Viswabharathi Model Higher Secondary School, Kayamkulum (upgraded to Higher Secondary in 2014-15) is at the center. The petitioner, Anitha A, a senior HSST who became Headmistress in 2020, contends that, following a Full Bench decision in Aided Higher Secondary School Teachers Association v. State of Kerala (2005 KLT 94; 2005 KHC 19), there exists an admissible post of Principal in upgraded Higher Secondary Schools. Government Orders (Exts. P1–P2) allegedly create posts including Principal, and the petitioner asserts she is qualified in the feeder category (Headmaster/HSST) and that, given lack of a qualified HSST in the feeder category due to upgrade timing, she should be promoted. Despite this, the Manager/3rd respondent and others have delayed promotion, citing workload issues and lack of teaching hours (Ext. P8). The petitioner relied on Jayaraj V.P. v. State of Kerala (2016 KLT 200 / 2016 KHC 419) and related Government orders to argue that workload cannot bar statutory promotion and that the State must act per binding orders. The court disposed of the petition directing the 2nd respondent to decide expeditiously in light of binding orders; Ext. P11 (promotion denial) was set aside, and the petitioner was declared eligible for transfer-appointment as Principal with effect from 22.12.2021, with a direction to issue consequential orders within a short period (later clarified by an order dated 11.08.2023).
This writ petition by Babu R. challenges Exhibit P9, an order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission dated 20 June 2019 in H.R.M.P. No.213/11/2019, which directed the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to proceed with the complaint and dispose of it. The petitioner had obtained building permission on 27 Sept 2016 and undertook construction; he faced ex parte injunctions in O.S. Nos. 2049/2018 and 1365/2019, which were vacated. The 2nd respondent and her supporters obstructed the construction; the petitioner obtained a counter-injunction and protection orders. The petition contends that Exhibit-P9 was issued behind the petitioner’s back, without hearing, and was based on a report from the Corporation Secretary that allegedly suppressed material facts. The court assesses whether the Commission had jurisdiction to entertain civil disputes, whether the complaint falls under human rights, and whether natural justice requires prior hearing, while surveying a broad chain of authorities on the ‘clean hands’ doctrine, suppression of material facts, and the reach of natural justice in quasi-judicial and administrative action. The judgment ultimately finds that the RHRC order disposes of a civil matter and violates natural justice, quashes Exhibit-P9, and allows the writ petition. The court also clarifies limits of the Commission’s jurisdiction and the necessity of disclosure and fair procedure in writ reliefs.
RP 1280/2022 & connected cases This is a consolidated review petition batch in the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, dated 12 April 2023, challenging a common judgment dated 17 May 2022 rendered in OP(KAT) Nos. 335, 322, 402, 351, 327, 395, 337, 423 and 328 of 2020. The review petitions (R.P. Nos. 1280/2022 and connected matters) were instituted by multiple individuals challenging the PSC/State authorities’ recruitment and staff-fixation processes, and they target the merit-based conclusions of the impugned order. The bench, comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Viju Abraham, conducted a comprehensive analysis of the limited scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, reiterating long-standing principles that review is not an appeal and should be limited to errors apparent on the face of the record or other compelling grounds. The court cites leading precedents (Sow Chandra Kante; Meera Bhanja; Moran Mar Basselios; Hari Vishnu Kamath; Kerala State Electricity Board; Jain Studios; Vijaya Kumar; S Madhusudhan Reddy; Patel Narshi Thakershi) to frame the standard. It also notes attached annexures (circulars from the Director of General Education, DPI, 2017) and concludes that the petitions lack merit, affirming that the petitioners’ attempt to re-argue merits cannot succeed. The petitions are dismissed, upholding the impugned judgment. The decision is rendered in a Division Bench.
