This appeal arises from O.P(M.V).No.198 of 2005 filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala, after a 2004 motor-cycle accident in which the husband and wife were injured and the wife died. The Tribunal awarded compensation on heads including loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, love and affection, and consortium, while deducting 25% for contributory negligence attributed to the husband’s act of overtaking a bus; the wife, a pillion rider, could not be held contributorily negligent. The appellants argued that the wife’s notional income for 2004 should be Rs.4,500 per year instead of Rs.2,000, relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.; that the 25% deduction should not apply to the death claim; and that funeral expenses and loss of estate, as well as consortium, should be enhanced with a 10% uplift per Pranay Sethi. They also sought enhanced loss of dependency (from Rs.2,08,000 to Rs.4,68,000) and a higher consortium amount (Rs.40,000 per claimant with 10% uplift). The High Court partly allowed the appeal, applying Ramachandrappa and Pranay Sethi guidelines, holding that contributory negligence cannot be imputed to the wife, and reworking the compensation to Rs.6,50,000 in total, with a headwise tabulation, directing the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount and to transfer funds by NEFT/RTGS after necessary bank details are provided.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC 267 of 2017) arising from a private complaint under section 494 IPC (bigamy) pending against the petitioner in CC 568/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad. The respondent-complainant claims that while the first Hindu marriage subsisted, the petitioner contracted a second marriage at Guruvayoor in 2009. The petitioner contends that the complaint is devoid of material particulars and that, to sustain an offence under section 494, it must be pleaded that the second marriage was solemnized in accordance with the community’s rituals, a point argued by relying on Govindan Nair v. State (1971 KLT 614) and Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh (AIR 1971 SC 1153). The state and complainant argue that the complaint contains the essential ingredients: subsisting marriage and a second marriage, with a witness named, and that whether the second marriage conformed to ritual norms is a matter for evidence, not for cognizance under Section 482 CrPC. The court cites M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi and Others (SC, Manu/SC/1866/2019) to emphasize the permissible scope of scrutiny under 482, i.e., whether allegations establish the ingredients of the offence and whether cognizance preconditions are satisfied. The petition is ultimately dismissed, with the court clarifying that it does not bar the petitioner from pursuing discharge under Section 245 CrPC if warranted.
CRL.REV.PET NO.86 OF 2022 This is a Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.R.P. No.86 of 2022) filed by Nithin K.R., the husband of the 4th respondent, challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kayamkulam, dismissing a protest complaint under Section 203 CrPC in Crime No.214/2018. The protest petition alleged that respondents 4 to 9 conspired to abort the pregnancy of the 4th respondent against her will and in contravention of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, with offences under Sections 120B and 315 IPC read with Section 34, and Sections 3 to 5 of the MTP Act. The complainant claimed the termination occurred after pressure from the complainant’s in-laws and without compliance with statutory procedure, and that the investigation by Kayamkulam and Sooranad police was tainted or mishandled. The Magistrate conducted an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC and held there was no sufficient ground to proceed; Exts.P1–P4 were marked, though not proved. The petitioner contended that the court below ignored witnesses’ statements and materials on record, and that there was miscarriage of justice requiring further or fresh investigation by a central agency. The High Court, applying revisional principles and Vinay Tyagi, held that fresh investigations are rare and that there are no perverse findings to warrant interference, ultimately dismissing the petition. The materials on record do not establish a prima facie case of illegal termination.
Jollyamma V. Thomas, an HSST (Hindi) at St. Sebastian’s HSS, Koodaranji (an aided school under Kerala Education Act and Rules, managed by the Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Thamarassery), challenged an order (Exhibit P6) refusing approval of her promotion to HSST (Hindi) with effect from 01.06.2016. The Manager promoted her on 01.06.2016 after retirement but the 3rd respondent (RDD, Kozhikode) withheld approval on the ground that the appointment was not made through aSelection Board with a Government Nominee, allegedly violating relevant Rules and Government Orders. The petitioner argued that by-transfer appointments are governed by the Rules and that selection committees are not required for transfer, and that previous Government orders (Exhibits P7/P9) and existing jurisprudence support this. The Court reviewed Kerala Education Rules (Chapter XXXII, Rule 4(2); Note (ii) on seniority; Chapter XXXIII), and concluded that for by-transfer appointments the constitution of a Selection Committee with a Government Nominee is not mandatory; direct recruitment requires such a committee. Relying on decisions like WA 280/2020, the Court quashed Exhibit P6, and directed the 3rd respondent to regularize the petitioner’s service from 01.06.2016 to 24.03.2017 and grant retrospective approval with all consequential benefits. The judgment also emphasizes improving data management and administration in the General Education Department and proposes forming an expert committee to resolve systemic issues in governance and data sharing.
