Supreme Court decision in Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement (2019) to frame the disposition. The court ultimately allowed the bail applications with standard conditions: bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO as required, no inducement or threats, no travel abroad without permission, and a prohibition on committing similar offences. A breach of conditions would empower the court to cancel bail. The orders reflect a cautious, rights-protective approach balancing ongoing investigations with liberty interests.
RCRev Nos. 22 & 25 of 2023 These revision petitions challenge eviction orders under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, arising from eviction petitions filed by landlords against a tenant in a commercial complex. The Rent Control Court granted eviction under Section 11(3) and rejected the claim under Section 11(2)(b). The Appellate Authority upheld this result, and the landlords sought confirmation by filing two Rent Control Revisions (RCRev Nos. 22 and 25 of 2023) in the Kerala High Court. The tenant contends the need for eviction is not bona fide and that the landlords have other vacant premises or can use different arrangements; he also relies on the second proviso to Section 11(3) and on the Advocate Commissioner’s report indicating vacant rooms in the complex. The High Court, exercising its power under Section 20, emphasizes it cannot reweigh evidence; it must determine whether the lower authorities erred in law or fact to a degree that amounts to illegality, irregularity, or perversion. The Court reviews the evidence and the need for the proposed business, the availability of other premises, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the tenant’s livelihood; ultimately, it dismisses the revisions, but grants six months to vacate with an undertaking to vacate and to pay arrears, balancing the parties’ interests under the statutory framework.
W.A. No. 755/2021 and connected cases This is a batch of writ appeals challenging amendments to Kerala University statutes and related enactments intended to implement communal reservations by dividing teaching posts into cadres (Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors) and applying reservations category‑wise across cadres rather than department-wise. A learned Single Judge had struck down the amendments and set aside the University notifications/gazette amendments (2014 amendments to the Kerala University Act via the University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014 and 2017 University Order), as also the 2017/27.11.2017 recruitment notices. The division bench, in a long, detailed judgment by Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., upheld the amendments, holding that cadre structuring is permissible where there is plurality of posts, common features across posts, and interchangeability to apply KS&SSR reservation rules; the amendments receive statutory backing from the Kerala University Act (Section 6(2) as amended), the KS&SSR Rules (Rules 14–17, 17A), and the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Act, 2019. The court distinguished several prior decisions, clarified the test for interchangeability, and approved university/UGC guidance. It ultimately allowed the appeals, set aside the learned‑Single Judge’s order, and dismissed the writ petitions with no costs, thereby validating the cadre approach to communal reservation in universities.
This writ appeal arises from the Kerala High Court’s handling of medical negligence in the death of a 22-year-old medical student, Ms. Shamna Thesneem, following Ceftriaxone administration at Government Medical College, Ernakulam. Triggered by a complaint from the deceased’s father, the matter was referred to an Expert Panel, whose majority view disagreed with negligence, while one member found negligence by Dr. Jilse George, the Head of General Medicine, and Dr. Krishna Mohan, the physician on duty. The State Government forwarded the findings to the Apex Body (Medical Negligence), which concluded negligence against the named doctors. Dr. Krishna Mohan challenged the Apex Body’s order in a writ petition, which the Single Judge allowed to be reviewed, directing that an expert in General Medicine be included in the decision-making process and that both the writ petitioner (the mother) and the implicated doctors be heard before a final decision. The Division Bench addressed the need for scrutiny of the decision-making process in prosecutions for medical negligence, noting that the Expert Panel and Apex Body failed to adhere to due procedure and that naming individual doctors beyond the investigative record is unwarranted. It underscored that negligence must be assessed against standard medical protocols and that the ultimate prosecutorial decision rests with the investigating authorities, with the bodies’ opinions offering prima facie guidance. The writ appeal is disposed of with directions to afford hearing and reconsideration, limited to the extent described.
This appeal, MACA No. 2445 of 2021, arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, in OP(MV) No. 1800/2018, concerning the death of Jalaludheen, husband of the first petitioner and father of others, after a road accident on 29 March 2018. The petitioners claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the basis that Jalaludheen was a painter earning Rs. 24,000 per month. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 22,80,000 with a 50:40:10 distribution and interest, while the insurer, as appellant, challenged two principal points: (i) the notional income fixed by the Tribunal (Rs. 15,000/month) was on the higher side and (ii) interest on the compensation at 9% per annum. The respondents 2, 4–6 were ex parte; those named as respondents 1–3 contested the matter. The Kerala High Court, guided by Supreme Court precedents (Ramachandrappa, Pushkar Mehra, Kishan Gopal, Anjani Singh) and existing jurisprudence (M.C.D. Uphaar; New Indian Assurance v. Kiran Singh), holds that the notional income of Rs. 15,000/month for a 2018 incident is justifiable, and 9% interest aligns with law. After thorough scrutiny, the court finds no error in the Tribunal’s determination and dismisses the appeal at the threshold, directing the insurer to pay the remaining amount due after deposits. The decision underscores tribunal discretion in fair compensation and discourages delaying tactics by insurers.