This is a criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1306 of 2013) filed by the accused challenging a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thrissur. The prosecution’s case is that on 4.10.2002 and 10.10.2002, the accused, a Sub Engineer of KSEB, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs 1,000 for facilitating an underground electric connection and for preparing the estimate. PW1, a decoy contractor, testified that he paid Rs 100 on 4.10.2002 and promised the balance; the balance was paid on 10.10.2002 after a trap was arranged by PW11 (Dy.S.P. VACB). PW2 and PW3 corroborated the events. The trap team observed the transaction, and tainted notes (MO1, MO2) were recovered; phenolphthalein tests yielded positive results on the notes, the accused’s hands, and the pocket of his pants. The trial court convicted the accused; on appeal, the petitioner argued lack of direct evidence of demand/acceptance and claimed a frame by colleagues. The High Court examined the evidence and held that demand and acceptance may be inferred from the sequence of events, especially the trap and chemical tests, even when direct proof is absent. Citing Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) to emphasize circumstantial proof, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The appeal has been dismissed, and the fine, if any, remains payable within two months.
MFA (Forest) No.165 & 166/2012 These two appeals arise from a common Forest Tribunal order granting declarations under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, for lands scheduled in OA Nos. 29/2008 and 28/2008. The lands form part of a larger Malavaram (Chovvillurmanakkad) in Palakkad and were notified as vested forest under the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949. The applicants (State of Kerala and Custodian of Vested Forests) contended that the lands were garden land or cultivable and not forest, pointing to title documents, including an assignment deed (Ext.A6) and a partition (Ext.A2), together with a purchase certificate under the Kerala Land Reforms Act (Ext.A3) in the name of Sankaran Nair’s wife, Lakshmikutty. The Forest Department argued the lands lie within MPPF Act jurisdiction (about 69.57 hectares) and thus are forest lands, with burden of proof to prove not under MPPF lying on the applicants. The Tribunal examined limitation, nature and status of the land, and exclusions under S.2(f)(1)(i). It held the land governed by the MPPF Act, and the exclusion clauses not satisfied. The High Court upheld, noting that burden of proof to show non-MPPF status rests on applicants, and citing precedents like Chandraleka and Kunhiraman. It also applied State of Kerala v. Mohammed Basheer to recognize that a purchase certificate can yield exemption under Vesting Act, ultimately dismissing the appeals and confirming the impugned order, with each party bearing costs.
This Arbitration Request arises from a secured loan arrangement under Annexure-A dated 30.03.2019, where disputes about the terms were to be resolved by arbitration. The applicant concedes the validity of Annexure-A but asserts it only requires disputes to be resolved through arbitration, not by arbitrating with a specific arbitrator. The respondent nominated a particular advocate as the arbitrator in its notice, and the applicant replied objecting and proposing appointment by law, urging that an arbitrator be appointed through the court if the nomination is unacceptable. The applicant invoked Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to obtain appointment of a sole independent arbitrator, arguing that post-amendment to Section 12(5), no party to the arbitration agreement may nominate an arbitrator. The court notes amendments to Section 12(5) and relies on Perkins Eastman Architects DPS & otheres Vs HSCC (India) Limited (AIR 2020 SC 59) and Tulsi Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr. Appu Benny Thomas (2021(5) KHC 404) to hold that a party cannot nominate an arbitrator after the amendment, and thus must appoint a sole arbitrator. Consequently, the court nominating Justice N.K. Balakrishnan Punartham as the sole arbitrator, directs disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1), and sets a date for appearance, while terminating the prior nomination and directing fees under the Fourth Schedule.
This Public Interest Litigation challenges the Kerala Epidemic Diseases Act, 2021 and its Ordinance provisions, contending the government’s regime of penalties and police enforcement under the Act results in arbitrary, excessive fines and a quota-based system to mobilize funds. The petitioner alleges that superior officers issued oral directions to fix targets for filing cases, effectively monetizing the enforcement process during the second COVID-19 wave, thereby violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He specifically challenges Section 7A of the Epidemic Diseases Ordinance (implemented as Section 8 of the Act, 2021) on the composition of offences, and seeks a mandamus to stop the quota-driven practices and a declaration that the penal provisions infringe constitutional rights. The petition cites alarming statistics—approximately 17.75 lakh cases and around Rs. 150 crore in fines between May and August 2021—and a system of unlimited delegated power. The State counters that the Act and Ordinance were enacted to protect public health amid the pandemic, and that the penalties are necessary and reasonable to curb disease spread. The High Court ultimately dismisses the petition, holding that the pandemic context justifies the legislation, cautions against basing petitions on newspaper reports, and reiterates that fundamental rights are not absolute where public health is at stake.