The writ petition (WP(C) No. 13307 of 2023) filed by Renjith K.S seeks a licence under the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 2016 to operate an armoury/shop dealing in arms and ammunition. The petitioner requests mandamus and other directions to complete all formalities under Form A-8 (as evidenced by Exts. P21 and P22) and to grant the licence for the premises rented in Pala Municipality, asserting entitlement based on the application filed. The petition relies on Renewed Arms Licence (Exhibit P1) and a chain of letters, certificates, and training credentials (Exhibits P2–P31) to demonstrate qualifications and compliance with the licensing regime. The respondents include the State of Kerala (Home Department), the Land Revenue Commissioner, District Magistrate/District Collector, Additional District Magistrate, and the District Police Chief of Kottayam. After hearing both sides, the learned Judge directed the competent authority among the respondents to pass appropriate orders in Exts. P21 and P22 expeditiously, specifically within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, and to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before final orders. The court disposed the petition with procedural directions rather than addressing the merits of the licence itself, and the Appendix lists numerous documentary exhibits supporting the petitioner’s case.
Shenil V.K. filed MACA No. 1409 of 2013 challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda’s award in O.P. (M.V) No. 1214/2008 arising from a motor vehicle accident on 10-06-2008. The insurer (3rd respondent) contested quantum and neglig ence, while admitting policy coverage; the 1st respondent admitted negligence. The Tribunal held the accident occurred due to the 1st respondent’s negligence and the insurer’s liability to pay. The appellant argued for higher compensation, contending the disability percentage (8%) certified in Ext. A11 should be accepted, and that the monthly income (Rs. 8,000) had not been demonstrably proven; hence Rs. 6,500 should be used per Supreme Court guidance (Ramachandrappa; Syed Sadiq). The Tribunal’s dismissal of Ext. A11’s disability certificate was challenged, and the appellant urged reassessment: higher disability compensation, increased loss of earnings for three months, and enhanced sums for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. The High Court agreed that the monthly income should be Rs. 6,500 using the cited precedents and accepted the 8% disability in Ext. A11, as clarified by Manikantan G. v. K. Janardhanan Nair. Consequently, the Court recalculated compensation, adding Rs. 1,12,320 for disability, Rs. 13,500 for loss of earnings, Rs. 11,000 for pain and suffering, and Rs. 15,000 for loss of amenities, totaling Rs. 1,51,820 as additional compensation.
