MACA NO. 355 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 811 OF 2013 These two motor-accident appeals challenge the 2011 Tribunal award in OP(MAC) 704/2011, arising from a collision in which Ummu Subaida K. died. The Insurance Company (3rd respondent in MACA 355) contested the quantum; claimants sought higher compensation. The High Court recalls a prior common judgment (2020) due to a dead party in the array and remands the matter for fresh consideration. The core dispute is quantum, particularly loss of dependency, with a dispute over applying the multiplier and the deceased’s income. The court endorses the approach consistent with Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi: use the salary evidenced at the time of death (Rs. 81,648 per month, Ext. A11), apply 30% future prospects, and then compute using a multiplier of 13; tax deduction is considered. After adjustments (1/4 deduction for personal expenses, Rs. 10,000 each for pain & suffering, Rs. 10,000 for funeral, Rs. 10,000 for loss of estate, and Rs. 1,80,000 for loss of consortium), the court determines an additional amount of Rs. 24,93,275, aggregating to Rs. 27,03,275 as total compensation. The court dismisses MACA 355/2013 and allows MACA 811/2013, directing the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount with interest and costs within three months. Litigation costs are not awarded. The judgment is delivered by a Single Judge (Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.).
The appeal arises from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award under OP(MV) No.969 of 2010 for a fatality that occurred on 27.12.2009 when the deceased, aged about 33, who was a pillion rider on a motorcycle, was killed after being hit by a Goods Carriage driven rashly. The appellants, the deceased’s parents and brother, sought compensation of Rs. 11,33,000, but the MACT awarded Rs. 6,07,500. The appellants contend the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s income at Rs. 7,000 per month (noting Ext.A8, the passport with Work Visa, suggesting he was abroad) and in ignoring income claims of Rs. 30,000 per month, 40% future prospects, and loss of consortium, as well as the head losses under Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate. The insurer’s counsel argued the Tribunal’s calculations were correct and that the heads of Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate are to be limited per Pranay Sethi. The High Court held that Ext.A8 proves only a work permit, not actual employment; thus Rs. 7,000 per month was properly adopted as notional income, with no deduction for the license absence. It then applied Pranay Sethi guidelines, adding 40% future prospects, and awarding Rs. 1,20,000 for Loss of Consortium while reducing Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate to Rs. 15,000 each. The appeal was partly allowed, enhancing overall compensation to Rs. 10,90,800 with 7.5% interest and costs.
This writ petition challenges condition No.1 in Appendix II of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, as amended by the Kerala Land Assignment (Amendment) Rules, 2017, on the ground that it restricts the petitioner’s rights to plant, maintain, and harvest trees on patta land. The petitioner asserts that the condition vests all trees, existing and to be planted, in the Government and binds the assignee to preserve them, conflicting with the objects of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005, which aims to promote tree cover and biomass in non-forest areas while permitting lawful cutting. The history traces pattas dated 1969 and 1973 (Exts. P1–P2) under Rule 9(2) of the 1964 Rules, where trees were not originally present; later planting by the petitioner and his predecessors created a tension with statutory restrictions. The government introduced Ext.P4 (2017 amendment) substituting Appendix II; Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 framed policy relaxations, later cancelled by Ext.P9. The court notes the tension between the 1986 Kerala Preservation of Trees Act (which generally restricts cutting) and the 2005 Act (which permits cutting in non-notified areas subject to exceptions), and that the 1986 Act’s Section 22 and the 2003 Act’s provisions limit rights. The petitioner’s claim that Ext.P9’s cancellation voids prior protections is rejected. Ext.P15 is quashed. The court directs reconsideration of the petitioner’s application under Section 6 of the 2005 Act, after hearing, within three months.