CRL.A Nos. 427 & 428 of 2014 This Kerala High Court judgment arises from two criminal appeals (CRL.A. Nos. 427 and 428 of 2014) challenging a 2014 conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in CC 61/2008 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. The accused, Maniyan (Accused No. 4) and Nissam (Accused No. 1), were tried for offences under sections 7, 8 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) IPC, related to illicit gratification during a government anti-corruption probe arising from an Abkari Act case. The prosecution case described an Excise party (including accused 1–3) colluding with PW1, a decoy, to obtain money as consideration for not including him as an accused in a separate Abkari case. The trap operation led to recovery of money from accused 4 and an arrest of accused 1, while accused 2 and 3 were acquitted. The trial court convicted both appellants, but the High Court, per Dr. Kauser Edappagath Monday, found serious inconsistencies: crucial witness PW6 turned hostile, direct evidence of a formal demand was lacking, and the purported pre-trap demands were not established beyond doubt. Citing Satyanarayana Murthy and Neeraj Datta, the court reaffirmed that demand for illegal gratification and its acceptance are sine qua non for PC Act offences; in light of the evidentiary gaps, the conviction could not be sustained. Consequently, the court allowed both appeals and acquitted the appellants, cancelling bail. The decision highlights the necessity of proof of a demand, and not merely acceptance, for conviction under the PC Act.
This MACA arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in which Thankamma, a 64-year-old tailor, sustained serious injuries in a bus collision on 06 January 2011. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and directed the insurer to pay Rs 2,28,400 with 8% interest and costs. The appellant challenged the quantum, contending the tribunal erred in not adequately reflecting her earning capacity and disability. The High Court re-evaluates quantum, noting the tribunal fixed a notional income of Rs 4,000 per month for a tailor, which the court finds too low in light of precedents. Relying on Ramachandrappa and Pranay Sethi, the court increases notional income to Rs 8,000 per month and, applying the Sarla Verma multiplier (7) for a 64-year-old, recalculates Loss of Earnings and permanent disability compensation. The 16% whole-body disability, supported by Exhibit A7, yields Rs 1,07,520 as disability compensation (instead of Rs 38,400). Loss of amenities is raised to Rs 25,000; other heads are affirmed as reasonable. The overall compensation rises to Rs 3,42,520, with 8% interest from filing until realization and proportionate costs. The appellant is thus entitled to enhanced relief. The appeal is allowed in part, directing the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount within two months and for the Tribunal to disburse in accordance with law.
The petitioner, a merchant representing businesses along the Enamavu-Chavakkad road in Pavaratty, challenged the indiscriminate parking of autorickshaws on the road margin outside shops, which obstructed ingress and egress to commercial establishments. The matter traces to an earlier writ petition (Ext.P9) in which the court directed the Regional Transport Officer, the Pavaratty Grama Panchayath Secretary, and the Pavaratty police to ensure that parking did not hinder access to shops and to identify a suitable parking area for autorickshaws. Following that interim order, the case was disposed of on the basis that consensus had been reached with auto drivers and that a designated parking area was identified, pending orders on an authorized parking scheme. The 9th respondent subsequently filed W.P(C) No.19521/2021 seeking permission to park two autorickshaws on a rotation basis, leading to Ext.P11 directing the Traffic Regulatory Committee to consider the representation after hearing. In purported compliance, the Committee issued Ext.P12 permitting two autos to park on the road margin on rotation, without hearing the petitioner and contrary to Ext.P9. The petitioner argues this undermines the earlier directions and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Rules, 1995. The court ultimately holds Ext.P12 to be without regard to Ext.P9, sets it aside, and directs a fresh, reasoned order after hearing, while maintaining Ext.P9’s guidance until a decision is made.
