This writ appeal challenges Ext. P2, a Lok Adalat settlement award in PLP No. 1265/2020, brought by Anil Kumar and Krishnakumari against P.R. Aniyan, and other parties, arising from a long-standing dispute over a right of way to the writ petitioner’s home. The award, dated 19/11/2020, records a compromise between the appellants (2nd and 3rd respondents in the W.P.(C)) and the 3rd respondent Anooja Aniyan, omitting the writ petitioner’s name and signature, and was intended to establish a vehicle-access pathway on land belonging to the writ petitioner’s family. The learned Single Judge had held that Ext. P2 is non est in law against the writ petitioner, relying on Kerala Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1998 (Regulation 33(1)) requiring signatures of all parties, and on the Mary Gomas principle that Lok Adalat awards are binding on all parties to the dispute. The Division Bench reversed, holding the award to be binding only on the signatories—appellants and the 3rd respondent—pursuant to the Act and Regulations. The writ petitioner’s signature was absent, so he cannot be bound. The matter, including related civil suits (O.S. Nos. 27 and 29 of 2021), will proceed in the civil courts. The appeal is dismissed, with the impugned judgment sustained.
MACA.No.2860 OF 2009 & MACA.No.616 OF 2009 These connected Motor Accident Claims Appeals arise from a claim filed in OP(MV) No.1593/2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, concerning injuries sustained by Subbalakshmi in a road accident on 28.04.2001. The Tribunal held the insurer, National Insurance Co. Ltd., liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle and awarded Rs. 38,839 with 7.5% interest. The insurer challenged the insurer’s liability on the basis that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in a goods autorickshaw, a scenario not covered by a standard policy, citing United India Insurance Co. v. Suresh and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, and Baljit Kaur. Conversely, Subbalakshmi pressed for compensation and maintained the factual finding that she was a passenger in the vehicle involved. The High Court, in a common judgment, examined the evidence, police records, and precedents, including Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, to address whether gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles fall within policy coverage and whether recovery rights lie with insurers. The Court ultimately disposed of both appeals: MACA 616/2009 is allowed in part with a direction for the insurer to pay the awarded amount and recoverable from the owner, while MACA 2860/2009 is dismissed. The order clarifies that the insurer may seek recovery from the vehicle owner.
WP(C).Nos.4755/2013; 21134/2013; 5019/2015 (leading: 4755/2013) These writ petitions challenge GO (Rt.) No.805/09/WRD, dated 25 July 2009, issued by the Kerala government to enhance water extraction cess and to make permission mandatory for drawing water from rivers/water bodies for purposes beyond drinking, domestic use, and irrigation. Petitioners include three industrial units: Sree Sakthi Paper Mills Ltd. (Ernakulam), M.R.F. Ltd. (Kottayam), and The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (Udyogamandal). They allege the GO creates a tax/cess on water consumption for industrial purposes without statutory authority and retrospectively imposes liabilities for periods prior to enactment. The court reviews provisions of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 (the Act) and relevant constitutional entries. It notes that the Act regulates irrigation and water conservation and that Sections 25 (irrigation cess) and 45 (betterment contribution) pertain to land-based levies, not consumption-based charges for industry. While Section 3 vests government with control over water courses and Section 4 prescribes regulation of abstraction, there is no express statutory power to levy water cess on industrial use. The court also considers constitutional entries (List II, Entry 17; List I, Entry 56) and Article 265. The executive order was issued to address lacuna but lacked statutory sanction. The court holds that the GO cannot stand, as it is an invalid exercise of executive power. Accordingly, the impugned order and related demands are quashed, upholding the public interest in water resources but underscoring the necessity of legislative backing for revenue measures.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2734 OF 2010 This Kerala High Court revision petition arises from a conviction under Section 58 of the Abkari Act in SC 379/2002, upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalpetta, and by the Adhoc-II Court, Kalpetta, on appeal. The accused, V.K. Gopi, was found in possession of 4 litres of illicit arrack in a 5 litre can on 24.04.2001 near Cherupuzha Bridge in Vythiri, leading to seizure and conviction. The trial established the chain of events: arrest at the spot, seizure of contraband, sampling, and chemical analysis (Ext. P10). The defense challenged the legality of the arrest/seizure, the timing of production of the contraband before the Excise Range Office, and, crucially, the absence of a specimen impression of the seal in the seizure mahazar, which allegedly connected the seized contraband to the sample analyzed. The court relied on precedents emphasizing the necessity of a specimen seal and a foolproof link between the seized contraband and the sample analyzed (Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala; Moothedath Sivadasan v. State of Kerala; Sasidharan v. State of Kerala). The High Court ultimately found reasonable doubt about the genuineness of the sample sealing process and reversed the conviction, acquitting the petitioner under Cr.P.C. 235(1), with bail bonds cancelled and liberty granted. The revision petition is allowed accordingly.