This is an appeal under MACA No. 282 of 2023 filed by the National Insurance Company Limited challenging the award passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal—IV, Ernakulam in OP(MV) No. 176/2018. The insurer contends that the Tribunal erred in calculating the claimant’s compensation by adopting a notional monthly income of Rs. 11,500 and adding 40% as Future Prospects, while also granting Rs. 60,000 under the head Loss of Earning to a claimant who, at the time of the accident, was a student aged about 20. The claimant’s side argues that the accident caused a 25% permanent disability and that the right hand’s immobility, as documented in Ext. C1, justifies including Future Prospects, especially as the claimant was pursuing a BBA course and was working part‑time. The court scrutinizes whether the notional income and Future Prospects were properly determined, and considers relevant precedents such as Ramachandrappa, Pappu Deo Yadav, Meena Pawaia, and Rajani to assess the appropriate approach to Future Prospects and the level of notional income. Ultimately, the judge partially allows the appeal, reducing the Future Prospects percentile from 40% to 35% in light of the disability, while upholding most Tribunal findings and reducing total compensation to Rs. 13,53,950/- from Rs. 13,85,000/-, with the rest of the Tribunal’s findings confirmed.
Plus Max Duty Free Private Limited approached the Kerala High Court seeking an arbitral reference under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to resolve disputes arising from Annexure A2 Concession Agreement with Airports Authority of India (AAI). The petitioner contends that all disputes under the agreement are arbitrable and must be referred to arbitration under Clause 22 of Annexure A2; it seeks appointment of a sole arbitrator. The respondents contend that certain disputes are not arbitrable under Section 28A(d) of the AAI Act, as rent and related amounts fall within the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer, and that Clause 22.2.4 of Annexure A2 requires furnishing a bank guarantee as a precondition to arbitration. The petitioner counters that (i) the arbitrability issue is to be decided by the arbitrator (per Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation); (ii) after the 2016 Act amendments, bank guarantees cannot bar invocation of the arbitration clause; and (iii) Lite Bite Foods Pvt Ltd v AAI supports disregarding a pre-condition. The court deliberated the independence of the arbitration clause, the effect of the 2016 amendments, and the arbitrability issue under Section 16, ultimately allowing the arbitration request and nominating Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair as the sole arbitrator, with directions for disclosure, cost sharing, and timelines for initiation. The proceedings will take place in Ernakulam, subject to the arbitrator’s directions.
This High Court of Kerala is seized with a supervisory challenge under Article 227 to a Family Court order in GOP 1621/2019 (OP(FC) 42/2023) of Thrissur. The petitioner, Sayana, wife of Abdul Razak Ebrahim, seeks to set aside a diary entry Ext.P13 recording orders dated 23 December 2022 in IA Nos. 18/2022 and 19/2022 in O.P. 1621/2019 and to stay the operative effect of that order. She also requests the Family Court to consider IA 19/2022 after interacting with the minor child, Imran Abdul Razak, in the child’s welfare. The petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging an interlocutory diary entry rather than a formal certified order. Ext.P13 is an extract from the Family Court diary, and the petitioner argues it should be admissible in a supervisory petition, particularly to replace it with Ext.P14 once a certified copy is obtained. The court emphasizes that Rule 382, Rule 147, and related provisions require an authenticated copy of the impugned order for Article 226/227 challenges, not diary extracts, and notes the transfer of records to Kunnamkulam (renumbered GOP 189/2022). Ultimately, the petition is dismissed for lack of maintainability, but with liberty to file a fresh original petition after obtaining authenticated copies. The court declines to decide the merits of the custody dispute.
WP(C) Nos.15960/2020, 643/2021 These writ petitions challenge Ext.P12 orders denying service benefits to the petitioner and seek directions for the release of retirement and service benefits from 30.06.2005 to 24.09.2011, and revised pension in light of reinstatement on acquittal. The original petitioner retired on 31.03.2020 but was dismissed in 2005 for convictions in three NI cases; two convictions were set aside on revision, and Ext.P3 reinstated her on 24.09.2011. The core issue is whether Rule 18(b) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960, as it stood before the December 2016 amendment, required payment of all service benefits for the period of absence when the employee is acquitted, even if the acquittal was not on merits, and notwithstanding suspension. The petition argues that pre-amendment Rule 18(b) mandated reinstatement with all benefits as if in service; respondents contend no actual service was rendered during the period, and hence benefits are not due. The Court relies on State of Kerala v. N.G. Joseph to interpret the rule and holds that unamended Rule 18(b) applies, granting all service benefits and pension revisions, with arrears calculated and paid within specified time.