CRL.M.C. No. 3193 of 2021 This petition under Section 482 CrPC challenges Annexure-14, a special attachment order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, in CC No. 2/2014. The petitioner Mac Charles (India) Limited is a Bangalore-based company whose challenge arises in a case involving Rajendra Prasad @ Anwar Ali, a former Regional Transport Officer accused of amassing assets beyond known sources between 1993 and 2006 and facing offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The investigation was initiated by VACB in 2006; multiple annexures recorded steps to attach and later lift attachments under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Annexure-9 in 2015 ordered attachment of five properties, including the schedule property (15 cents of land with building). However, this Court later (Annexure-11, 2018) set aside Annexure-10’s attachment as to the schedule property and directed a fresh order after hearing. The core issue is whether Annexure-9 complied with Section 3(3) requiring an affidavit, and whether the attachment could be ordered against a property belonging to a non-accused transferee, under the conditions of Section 6; further, whether the Government authorisation in Annexure-3 was valid and whether Section 18A(2) of the PMLA expands the Special Court's jurisdiction to pre-trial stages. The High Court ultimately held Annexure-14 invalid for lack of affidavit and lack of proper authorisation, allowed the petition, and dismissed Annexure-9, with liberty to file a fresh application.
W.P.(C) No. 32855 of 2022 This writ petition (W.P.(C) No.32855/2022) before the Kerala High Court challenges the tenders for the Upper Sengulam Hydro Electric Project. The petitioners, PGCCPL and Aryacon Consortium, were pre-qualified for the tender, but suspicion arose about the third respondent’s qualification after the price bid was opened and the documents downloaded from the e-tender portal were scrutinized. Petitioners alleged that the third respondent failed to meet mandatory pre-qualification conditions under Ext.P1 Clauses 3.1.6 and 27.1, particularly turnover requirements (lead bidder must have a turnover not less than 30% of the probable amount of contract) and Clause 26.2.1(c) on tunnel-driving experience. They contended that the third respondent manipulated turnover by transferring assets (Ext.P8) and produced Ext.P9 CA certificate to inflate turnover, with Ext.P10 showing a signatory’s qualification being improperly used to claim experience. The petition sought quashing Exts.P4 and P5 (pre-qualification notes) and to declare the petitioner as L1, with a stay of further proceedings. Respondents contended the pre-qualification committee correctly assessed documents and relied on Exts.P8-P9 to arrive at turnover. The court underscored the narrow scope of judicial review in contractual matters, citing Tata Cellular, Afcons, Silppi, N.G. Projects, Montecarlo, and Jagadish Mandal, and ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that no arbitrariness or mala fides were shown and public interest favored the award to the third respondent.
Regular bail application by fifth accused Muhammed Sija in Crime No. ECB 01/2023 of the Excise Crime Branch, Southern Range, Trivandrum, arising from the seizure of 75 grams of MDMA at Amaravila Check Post on 10 November 2022. The prosecution alleges the petitioner arranged the contraband from a Nigerian citizen in Bangalore, which was handed over to the 3rd accused and transported by the 1st accused in a bus. The remand and case diary reveal that Rs.92,000 was transferred into the 3rd accused’s account, allegedly at the petitioner’s direction, with Shahid P.V., the petitioner’s brother, admitting to transfers in furtherance of the petitioner’s scheme. The petitioner contends innocence, asserting there are no materials connecting him to the crime beyond the confession of the 1st accused, which is claimed to be inadmissible under NDPS Section 67; hence, regular bail should be granted with the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act diluted. The State Prosecutor argues the petitioner’s complicity is supported by bank transfers and corroborative statements, warranting the rider and denial of bail. The High Court, after perusing the case diary and arguments, found that, given the 75-gram MDMA quantity and the materials tying the petitioner to arranging the contraband, there are not reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to commit another offence on bail, and accordingly dismissed the bail application.