The Kerala High Court, in a Criminal Misc. Case (CrL.M.C. No. 2624 of 2023), allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings pending in CC No. 1989 of 2017 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Kollam. Accused Nos. 1–11, charged with offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 341, 294(b), 323, 427, 506(i) and 149, allegedly assaulted respondents in a Yonus College classroom on 29 January 2011. The petition rests on an amicable settlement between the parties, supported by affidavits from respondents and the absence of any criminal antecedents in the petitioners. The court directed the police to verify the genuineness of the settlement and whether there were any impediments to termination. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about terminating purely on the basis of an accord, but acknowledged no other grievances against the petitioners. The court surveyed authoritative precedents, notably State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and related decisions, explaining the scope of Section 482 to quash non‑compoundable offences where private disputes are resolved, while cautioning against quashing for heinous or public‑interest offences (e.g., Section 307 IPC or arms offences). The court concluded that quashing would advance peace and justice and would not adversely affect society, thus allowing the petition and quashing the Final Report (Annexure A2) and all further proceedings.
CRL.M.C No. 3532 of 2021 and CRL.M.C No. 3535 of 2021 These two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (Crl.M.C. Nos. 3532 of 2021 and 3535 of 2021) arise from a ten-accused murder trial (SC 368/2014) involving sections 143, 147, 341, 324, 307, 302 r/w 149 IPC. After prosecution evidence and multiple adjournments, the defence sought to summon a Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rafeek) of the Crime Branch for a 'further investigation' and to produce statements recorded by him, as well as documents purportedly from prior statements, to contradict prosecution witnesses. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected such petitions on the ground that no further investigation had been conducted and that Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. barred production of such material. The petitioner contended that he has an indefeasible right to impeach witnesses with prior statements and to access documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C., arguing the statements are already in police records or obtained via RTI. The High Court examined competing positions, noting that there was in fact no further investigation; nevertheless, it emphasized the accused's statutory rights under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and Sections 161-162 Cr.P.C. to test credibility via prior statements and to obtain relevant documents to secure a fair trial. The court concluded that the ends of justice require allowing the petitions and directed summons to DW1 and for production of documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C., thereby enabling cross-examination on prior statements.
This is a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court hearing FAO No. 242 of 2015, challenging an order of the Sub Court, Ottappalam, which dismissed I.A. Nos. 2440 and 2441 of 2012 in O.S. No. 97 of 2009. The appellant, Unnikrishnan, sought to set aside an ex parte decree dated 25 July 2009 and to condone a delay of 11 months and 23 days in filing the petition. He contends that summons were not served on him because he was working abroad; a notice affixed to his property’s fence and the evidence of his power of attorney wife (PW1) established that she learned of the proceedings only after a sale proclamation and the ensuing inquiry. The respondent argues that PW1’s admissions show knowledge of the sale and that the delay is unjustified. The Sub Court’s order focusing on lack of sufficient cause was upheld by the High Court. The court recalls liberal, justice-oriented interpretation of “sufficient cause” under the Limitation Act (Katiji) and the need for reasonableness (Esha Bhattacharjee), distinguishing between inordinate delays and short delays (or few days). Applying these principles, the court finds the delay not inordinate, condones it on payment of Rs. 10,000 as costs, and allows the appeal, directing restoration of O.S. 97 of 2009 on file at Ottappalam with directions to proceed within four months.