W.P.(C)No.30771/2021 & 2580/2022 The Kerala High Court, in a consolidated writ petition, examines the legality of a hot mix/ tar mixing plant set up by petitioners at Kannambra, Palakkad, under the Kerala Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 (MSME Facilitation Act). WP( C) No. 30771/2021, filed by Mohammed Sageer and his brother, seeks a declaration that the MSME Facilitation Act’s acknowledgment certificate (Exts. P3 and P4) exempts them from Local Self Government building permits for three years and allows operation of a metal bitumen mix unit, relying on Sections 5 and 6 of the Act and the MSME Rules, 2020. WP( C) No. 2580/2022, by rubber plantation owners and residents, challenges the plant on environmental and public-interest grounds, arguing non-compliance with the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (KPR Act), Building Rules (KPB Rules 2019), and other local regulations, and raises concerns about pollution and public health. The court assesses whether a hot mix plant qualifies as an “enterprise” under the MSME Act (definitions in Sections 2(e), 2(f), 2(h)) and whether an acknowledgment certificate under Section 5 overrides other laws for three years (Section 10). Ultimately, the court dismisses WP 2580/2022 and allows WP 30771/2021, holding that the enterprise enjoys the three-year exemption under the Facilitation Act while safeguarding against misuse via statutory checks.
This matter concerns Cr.M.C. No.427 of 2021 filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.1202 of 2020 of Badagara Police Station. The FIR, registered for offences under IPC sections 403, 405, 406, 415, 417, 418, 420, 464, 467 and 468 read with section 34, relates to alleged misappropriation of funds connected with a shopping complex project financed by a loan from Kerala Financial Corporation and routed to Punjab National Bank. Petitioners claim civil dispute and co-ownership of the building; they argue that the proceedings are vexatious and lack material showing fraudulent or dishonest intent. They rely on classic 482 Cr.P.C. quashing principles from R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, contending that the High Court should intervene to prevent abuse of process in nascent stages. Respondents dispute this, asserting that investigation is necessary to uncover truth and that bank records indicate withdrawals without the mother's knowledge. The Public Prosecutor counters that the court should not assess the merits at this stage and that cognizable offenses are disclosed. The judge reiterates that 482 Cr.P.C. intervention is sparingly used and typically reserved for exceptional circumstances. After reviewing the pleadings and FIR, the Court holds that there is no exceptional basis to quash at this stage and disposes of the petition, while preserving the petitioners’ right to challenge a final report.
BA Nos. 7913, 7981, 8006, 8059, 8203, 8239, 8606, 8754 & 8763 of 2022 The batch of bail applications before the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) concerns Sri Lankan nationals/refugees accused in two parallel sets of offences: the Pallithottam case (Crime No. 529/2022) and the East Kollam case (Crime No. 868/2022). The petitioners, several Sri Lankan nationals/refugees, have been in custody since September 2022, with charges including sections 511 and 370 read with 34 IPC, and offences under the Foreigners Act (ss 14A and 14C), the Emigration Act (s.10) and the Passport Act (s.12(1)(a)). The court had earlier interim bail orders on 28-10-2022 and 04-11-2022, directing temporary detention arrangements and noting the Governmental view on establishing detention/relocation facilities for foreign nationals. On 22-11-2022, the court disposed of the bail applications with a mix of continuance in transit/open facilities and bail on conditions. It directed transfer to a transit home at Mayyanad (Kollam) and Gandhi Bhavan, Pathanapuram for certain petitioners, and permitted continued stay in Open Prison/Correctional Home at Nettukaltheri for others, with conditions including personal bonds and cooperation with investigations. The court stressed humanitarian considerations, the need for education for children, and sought concrete instructions from state and central authorities regarding detention facilities and stay arrangements, while ensuring ongoing investigation and eventual trial progress.