The appellant, Jagadamma, challenges the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Taliparamba's award in OP(MV) No. 552/2015 arising from a road accident on 24 April 2015 caused by a rash and negligent driver. She sought Rs 15,00,000 in compensation but the Tribunal awarded Rs 8,47,700, prompting this MACA. Her counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in measuring notional income and permanent disability; citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, she urged use of Rs 10,000 as notional income for 2015 where income is unascertainable, and contended that the Disability Certificate now produced should inform disability assessment. She also claimed higher bystander expenses (Rs 38,100) and a longer loss of earnings period given 127 days of hospitilisation. Respondent insurer contended that income and permanent disability were not proved and that proposed enhancements were speculative. The High Court, relying on Ramachandrappa, held notional income of Rs 10,000 and allowed reassessment of disability by remanding to the Tribunal, while enhancing several heads: loss of earnings, bystander expenses, amenities, and continuing/permanent disability to Rs 3,60,000, with a remand for fresh evidence and potential future prospects. The appeal is disposed with directions for fresh proceedings within eight months and liberty to seek future expenses upon cogent proof.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 2648 of 2023) filed under section 482 CrPC challenging the order in SC No. 287/2020 of the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. Nine petitioners—accused Nos. 1 to 9—were charged with offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 read with 149. The petition asserts that the disputes between the parties have been settled amicably and that continuing the prosecution would obstruct the settlement’s fruits and disrupt public peace. The court had earlier directed the investigating officer to record the defacto complainants’ statements and verify whether the disputes are genuinely resolved and whether the petitioners have any criminal antecedents. The Public Prosecutor reserved opposition to quashing, arguing that Section 482 powers should not terminate non‑compoundable offences, and that gravest crimes or offences under special statutes should not be quashed merely on a settlement. The Kerala High Court, upon considering the gravity of the offences, injuries, antecedents, and the parties’ amicable settlement, concluded that quashing would advance the ends of justice and would not adversely affect society, citing State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and other Supreme Court authorities to delineate the scope of 482 CrPC. The petition was allowed, quashing Annexure‑A1 Final Report and all further proceedings in SC 287/2020.
MACA No. 1364/2015 is a Kerala High Court appeal by the appellants (petitioners) challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV) No. 519/2005 for the death of Abdul Razak arising from a road accident on 18 December 2003. The deceased, an Arabic teacher, earned Rs 9,489 per month at the time of the accident and died after prolonged treatment on 9 February 2005. The Tribunal found negligence on the driver of the car, held the insurer liable (subject to policy conditions), and awarded Rs 12,50,738 with interest. The insurer contended policy violation and questioned the quantum. The appellants pressed for enhancement, arguing for the revised salary of Rs 11,580 (effective 01.07.2004) to be used for dependency, since revision occurred during the deceased’s lifetime, and for 15% future prospects (as laid down in Pranay Sethi). They also sought enhanced compensation under categories such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium, and asserted a claim for pain and suffering. The High Court held that the revised salary should be included for calculating dependency, given the death was caused by injuries and the revision occurred during life; it added 15% future prospects and recalculated to Rs 13,18,383 for dependency loss, with various adjustments for other heads. The appeal was allowed, with an overall additional compensation of Rs 5,24,764, to be deposited within three months along with interest and costs.
MACA 793/2009; MACA 506/2009; MACA 2191/2009 These MACA appeals arise from OP MV No. 717/2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, involving a motor accident on 07.05.2006 that left the petitioner (a 38-year-old PWD contractor) with 40% permanent disability. The MACT held the driver liable and the insurer potentially liable, but also contemplated recovery from the owner and driver, while exonerating the insurer to some extent. The Kerala High Court re-examines liability and quantum, holding that there was a deemed transfer of rights and liabilities under Section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act upon transfer of registration, so the insurer could be primarily liable even if the policy stood in another name at the time of the accident. It set aside the insurer’s exoneration, and held the insurer jointly and severally liable along with the owner and driver. The court revised quantum, enhancing compensation for loss of earning capacity (by fixing monthly income at Rs. 8,000 and applying a 15-year multiplier for a 38-year-old), and added Rs. 30,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000 for loss of amenities. It instructed deposit of the total award and clarified recoveries by the insurer from the owner and driver after payment. The judgment disposes of all three MACA appeals with consequential reliefs for deposit and statutory deposits.