MACA No. 2051/2010; MACA No. 2283/2010; MACA No. 2312/2010 Three MACA appeals arise from a common Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in OPMV Nos. 1143/2007 (death of Sakeer), 854/2007 (injury to a pillion rider) and 393/2008 (damages to the motor bike owner) following a 17.06.2007 accident near a petrol pump on the Meppayyur–Vilayattoor route. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (insurer) challenges the quantum of compensation and frames a challenge on liability, arguing contributory negligence by the motorcyclist and disputing the Tribunal’s valuation of damages. It relies on the FIR/charge sheet against the rider under Cr. No. 60/2007 to support negligence under Section 166 MV Act and contends the Tribunal failed to properly assess income and dependency, seeking interference with the award. The claimants (legal heirs, injured claimant, and vehicle owner) defend the Tribunal’s findings and contend that the police charge sheet provides prima facie evidence of negligence and that the Tribunal’s compensation, guided by established jurisprudence, is fair. The Tribunal awarded Rs.9,94,000 (OP 1143/07), Rs.8,500 (OP 854/07), and Rs.10,500 (OP 393/08) with 7.5% interest and costs. The High Court, citing Pazhaniammal and Sarala Varma for evidentiary and computation principles and Ramachandrappa for income assessment, holds that the charge sheet suffices for negligence and that the adopted quantum is just. The appeals are dismissed.
This petition (WP(C).No.13032 of 2020) before the Kerala High Court seeks to quash two statutory orders in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act proceedings against seven elected members of the Pulpally Service Co-operative Bank (6th respondent). The petitioners challenge Ext.P23 (order under Section 68(1)) and Ext.P31 (order under Section 68(2)) on grounds of violation of natural justice. The background spans a multi-stage process: an inquiry under Section 65; an inquiry report; notices under Rule 66(5); prior judgments allowing the inquiry with liberty to object; subsequent orders to surcharge and supersede the managing committee; and finally a fresh inquiry under Section 68(1). After a sequence of petitions, objections, and directions, the 5th respondent issued Ext.P21 for a fresh inquiry, but COVID-19 lockdown and the related restrictions obstructed meaningful opportunity to be heard. The court found that the opportunity afforded to the petitioners was ineffective and sham in the lockdown context, violating the principle of natural justice that requires an effective hearing. Accordingly, Ext.P23 and Ext.P31 were quashed; a fresh notice must be issued, and the petitioners must be afforded a proper hearing within eight weeks, with final orders under Section 68(2) to follow within six more weeks. The matter was disposed of accordingly.
CRL.M.C. No. 3276 of 2023 This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.3276 of 2023) in which six accused (Aneez, Shameer, Muhammad B.A., Muhammad Afreed i, Asif and Sadiq Ali) sought to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in SC No.115/2019 arising from an incident on 05.12.2017. The petition argues amicable settlement between the petitioners and party respondents and contends that quashing would promote peace and end the dispute, allowing both sides to move forward without further rancor. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, raised reservations about halting a non-compoundable offence based merely on settlement, though it acknowledged there are no other serious crimes against the petitioners. The court reviews the controlling authorities—State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab—describing the scope and limits of Section 482 powers: quashing is permissible where the offence is private in nature, lacks public impact, and the civil character predominates; not permissible for heinous crimes or offences under special statutes; and the court may assess antecedents, conduct, and the context of settlement. After evaluating gravity, evidence, and settlement, the court allows the petition and quashes the proceedings, ending further actions in SC No.115/2019 and related reports."