WA Nos.1498/2022, 1808/2022, 1807/2022; WP(C) Nos.4646/2022, 6955/2023, 19871/2022, 20313/2022, 26745/2022, 32204/2022, 36142/2022 This batch of writ appeals and connected writ petitions before the Kerala High Court concerns recruitment for Constables (GD) in CAPFs, NIA, SSF and Riflemen (GD) in Assam Rifles, in pursuance of a Staff Selection Commission notification dated 21 July 2018. A central issue is the interim stay orders and the practice of keeping aside a substantial number of vacancies (243 and other posts) from the pool of consideration, which affected fair and merit-based selection. The parties argued about the legality and feasibility of continuing recruitment while preserving the already concluded selection process, and whether the petitioners in the merit list were entitled to consideration for all unfilled posts. The court surveys decades of precedent on the right to appointment from a merit list, emphasizing that there is no indefeasible right to appointment, but a discretionary, bona fide approach must be taken. It invokes the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit to remedy injustices caused by court-ordered actions, while stressing the need to avoid derailing completed recruitment processes. Ultimately, the bench modifies the prior judgment’s para 25.4, directing that the SSC complete recruitment for 73–83 short-listed candidates within eight weeks, while allowing unfilled vacancies to carry forward to future rounds. The decision preserves the integrity of completed selections but provides a measured remedy to ensure fair consideration for affected candidates.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges encroachment into the temple pond of the Vana Durga Temple at Nambalikkaran's Estate, Balramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner 1 is the deity of the temple and Petitioner 2 is its managing member, who seeks a mandamus to prevent the Balaramapuram Grama Panchayath from encroaching on the pond and converting it into dry land, and to compel the District Collector to issue orders preserving the pond in its original condition. The petition relies on Exts P1–P5, including Lok Ayuktha complaint No. 1597/2010 and its 12.12.2012 order, an Advocate Commissioner’s report, and a Kerala High Court judgment in W.P.(C) No. 484/2014 (dated 07.02.2023). It references earlier civil suits (O.S. No. 26 of 2001 and O.S. No. 869 of 2009) dismissed for default, and contends the temple pond’s preservation is a matter of temple property and public interest. The pleadings, the court notes, are incomplete and lack essential materials; the petition is not backed by adequate pleadings or evidence. Citing established principles on pleadings and evidence (Bharat Singh; Larsen & Toubro; Narmada Bachao), the court dismisses the petition, albeit without prejudice to the petitioners’ right to pursue other remedies in a competent forum.
The Kerala High Court, in Crl.M.C No. 2881 of 2022 before Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against GTL Infrastructure Ltd for arrears due to the Kunnathoor Grama Panchayat. GTL, a telecom passive infrastructure provider licensed for Cellular Mobile Telephone Services in Kerala, was arrayed as an accused in S.T. No. 153/2022 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sasthamcotta, on a complaint by the Panchayat under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act read with Rule 27 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation and Appeal) Rules, 1996. The complaint alleged arrears of Rs. 10,753 for 2019-2020. GTL’s counsel argued that proceedings could not be sustained when statutory provisions were not followed in letter and spirit; specifically, Rule 14 requires a detailed demand notice, and Rule 15 contemplates distraint and sale only after notice and where distraint is impracticable, the Secretary may prosecute. The court held that compliance with Rule 14 is mandatory; noncompliance renders the proceedings an abuse of process. It cited Secretary, Pozhuthana Grama Panchayat v. T.K. Unni Peravan & Anr (2021(1)KLT 72) for a parallel view. Consequently, the petition was allowed, proceedings in S.T. No.153/2022 were quashed, and the petitioner’s right to realise the amount by lawful means was preserved. The decision was rendered by a single-judge bench, and the respondents include the Panchayat and the State.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition (Cr.M.C. No. 2272 of 2023) filed in the Kerala High Court by the elder brother of the alleged survivor challenging an order in CrL MP 15/2023 arising from SC 1232/2021, Fast Track Court, Perinthalmana. The accused faces charges under IPC sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), and 376(3); IPC 506; POCSO Act sections 5(1)(m)(n) read with 6(1) and 11(v) read with 12; and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The defence sought to extract WhatsApp chats and chats/status related to a person named Favas from the mobile phone of the accused’s mother to corroborate relationships in the case. The Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Thrissur reported difficulties in retrieving such chats from memory, while a later exercise produced a folder and CD with data. The Trial Court had dismissed the petition as an attempt to delay the trial. The High Court, after hearing submissions, relied on Section 233(3) Cr.P.C. and a binding precedent (Rajesh Talwar v. CBI, 2014) 1 SCC 628) to hold that the request was an attempt to vex the proceedings. It found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the Cr.M.C., noting the object was delay.