This is a bail application (B.A. No. 772 of 2023) filed under Section 439 CrPC by the petitioner– accused No.2 in Crime No.840/2022 of the Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram District. The case concerns alleged possession of narcotic oil (hashish oil) weighing 1.020 kg, recovered near the Sri Muthuvara Vishnu temple at Angadipuram around 08:30 hours on 05.08.2022, by a police party; the contraband was stated to be for sale, amounting to a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were nabbed at the spot. The petitioner contends that the confession of the 1st accused, relied upon to implicate him as the 2nd accused, is inadmissible evidence; he also points out that he was arrested on 05.08.2022 and the final report has already been filed. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the 2nd accused was arrested with the contraband and that the bail plea should be refused under Section 37 of the NDPS Act due to the commercial quantity involved. The court notes a red-handed recovery and observes that the conviction-proof based solely on confession cannot hold the petitioner; however, it proceeds to examine the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) and concludes that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and that he would not abstain from committing offenses while on bail, leading to dismissal of the bail application.”
This MACA arises from an award under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (OP(MV) Nos.316/2016 and 317/2016) granting Rs.15,04,800 as compensation for the death of Akhil, who died in a 2015 accident on the Kollam–Alappuzha national highway. The appellants are Akhil’s parents and elder brother, challenging the quantum. Akhil was a technically qualified person (Diploma in Computer Hardware Maintenance) and, according to appellants’ evidence (Ext.A12/A10), was earning about Rs.20,000 per month at SDS IT Solutions; however the Tribunal fixed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.9,000. The appellants contend this is too low in light of his qualifications, and rely on notional income principles (Ramachandrappa) and the educational evidence to argue for a higher monthly income, at least Rs.12,000, with a 40% upward adjustment as per Pranay Sethi and related precedents. The insurer/respondents argue the salary certificate (Ext.A13) was not proven convincingly and uphold the Tribunal’s finding of Rs.9,000; they also challenge higher awards for pain and suffering and loss of consortium based on AIR 2020 SC 3076. The Court recalculates dependency using a notional income of Rs.16,800 per month, applying 40% uplift and appropriate multiplier, resulting in a higher annual figure (Rs.18,14,400) and ultimately grants an enhanced total of Rs.4,28,600 beyond the Tribunal’s award, with the same rate of interest and a two-month deposit timeline. The appeal is partly allowed.
The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, in CRL.MC 616 of 2023, heard a petition under Section 482 CrPC by accused Nos.1–3 and 5 seeking quashing of CC No.1468 of 2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thiruvananthapuram. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC arising from an incident on 24.02.2012 at 11:30 p.m., when they allegedly assaulted the de facto complainant and others with an iron rod, causing injuries. The petition contends that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled, supported by affidavits from respondents 3 and 4, and that ending the proceedings would enable both sides to move forward in a peaceful atmosphere. The court directed the investigating officer to record the victim’s statement and verify whether the settlement is genuine, and whether the petitioners have any criminal antecedents or impediments to termination. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on settlement, noting no other serious crimes against the petitioners and that respondents stated they have no lasting grievances. Citing State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and various Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Shambhu Kewat, Deepak, Manish, Ramesh Kamath, Rajveer Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, Kalyan Singh, Dhruv Gurjar), the court held that under Section 482, quashing may be permissible for private, non-compoundable offences when the dispute is fully resolved and no societal interest is harmed. On these grounds, the petition is allowed and Crime No.261/2012 and all further proceedings in CC 1468/2015 are quashed.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal arising from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV) No.462/2009, concerning the death of Kutty Chami in a 19 January 2009 accident involving a lorry KL-8AK 7543. The appellants, wife and children, challenge the Tribunal’s quantum of compensation on several grounds, including under-assessment of income, and omission of heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, love and affection, and loss of consortium. The insurer admits the accident and policy but disputes negligence, while the Tribunal holds negligence by the driver and awards Rs.1,27,000. The High Court examines whether the quantum is just, revisiting the deceased’s notional income (citing Ramachandrappa) and affirming that the deceased, aged 78, had no future prospects, applying the conventional multiplier (Sarla Verma) and deducting one-third for personal living expenses. It also addresses heads like pain and suffering, transport, clothing, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. Relying on Pranay Sethi and Somwati, the court recalibrates the award, enhancing loss of dependency to Rs.2,80,000, awarding Rs.18,150 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses with 10% annual increases, and Rs.1,45,200 total for loss of consortium to the three dependents. It also grants Rs.25,000 for pain and suffering, Rs.2,000 for transport, and Rs.1,000 for clothing; the appeal is allowed in part with directions to deposit Rs.4,89,500 within two months and then disburse as fixed by the Tribunal.