RadhaKrishnan Pillai and others v. State of Kerala is a Kerala High Court bail petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The petitioners—five accused in Crime No.588/2025 of Sasthancotta Police Station, Kollam—are alleged to have trespassed into the Mannurkkavu Temple office, used filthy language, and committed mischief causing approximately Rs. 1,00,000 in loss. The only non-bailable offence among those charged is Section 333 of the BNS; other offences cited include Sections 351(3), 324(4), 189(2), 191(2), 190 and 296(b). The defense contended that the temple office is a public place and that, even if the allegations are accepted, custodial arrest is not necessary; the petitioners are ready to comply with reasonable conditions. The respondent-defacto complainant opposed bail, noting a subsequent incident on 06.04.2025 and urging restraint on extraordinary relief. The Public Prosecutor also opposed bail. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but observed that the maximum punishment under Sec.333 is up to seven years, citing Arnesh Kumar for a lenient approach to bail where punishment is not very severe, and emphasizing that arrest must be justified. Relying on other authorities (Chidambaram, Siddharth, Manish Sisodia, Anzar Azeez, Sushila Aggarwal, Joginder Kumar), the court granted bail with conditions: appearance before IO within two weeks, deposit of Rs.20,000 per petitioner, bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, and restrictions on travel and further offences. The order notes that observations are to decide the bail, and grants permission for the IO to investigate and recover as needed, with bail cancellable for violations. The decision affirms that bail is the rule and jail the exception.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These writ petitions challenge Government Order GO(MS) No.121/2022/G.Edn. dated 07.07.2022 and the prospectus forPlus One admission in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala. The core issue is whether the Government’s policy to reduce the management quota to 20% and the accompanying rider that 10% of seats be reserved for the community to which the manager belongs (to be admitted on merit) is constitutional. The Court traced the evolution of management quotas since 1990–1991, noting earlier GOs that fixed 20% management quota and 10% community quota, and examined prior judgments (including O.P.18658/2000 and subsequent orders) that shaped quota norms. It held that while the 20% management quota (GO 121/2022) is a valid policy decision that the Court should not disturb absent rights violations or manifest arbitrariness, the 10% community quota is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and thus unconstitutional. The Court directed that the 10% community seats be treated as open merit seats and allocated through the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP). Admissions already made on declarations would not be disturbed. The decision underscores judicial restraint in policy review but strikes down a discriminatory quota while upholding the policy to reduce management quota to 20%.
This criminal miscellaneous case arises from Crime No.146/2021 of Chittur Police Station, Palakkad, and the final report in CC No.348/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur, under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner, Nandagopal, seeks quashment of the FIR and the entire proceedings on the basis of a settlement between him and the defacto complainant, Ham Saveni (3rd respondent). The court directed recording of the defacto complainant’s statement; it is clear from the record that the parties have settled their disputes and are living separately, with the complainant having received compensation and no objection to quashing. The court relied on established jurisprudence beginning with Kulwinder Singh (2007) 4 CTC 769, affirmed in Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, supported by Madan Mohan Abbot (2008) 4 SCC 582, to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences where settlement is genuine and bonafide. The absence of a 3rd respondent’s affidavit did not bar relief. On these grounds, the court held that further proceedings would be futile and abusive, and allowed the Crl.M.C., quashing FIR No.146/2021, the Final Report in CC No.348/2021, and all further proceedings.
WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 These connected writ petitions challenge orders concerning the management and ownership of Kottappuram High School, Paravur, Kollam, a historic institution claimed to be jointly administered by the Kottavila and Chamavila Hindu families. The Kottappuram School, founded in 1907, is alleged to belong to the Kottavila family; Ext P4 partition deed (1947) created a family trust to administer its property as common property and required the elder male member of the Kottavila family to be Manager. In the mid-1990s, Chamavila family members obtained a joint management right. A suit (O.S. 67/1998) was filed; it was settled out of court by Lok Adalath through a compromise (Ext P6) in 2005, permitting a Chamavila family member to act as Joint Manager. The petitioner Sasidharan Pillai, who became Manager/Joint Manager in 2013, challenges the Chamavila claim and argues Ext P2, P3 orders relegated the matter to civil litigation; he relies on Ext P4 establishing Kottavila ownership and asserts that the Chamavila claim is invalid; the 7th respondent claims they have a right to joint management. The government authorities had directed that the dispute be resolved in civil courts; the DPIs and Government are to decide where possible under the Act. The court ultimately remits the matter for reconsideration, setting aside certain orders (Exts P6, P7, P10), directs the Government to consider Exts P1–P5, hear the involved parties, and decide whether the dispute can be resolved without civil proceedings, with the District Education Officer acting as Manager in the interim and a decision to be rendered within three months.
This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, filed by Anil T K, the accused in Crime No.504/2025 of Chadayamangalam Police Station, Kollam. The FIR alleges offences under sections 126(2), 351(2), 115(2), 296(b), 118(1) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, arising from an incident on 27.03.2025 near the petitioner’s residence in which a defacto complainant (a collection agent for Vanchinad Finance) was allegedly beaten, abused, and threatened; the complainant sustained a hairline fracture to the right index finger. The petitioner claimed the complainant created a scene at his home, and that the disputed events did not occur as alleged. He expressed willingness to abide stringent conditions if granted bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but noted no criminal antecedents from the IO report. The High Court acknowledged the gravity of the alleged injury but observed the incident occurred near the petitioner’s home and that there were no antecedents. Relying on the doctrine that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and citing decisions including Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of UP, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Anzar Azeez, and Sushila Aggarwal, the Court granted bail with conditions. The order lists mandatory steps: appearance before IO within two weeks, a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, ongoing IO appearances, no international travel without court permission, and compliance with other conditions, until final report is filed.