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition (Crl.R.P. No.241 of 2016) filed by Jayakumar, challenging a conviction under Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act for possession of buprenorphine ampules without valid license. The accused was arrested on 03.07.2007 following a tip-off about drug sale near Panampilly Nagar. A body search was conducted in the presence of PW1, an Executive Magistrate, after the accused requested a Magistrate’s presence; 30 ampules of buprenorphine were recovered from him and 29 from co-accused. The trial court convicted him under NDPS s.22(a); the 5th Additional District & Sessions Court, Ernakulam, dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The petitioner contends that Sections 42(2), 50 and 57 were not complied with, that the right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate was not in writing, that the 48-hour reporting requirement under Section 57 was breached, and that he was falsely implicated. The High Court, after reviewing the record and relevant precedents (including Rajamma, Haryana v. Jarnail Singh, Baldev Singh, and Marshal), held that Section 43 applies since the search occurred in a public place, not a building; Section 42(2) is inapplicable here. It found that Section 50 rights were observed in practice and that Section 57 compliance is evidenced by the FIR and mahazar. The petition was allowed in part, reducing the sentence to imprisonment until the rising of the court with a fine of Rs. 10,000 (in default, one month’s imprisonment), and directing transmission of records for execution of sentence.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 3176 OF 2010 Divakaran s/o Rarichan, the revision petitioner, was convicted under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act for possessing 20 litres of illicit arrack at his residence in Kozhikode, detected on 8 September 2002. The trial court sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, with a default three months’ simple imprisonment; set-off was allowed. An appeal before the IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge was dismissed, preserving the conviction and sentence. In the present revision, Divakaran argues that the prosecution’s case rests on questionable procedure and timing: Ext P6 search memo is said to have been prepared before the information that illicit arrack was in the house; Ext P1 arrest memo records arrest at 11:30 a.m., whereas the information was received at 11:45 a.m.; the information-then-search sequence raises serious doubt about the genuineness of the information and the patrol testimony. He also relies on an unexplained, protracted investigation: occurrence in September 2002 and complaint filed in February 2006, with chemical analysis completed in December 2003. Citing Chandran, Surendran, and Moothedath Sivadasan, he contends Section 50 requires prompt action and Section 53A inventory/certification. Appu’s ruling on mandatory 53A further supports his plea. The High Court agreed that the prosecution failed to establish timely investigation and compliance with Section 53A, and relied on Baburaj and Sathi to insist on strict formalities. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the accused acquitted.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No.1442/2019) arises from a claim petition under O.P.(MV) No.53 of 2017 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, seeking compensation for the death of Suresh in a 04.07.2016 accident involving a mini lorry insured by the appellant. The petition was filed by Thilakam (wife), Sudhin (son), Avin (minor), Kalyani (wife of Maniyan) and Maniyan (son of Azha-kan). The Tribunal found negligence on the mini lorry driver, with the insurer held liable to pay Rs.24,95,000 with 7% interest and costs. The insurer challenged the quantum, asserting lack of credible evidence on the deceased’s income and avocation as a document writer; no documentary proof was produced. The High Court, however, undertook its own assessment of loss of dependency using the Supreme Court method (Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq) to re-calculate basic monthly income and multiplier, given the death occurred in 2016. It fixed Rs.10,500 as monthly income, applied a 13-fold multiplier, and deducted 1/4 for personal expenses with five dependents, yielding Rs.15,35,625 under dependency. The court then adjusted other heads by applying Magma and Satinder Kaur principles on loss of consortium and love/affection, resulting in an overall excess of Rs.7,08,125 identified in the tribunal’s award. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the award re-assessed at Rs.17,86,875, with deposits and interest terms specified.