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition under Article 226 challenging Ext.P10, an order by the Administrative Committee of Mukkom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd terminating the petitioners’ services as peons. The petitioners were appointed after a notification process pursuant to 12.08.2013 to fill posts including two peons; several earlier petitions had challenged irregularities in appointments and vacancies, with the Joint Registrar initially holding the appointments regular in 2014, and several petitions (W.P.(C) No.29093/2013, No.20518/2014, and others) arising out of competing challenges to posts and selection. In 2019, the bank invited fresh posts by notification dated 10.04.2019, and a series of petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 14424/19, 10284/2019, 978/2019, 29090/2013) culminated in a court judgment on 02.04.2019 directing notification of three new vacancies and allowing petitioners to apply, without addressing the validity of the underlying selection process. By 25.08.2021, the erstwhile committee issued Ext.P10 removing the petitioners with a note of irregularity, prompting the petitioners to approach this Court. The Court, observing that Ext.P10 was issued without certain materials and opportunity, invoked judicial review while acknowledging the possibility of backdoor appointments. It relied on Purushothaman v. Registrar to discuss natural justice and quashed Ext.P10, directing that the Society provide advance notice and materials for a hearing under law. The petition is thus allowed, with directions to proceed in compliance with due process rather than through summary termination.
This is an appeal under MACA No.561 of 2014 by the National Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer) challenging an award of Rs.3,99,000 as total compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in OP(MV) No.1329 of 2012, arising from a motor accident on 23.09.2011. The deceased, Sandra, was the daughter of respondents 1 and 2 and sister of 3rd respondent, who died after sustaining injuries when a school bus (KL-40/B-620) door closed while she was alighting. The bus owner and driver were ex parte; the insurer admitted policy coverage but denied negligence. The Tribunal held the driver rash and negligent, and consequently the insurer was liable to indemnify under the policy, awarding compensation under various heads, including loss of dependency, transport, funeral expenses, love and affection, and mental shock, with 8% interest and costs. Challenging the quantum, the insurer contends the amount is excessive, while claimants argue the award is justified and not a windfall. The High Court, relying on constitutional and Supreme Court precedents such as State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur; Pranay Sethi; Kishan Gopal; Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas; and Sarla Verma v. DTC, emphasizes that just compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable, not a windfall nor a mere arithmetical figure. It concludes there is no merit in the insurer’s challenge, dismisses the appeal, and directs deposit of the balance with interest and costs within a month, with disbursement to claimants in accordance with circulars.
The petition challenges a Family Court order in O.P.(G&W) No.81 of 2023, where the court had dismissed IA 1/2023 and directed custody back to the respondents. The High Court (Division Bench) met the child, who is five years old, and heard arguments from both parents after the mother was reported to be abroad. The petitioner, father, seeks a decree of guardianship and permanent custody of the child, Jovan Jibin, and a permanent injunction restraining forcible removal. The respondents claim the child has remained with them, was enrolled in Good Shepherd English Medium School at Kuriyannoor, and that the petitioner abducted the child on 20 January 2023, leading to a police report (Crime No. 73/2023). The court considered the welfare of the child as paramount and noted the dichotomy between the father’s claimed custody and the child’s actual environment. It relied on established custody principles from higher courts, including Nil Ratankundu, Vasudha Sethi, and Rohith Thammana Gowda, to emphasize parens patriae jurisdiction and the child’s welfare, while acknowledging the child’s stated wish in interaction. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed O.P.(FC) No.140 of 2023, directing that custody be restored to the second respondent, and ordered handing over of the child with safeguards for the petitioner’s ongoing G&W petition.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition (CRL.M.C No.2215 of 2023) heard by a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala, challenging a post-arrest extension of investigation under NDPS Act and the related default-bail disposition. The petitioner, Jaffar Muhasin, was the first accused in Crime No.470/2022 of Kunnamkulam Police Station for offences under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, following a seizure of 10.80 grams of MDMA at about 22:35 on 03.04.2022 during a motorcycle interception. After the accused remained in custody for over 180 days, an application for default bail was considered together with an extended investigation period under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act. Annexure 3 extended the investigation by one month, leading to Annexure 1, which dismissed the default-bail petition. A related challenge by co-accused (Annexure 4) led to quashing Annexure 3 and granting bail. The court ultimately held that the indefeasible right to default bail is preserved despite the later filing of a final report during an extended period. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Sanjay Dutt; Hitendra Vishnu Thakur; Uday Mohanlal Acharya; Bikramjit Singh) and a Kerala decision (Muhammed Ajmal v. State of Kerala), the court quashed the extension, and ordered the petitioner’s release on default bail with conditions, including bond, sureties, passport surrender, and cooperation with investigation.