High Range Marketing Society Ltd., a farmers' society formed in Peermedu taluk, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Travancore Devaswom Board's tender process and payment refusals for supply of jaggery powder, dry rice, sugar candy, black raisins and other materials for Aravana prasadam at Sabarimala during Mandala-Makaravilakku 1190 ME (2014-15). The tender was announced by the 2nd respondent on 08.08.2014 (e-tender No. ROC No.51/14/SAB) for 01.10.2014 to 30.09.2015, with conditions that items comply with Food Safety and Standards Regulations, that defective lots be rejected, payments issued only for standards-compliant materials, and that each lot be analysed by an accredited lab and at Pampa Laboratory. The petitioner secured rights to supply 70,000 kg sugar candy and 35,000 kg black raisins at specified rates, and supplied portions of these items (sugar candy and black raisins) in late 2014. The Board alleged the petitioner defaulted in quantity and quality, causing production losses of Aravana prasadam. Reports from the Food Safety Commissioner and the Executive Officer pointed to substandard sugar candy and dust in raisins; the Board proceeded to blacklist the petitioner (Ext.P10) and to seek recovery of Rs.14,19,650. The petitioner challenged Ext.P16 and Ext.P13 requests for payment; the court noted a previous order in W.P.(C) No.1196 of 2017 that this contract was not statutory and that disputed facts precluded writ relief. It disposed of the petition, declining to interfere with Ext.R1(E) and Ext.P10, and dismissed the case for lack of merit.
WP(C) Nos. 1084/2022 & batch This consolidated batch of writ petitions arises from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.’s BPCL tenders inviting additional transport trucks for LPG cylinders for 2021-2022 and beyond, with the petitioners being three transport contractors who had supplied trucks previously, notably Biju Mathew, Babu Joseph K, and Bittu B. Joseph. The petitions challenge tender conditions that require a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) for trucks that are or were under HPCL’s existing five-year contract, arguing the NOC condition is not stated in the invitation and runs afoul of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They assert ownership of the trucks on purchase and seek independent consideration of their bids on merits, contending the HPCL-directed NOC demands are extraneous and strike at fair competition. BPCL and HPCL defend the tender terms (notably General Conditions of Contract clauses 8(h) and 8(i)) as essential to transparency and uninterrupted LPG supply; these clauses bar trucks under other PSU contracts and require post-notice NOCs. The learned Judge, Shri Shaji P. Chaly, heard all connected petitions together, analyzed jurisdictional issues, tender terms, and constitutional rights, and concluded that the Kerala High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over these tenders, and that the petitions fail on merits. The petitions were dismissed, with guidance on the proper interpretation of tender conditions and the limits of judicial review in government contracting.