The petitioner Stephen Bernard, a central government contractor, challenges two orders in the SARFAESI recovery process: Ext.P10, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) order dated 30.08.2018, and Ext.P19, the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) order dated 04.01.2023. The bank proceeded against the petitioner’s secured asset under the SARFAESI Act by filing MC No. 248/2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, after a 13(2) notice was not served. Although the petitioner submitted objections, the Magistrate permitted possession by Ext.P6. The Tribunal dismissed SA No.244/2017, which prompted the petitioner to file AIR(SA) No.268/2018 before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal issued a conditional order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.1.5 crore to entertain the appeal; subsequently, a settlement under the One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme was reached for Rs.2,87,40,530, leading to partial compliance and a deposit of Rs.15,00,000, but the second installment was not paid. The bank cancelled the OTS and continued recovery. The petitioner sought relief in WP(C) 2020 and related proceedings; these were dismissed by the High Court, which also noted that the petitioner had pursued multiple avenues up to the Supreme Court. The Court held the writ petition to be an abuse of law and declined to interfere, emphasizing laches, exhaustion of statutory remedies, and the limits on High Court interference in SARFAESI matters under Kotak Mahindra Bank v. Kasliwal and Naveen Mathew Philip. The petition is dismissed."
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 2706 of 2023) filed under Section 482 CrPC in the Kerala High Court seeking to quash proceedings pending in SC No.1651/2017 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The seven petitioners (A1–A7) faced charges for offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 308 read with 149, allegedly forming an unlawful assembly on 2 May 2017 and assaulting the 2nd respondent. The petition contends that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and there is no desire to continue prosecution. The court directed investigation to record the defacto complainant’s statement and verify genuineness of the settlement and whether the accused have criminal antecedents. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing proceedings solely on settlement, noting potential ongoing offences. After considering the records, the High Court applied the principles laid down in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and earlier cases (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, etc.), highlighting that Section 482 CrPC can quash non-compoundable offences with predominantly civil/private disputes where the settlement is genuine and there is no societal menace. It concluded that the gravity of some crimes and the petitioners’ antecedents did not warrant continuance of the proceedings. The court thus allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against petitioners along with related complaints, preserving peace and ends of justice.
WP(C) Nos.9881/2020 & connected cases (consolidated with numerous related WP(C)s such as 29361/2019, 33640/2019, 35036/2019, 35334/2019, 3549/2020, 4607/2020, 4614/2020, 8075/2020, 9008/2020, 10452/2020, 10649/2020, 10816/2020, 11085/2020, 11212/2020, 11338/2020, 11353/2020, 11424/2020, 11449/2020, 11652/2020, 11765/2020, 11862/2020, 11873/2020, 11876/2020, 11878/2020, 11879/2020, 11892/2020, 11893/2020, 11978/2020, 12093/2020, etc.) This is a consolidated writ petition decision by a single-judge of the Kerala High Court (Justice N. Nagareesh) delivering a common judgment on WP(C) Nos. 9881/2020 and connected cases and numerous related petitions filed by oil marketing companies and franchisees challenging State government orders and guidelines governing access permissions for petroleum retail outlets along State Highways and Major District Roads. The petitions challenge Exts. P2 (GO 46/2019) and P4 (GO 16/2020, guidelines for access permission), along with subsequent GO amendments, arguing that the State has no competence to regulate petroleum outlets and that the rules/regulations impermissibly restrict fundamental rights (Article 19(1)(g)), localize petroleum regulation, and override central statutes under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. The Court reviews the relevant petroleum statutes and road-safety/traffic guidelines, including the Petroleum Act 1934, Petroleum Rules 2002 (Rule 144 and sub-rule 7), the Highway Protection Act 1999 (Sections 3, 19, 36 and related provisions), and the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act 2002 (Sections 28, 29, 14), and cites Mary Ulahannan, Reliance Industries, G.J. Fernandez, and Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu to frame its approach. The court ultimately holds Exts. P2 and P4 to be set aside and directs District Authorities to reconsider NOC applications under Rule 144, free from Exts. P2/P4 constraints, within two months, with liberty to cure defects. The ruling prohibits conditional NOCs contingent on other agency approvals and leaves other issues open.