R.C.Rev. Nos. 248 of 2018 & 212 of 2019 Two Rent Control Revisions, R.C.Rev. Nos. 248 of 2018 and 212 of 2019, challenge the fixation of fair rent in two separate premises in North Paravur under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The proceedings involve two landlords (landlords in R.C.P. Nos. 26 of 2013 and 22 of 2014) who sought higher fair rents for different units (450 sq ft and 325 sq ft) while the tenants paid Rs. 6,900 and Rs. 3,850 per month respectively. The Rent Control Court fixed fair rents at Rs.17 per sq ft and Rs.15 per sq ft; the Appellate Authority affirmed these decisions. The landlords argued that the Exts. A1–A3 lease deeds, reflecting higher rents in equivalent properties (banks, supermarkets), justify an increase, and that the court should permit periodical revision. They also relied on Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala to contend that advances paid by tenants should not be counted for rent fixation. The tenants contended that Exts. A1–A3 are not directly comparable to the subject premises. The High Court clarified the scope of its interference under Section 20 of the Act, invoking Hindustan Petroleum to emphasize that only illegality, irregularity or impropriety warrant correction, and that the court cannot re‑appreciate evidence. Ultimately, Rev.212/2019 is dismissed and Rev.248/2018 is allowed in part, granting a 12% per annum periodical revision once in three years from the date of institution.
Shahin, the petitioner-accused in Walayar Police Station Crime No.970/2024, moves this High Court for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The case involves offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) as alleged: 111(1), 112(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 111(6), 127(7), 140(1), 310(1), 310(2), 311, 318(1), 318(2), 109(1) and 3(5). The prosecution contends that between 29–30 November 2024, the accused and others kidnapped the defacto complainant, demanded ransom of ₹5,00,000, compelled a transfer of ₹5,30,000 via Google Pay, and robbed a mobile phone. The petitioner was arrested on 30 January 2025. The court had earlier refused bail on the grounds of seriousness, but granted liberty to withdraw and refile after three weeks; the present application is filed accordingly. The petitioner asserts that continued custody is unwarranted and bail with stringent conditions would suffice to protect the investigation and ensure a fair trial. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offences and ongoing investigation. Relying on the maxim that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and citing Chidambaram, Jalaluddin Khan, Manish Sisodia and Anzar Azeez, the court concludes that bail can be granted under lawful conditions. The bail application is ultimately allowed with specific conditions to safeguard the investigation and prevent abuse, including regular appearances and travel restraints.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 2 to 5 in S.C. No.270/2021 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery. The respondents include the State of Kerala and the de facto complainant Noushad K.P. The petition contends that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and the petitioners no longer desire to pursue the prosecution. The case involves offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, and 308 r/w 149, allegedly committed on 23.08.2020 in an unlawful assembly resulting in injuries. The court had earlier directed the investigating officer to verify the genuineness of the settlement and to ascertain any criminal antecedents before considering quashing. The learned Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing based solely on a settlement, stressing the seriousness of the offences and public interest. The judgment relies on Supreme Court authorities (notably Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Laxmi Narayan, and others) that permit quashing non-compoundable offences where the entire dispute is resolved, while excluding heinous or public-service offences. The court weighs factors including gravity of injuries, antecedents, and the ongoing amicable settlement, ultimately concluding that continuing prosecution would be contrary to ends of justice and that quashing the proceedings would promote peace. The petition is allowed, quashing the Final Report (Crime No. 443/2020) and all further proceedings in S.C. No.270/2021.