MACA No. 1692 of 2013; CO No. 59 of 2022 This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 1692 of 2013) along with Cross Objector CO No. 59 of 2022 arising from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, concerning the death of Mathew in a road accident on 17.04.2011. The insurer IFFCO Tokio challenges the Tribunal's compensation as excessive, primarily arguing that the notional income fixed at Rs 4 lakh per year is inflated and that the addition of 30% as future prospects is incorrect. The insurer further argues that the appropriate income for 2010-11 (Ext. A16) shows net earnings of Rs 3,90,223 and that only 25% future prospects should be added, consistent with the Supreme Court and Kerala precedents. The cross objectors contend larger compensation is due for themselves, citing loss of consortium and deprivation of paternal care after their father's death. The learned judge finds force in the insured's argument on income and reduces future prospects to 25% under Pranay Sethi (Supra), while revising heads of compensation under Pranay Sethi (Supra) and the ratio in Satinder Kaur. The court awards Rs 43,33,334 for dependency, Rs 15,000 each for funeral and amenities, Rs 80,000 for loss of consortium, and deletes the heads of Pain and Suffering and Loss of Love and Affection. Interest at 8% from claim date with deposit within two months completes the order.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CrL.MC No.3116 of 2023) filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of proceedings in CC No.1267/2017 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Varkala. The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 4 (with the 3rd petitioner subsequently deleted as per the order dated 16.06.2023), are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and, in furtherance of a common object, entered the house of the de facto complainant on 25.09.2016 at around 2:50 pm, causing injuries to him and damages to vehicles outside. The offences include Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 506(ii) and 427 read with Section 149 IPC. The petition contends that the parties have resolved their disputes amicably (Annexure A3), and seeks quashing so that they may live amicably. The court directed investigation to verify the settlement, assess antecedents, and determine impediments to quashing. The Public Prosecutor tabled reservations about quashing merely on settlement, yet conceded lack of other transgressions. Relying on established jurisprudence (State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan; Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; and others) the High Court held that non-compoundable offences of a private nature may be quashed where settlement brings peace to private disputes and does not involve serious societal offences. The petition is allowed; final report and further proceedings are quashed. injury and property damage relate to a private dispute with no broader public impact.
This is a writ petition (criminal) challenging Ext.P1 detention order issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAA(P)A). The petitioner—represented by the detenu’s mother—seeks a writ of habeas corpus, contending the preventive detention of Mumthas is illegal and violates statutory safeguards. Ext.P1 detains the petitioner’s son for six months, advised by Ext.P2 issued by the Government. The court notes seven antecedent crimes spanning 2016–2022 alleged against the detenu, with offences including IPC sections 394, 34; 511; 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 323, 341, 506(i); and NDPS-related sections such as 20(b)(ii)(B), 20(b)(ii)(C), 27A, and 29. Critical dates are: detention order dated 17.10.2022; arrest on 20.10.2022; Government approval on 3.11.2022; and a reference to the Advisory Board on 4.11.2022, with confirmation on 13.12.2022. The petition contends twofold: (i) a three-day arrest delay, allegedly deliberate; (ii) miscalculation of the 12-day period under Section 3(3) of KAA(P)A from the order date rather than detention date. The court holds the three-day delay properly explained (magistrate’s permission required by law and explained by necessity) and rejects the challenge to the 12-day reckoning, noting detention date 20.12.2022 and excluding public holidays. It relies on Licil Antony and Anju P.Anil Kumar to support the delay explanation, and on Stenny Aleyamma Saju to reject the final-report contention. The Detaining Authority’s subjective satisfaction is upheld; Ext.P1 is legal and valid, and the petition is dismissed, with habeas corpus denied. The bench comprises Alexander Thomas and C. Jayachandran, JJ., in Division Bench.
MACA No. 1457/2009; MACA No. 2378/2008 These consolidated Motor Accident Claims Appeals arise from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, award in OPMV 1050/2005 dated 16-05-2008. The death of Thomas @ Gojimon, a painter, occurred when he borrowed a motorcycle from its owner, resulting in fatal injuries after an electric post collision. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 54,500 with 7% interest under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, exonerating the insurer on an Act Only policy. The owner challenges the award, arguing that Section 163A cannot apply when the owner himself is involved, relying on Ningamma and an Apex Court decision, Oriental Insurance Co. v. Rajini Devi (2008) and related judgments. Conversely, the claimants contend that the policy Exhibit B1 provides a personal accident cover for the owner and seeks Rs. 1,00,000 under Exhibit B1, supported by Ramkhiladi (SC) and related authorities. The High Court disposes of the two connected appeals by setting aside the 163A-based award and allowing the appeals in part: (i) MACA 1457/2009 is allowed and the impugned award set aside; (ii) MACA 2378/2008 is allowed in part, directing the insurer to pay Rs. 1,00,000 towards personal accident benefit to the owner; (iii) deposits in MACA 1457/2009 to be disbursed. The decision clarifies owner-driver scenarios under Section 163A and affirms personal accident coverage where premium exists.