The appellant, Thomas V.L. @ Joy, seeks to set aside/modify a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta award under O.P (MV) No.281/2009, dated 22.12.2011, which granted ₹7,65,100 as compensation for injuries from a motor accident on 01.02.2009 at Pullathikunnu, Kalpetta. He was riding a motorcycle KL19-Q-943 when it collided with a Jeep KL-12/9836. The petitioner, represented by SMT. Celine Joseph, challenged the Tribunal’s conclusions on several fronts: (i) the fixed monthly income of ₹3,000 used to compute compensation was too low, given medical treatment records showing protracted treatment until November 2010; (ii) inadequate compensation for loss of earning, bystander expenses, extra nourishment, transportation, and loss of clothing; (iii) assertion of 100% disability and future prospects in light of a Medical Board certificate showing 90% permanent disability; and (iv) evidence suggesting ongoing treatment and costs. Respondents, including the driver/owner of the Jeep and the insurer (The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by Sri P.K. Manokumar, SC), argued that the Tribunal reasonably computed damages and that no basis exists to exaggerate the award or seek future treatment costs. The High Court, while noting Kajal v Jagdish Chand (for bystander expenses) and other facts, ultimately allowed the MACA, directing a fresh calculation and enhancement of compensation to ₹9,79,900 as additional compensation with interest, subject to a two-month payment deadline and applicable circulars.
MFA (Forest) No. 42 of 2005 Two related OAs (OA No.28/2001 and OA No.27/2001) were filed by the father and son challenging action under the Kerala Private Forest Vesting and Assignment Act and the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act regarding two extents of land in Survey No. 539, Kuthanoor-I, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad. The Forest Tribunal had held the OAs maintainable and examined whether the land falls within vesting or private forest status and whether it is exempt from vesting under the Vesting Act. The State of Kerala, represented by the Special Government Pleader (Forest), argued that the land is private forest/vested under the MPPF Act and that vesting should occur on the appointed day (10 May 1971), unless exempt, with the exemption requiring cultivation on or before that day. The respondents contended that the land was already identified as forest and included in vested areas; the Taluk Land Board proceedings and Ext.A1 final decree indicated the property’s forest character. The Court held that the Tribunal’s finding of maintainability was not in issue, but emphasized that vesting depends on the land’s status on the appointed day and that the final decree described the property as forest. The Tribunal’s reliance on certain proceedings was rejected. The appeal is allowed; the Tribunal’s order is set aside; the applications were rejected, with costs allocated to the parties.
This Division Bench of the Kerala High Court deals with a writ appeal challenging an order under Section 33(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (KCS Act) appointing a Part-Time Administrator/Administrative Committee for the Chaliyam Vanitha Co-operative Society. The eight respondents in the writ petition (and others in the case) allegedly resigned en masse from the elected Managing Committee, allegedly prompted by a report from the Secretary and a minutes record that the petitioners had tendered their resignations. The petitioners contested Ext.P9 (the Administrator order) on two main fronts: (i) the alleged resignations were not valid or properly proven, and (ii) proper statutory procedures under Section 33 and Rules 38 were not followed. The court emphasizes that cooperative societies are democratic grass-roots institutions and that any replacement of an elected committee must strictly comply with the statutory framework to avoid undermining democracy. It scrutinizes the minutes of 1.2.2018, the role of the Secretary, and the lack of due verification by the authorities before issuing Ext.P9. Relying on precedents like Gopalan v. Joint Registrar and others, the court reiterates that resignation takes effect in a prescribed manner and that due process is mandatory. Ultimately, the court holds there is no merit in the appeal and dismisses the writ appeal, directing the judgment to stand while urging vigilance to prevent recurrence of such issues.