R.C.R.232/19 is a Kerala High Court revision petition challenging an eviction order in a lease matter concerning a petition schedule room in Kozhikode. The landlord sought eviction under Sections 11(4)(iii) and 11(8) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, claiming bona fide need to expand a dental clinic and to utilize upper floors for staff and facilities. The Rent Control Court granted eviction, confirmed by the 2nd Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority. The tenant resisted, arguing the underlying relationship was licensor-licensee rather than landlord-tenant and that Ext B1 did not prove a lease, rendering the petition non-maintainable under the Act. The landlord contended the documents and pleadings establish a lease; the tenant admitted tenancy in counter-statements and reply notices. The High Court held that the question of jurisdiction hinges on the real nature of the transaction, a pure question of fact, and that the pleadings and admissions show a lease, not a license. While citing various authorities, including Kanwar Singh Jain’s case and several Supreme Court decisions, the Court distinguished the place of those authorities, noting that they apply to lack of inherent jurisdiction or to different factual contexts. The revision petition was dismissed, but the tenant was granted six months to vacate subject to conditions (affidavit, arrears, compensation) — with costs to be suffered by each party.
Crl.R.P. No. 2067 of 2010 Indira, the revision petitioner, was convicted in S.C. No. 481 of 2007 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ottapalam, for offences under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act, alleged to have occurred on 24 February 2005 at Kayiliyad, Chalavara Village, resulting in one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, with default imprisonment. The Sessions Court’s verdict was upheld on appeal, but the High Court allowed the revision petition, acquitting the accused. The petitioner contends that Ext P1 mahazar lacks a specimen seal and a seal description, and that the seizure date and the four-day delay in producing the contraband before the court undermine the prosecution’s case. It is argued that while the contraband was allegedly seized on 24.02.2005, the materials were only produced before the court on 28.02.2005, with claims that the contraband reached court on 25.02.2005; there is no evidence proving the chain of custody or proper correlation between the seized material, the sample tested, and the laboratory report. The State counters that the contraband was produced on 25.02.2005 and supported by Ext P1–P3 and PW4’s testimony. Citing several precedents emphasizing strict Abkari Act compliance, the court finds substantial lacunae in proof of linkages and custody, and grants the revision, ultimately acquitting Indira and cancelling bail. The order underscores the need for rigorous procedural compliance in Abkari cases and the limitations of the prosecution’s evidence when the chain of custody is not established.
This writ petition challenges the eligibility criteria and the issuance of SET certificates for the recruitment of Higher Secondary School Teachers under the Kerala State Board/Department framework. The State Eligibility Test (SET) is a mandatory qualification under Rule 6, Chapter XXXII, Kerala Education Rules, 1959. Ext.P1 (notification dated 27.12.2019) invited applications with a structure where eligibility required a Master’s Degree with at least 50% marks and a B.Ed in any discipline, with an exception allowing candidates who are in the final year of their other basic qualification. Ext.P2 (prospectus) contains clauses 5.1 and 5.7, implying eligibility for final-year candidates. The petitioners, postgraduates who were in the first year of their B.Ed on the date of notification, faced a pandemic delay and sat the SET on 10.01.2021; results were announced but the 3rd respondent refused SET certificates, claiming lack of eligibility on the last date of application (which was 10.01.2020). The petition contends that the notification and prospectus only require final-year status, not completion, and that eligibility should be determined by the last date of receipt of applications. The court, applying well-established constitutional and statutory principles, dismisses the petition, holding that petitioners did not meet the basic eligibility on the last date for submission of applications, and that relaxing eligibility would create chaos. The petition is dismissed with no costs.