Elna Paul Chalissey approached this Court seeking to challenge an order of the Family Court, Thrissur, which had allowed an interlocutory custody petition filed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.P.No.1216 of 2015 to proceed. The respondent, Thomas Kuruvila, had filed I.A.No.2/2022 in the same O.P.1216/2015 before the Family Court seeking custody of the child, Tashiya Thomas. The petitioner objected to the Family Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the custody petition arising from a decree of divorce already granted by the Family Court in O.P.No.1216 of 2015 by mutual consent. The Family Court, by Ext.P7 dated 12.10.2022, held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the custody application. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging Ext.P7. The petitioner argued that the court in the place where the minor ordinarily resides has exclusive jurisdiction to consider custody matters; relying on Section 9(1) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, she pointed out that guardianship applications must be made to the District Court having jurisdiction where the minor ordinarily resides. The respondent contended that because the Family Court granted a decree on mutual consent in O.P.No.1216/2015, it is conferred with jurisdiction to entertain custody petitions, citing Section 44 of the Divorce Act, 1869, and the similar wording of Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The judgment refers to Rajan Menon v. Bindu to support that the decree‑granting court may entertain custody applications. The High Court ultimately held that Ext.P7 did not suffer from patent illegality and dismissed the Original Petition, thereby upholding the Family Court’s jurisdiction.
The writ petition concerns registration of a permanent worker as a headload worker under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 in a scheme-covered area. The 1st petitioner, Swadeshi Trading Company Manas Arcade, sought registration of its permanent worker (the 2nd petitioner) as a headload worker attached to the establishment. The Registering Authority rejected registration on two grounds: (i) an objection from the Chairman of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, and (ii) the finding that registration would prejudice existing workers in the area. The District Labour Officer on appeal also rejected registration for the same reasons, noting that there were 11 other nearby establishments and six registered headload workers in the pool. The petitioners contended that in a scheme-covered area, the right of an employer to engage a permanent worker is subject to registration only if the area is covered; if the worker is willing and physically capable and the employer consents, registration cannot be denied. The court relied on precedents, including Rajeev v. District Labour Officer, Manzoor v. District Labour Officer, V.Star Creations (P) Ltd. v. District Labour Officer, and Majeed v. District Labour Officer, to uphold the petition. It read down the Act to require willingness, adequate physique, and employer consent for registration, holding such restrictions reasonable. The court set aside the challenged orders, directing the District Labour Officer to reconsider the registration and issue the identity card within 30 days, thereby allowing the writ petition.
WA 177/2021 (and connected cases: WA 208/2021, WA 318/2022, WA 322/2022) The Kerala High Court, in a consolidated writ appeal, adjudicates disputes over appointment to the post of Headmaster at Kalladi Abdu Haji High School, Palakkad. The core issue is whether the headmaster appointment can be sanctioned under Rule 44A(1) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) despite missing the test qualification, given the second proviso exempting those aged 50 or more. The Government’s 2015 clarification order favored candidates with the test qualification, and later amendments introduced a third proviso to Rule 44A(1) with retrospective effect. The vacancy arose on 01.05.2016; the Manager appointed the senior-most teacher as Headmaster, but the Educational Officer refused approval (Ext.P2). The Government then directed appointment from 26.09.2016 (Ext.P3), which the Educational Officer again declined (Ext.P7). A revision petition followed Ext.P8, culminating in the Government’s 28.01.2019 order directing the Educational Officer to appoint with effect from 26.09.2016 after finding the petitioner had requisite graduate service. The court discusses belated challenges, laches, and the impact of retrospective amendments, including Pavandoor Higher Secondary School v. Sadanandan, and holds that there is no merit in the appeals, upholding the Government’s order and dismissing the writ petitions.
This is a Kerala High Court execution-second-appeal proceeding arising from a suit for recovery of property. The appellant, K. Sadanandan,-plaintiff in O.S.182/2008, challenged an order in E.P.134/2010 (execution petition) that allowed a claim petition in favour of the first respondent over the decree scheduled property. The decree had directed delivery of possession to the plaintiff, but the execution petition permitted the first respondent to stake a right over the property, prompting the appellant to file A.S.No.111 of 2013 challenging the order, along with a delay-condonation petition. The Subordinate Court (Tirur) dismissed the appeal and the review petition, and the matter has now come to this court in EX.SA No.15/2019 with a delay of about 1041 days. The appellant attributes the delay to advanced age and inability to procure documents, claiming counsel assistance throughout and a lack of access to necessary orders. The respondent opposes condonation, arguing a complete lack of satisfactory explanation for such inordinate delay. The court notes the absence of copies of the orders to condone delay and review, and, applying established principles from Balwant Singh and Maniben Devraj Shah, concludes that the delay is not sufficiently explained and that no substantial question of law is demonstrated. The court ultimately dismisses the second appeal as not admitted with no costs.