Royal Blue Hotels Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging alleged malpractices in sales tax assessments of its hotel Lake Palace and seeking police action against a bribe demand by Sabu Kumar, then Deputy Commissioner of the State Goods and Services Tax (KGST) Department, and others. The petition contends that for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17, the hotel was assessed with gross profit at 175% instead of the conceded 52%, an order later modified on appeal to 120%. For 2018-19 and 2019-20, notices were issued by Sajith P.S. purportedly relying on a 07.04.2022 enquiry report attributed to Sabu Kumar, though the petitioner claims no such enquiry occurred. The RTI disclosure of the report (Exhibit P1) and a complaint dated 29.09.2022 (Exhibit P2) describe a demand of Rs. 25 lakhs for a favorable assessment, in addition to hospitality provided to the officer. The petitioner contends that the actions constitute cognizable offences and seeks directions for FIR or preliminary enquiry. The respondents invoke Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, arguing that investigations into offences relatable to a public servant’s official functions require prior approval. The High Court held that the alleged offences are not relatable to such recommendations/decisions, thus 17A does not bar investigation, and directed VACB to conduct a preliminary enquiry within one month, with liberty to produce further material. The petition was disposed accordingly.
The Kerala High Court heard CRL.A. No. 651 of 2017, challenging the 22 May 2017 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram, which convicted the sole accused, Devendor Singh @ Bhandichor, of offences under Sections 457, 461, 380, 413 and 201 IPC and imposed substantial imprisonment along with fines. The incidents trace to 21 January 2013 when the accused allegedly trespassed into the residence of PW1, stole valuables including a Mitsubishi Outlander, and used forged vehicle documents to dispose of the car. The prosecution examined numerous witnesses and marked hundreds of exhibits. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to prove entry into the dwelling and the alleged theft beyond reasonable doubt, that certain confessional or recovery evidence was improperly obtained, and that Section 379/380 cannot be joined with offences under 411 to 414 IPC; they contended that the accused could not be a habitual offender. The trial court had charged the accused with 457, 461, 380 and later incorporated 413, with committal to the Sessions. The High Court addressed issues on possession versus ownership in theft, the propriety of framing 413 along with other offences, and the legal doctrine governing the joining and sequencing of offences (citing Uttom Koondoo and Rajasthan v. Gheeya). Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court’s decision as legally tenable.
Thomas John, the accused in Crime No. 153/2025 of Medical College Police Station, Thrissur, seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. He is charged with offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC for allegedly cheating the defacto complainant by offering visas and jobs in the U.K., New Zealand and Australia, with the promised opportunities not materializing and the money not returned. The petitioner has been in custody since 03 February 2025 and his arrest in this case was recorded on 22 March 2025. Counsel for the petitioner argued that indefinite incarceration is unwarranted and that bail should be granted with suitable conditions to ensure a fair trial. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations and indicating the petitioner’s involvement in several other cases. The Judge acknowledged the gravity of the charges but reaffirmed the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that a court can grant bail subject to conditions. Relying on Chidambaram P v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, the court held that bail can be granted with conditions if justified by circumstances. Accordingly, the application is allowed, with bond of Rs.50,000 and two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, travel restrictions, non-violation of laws, and cancellation on breach.
The petitioners, a large group of employees and beneficiaries, file WP(C) No. 6265 of 2020 seeking higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme as amended in 2014. They contend that the amended scheme provides for enhanced pension benefits and that their pension under the older framework is inadequate. The respondents reference a Supreme Court ruling upholding the validity of the 2014 amendment, namely Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B. (2022) 7 KHC 12, which, according to them, permits fresh claims under the amended framework. The Kerala High Court notes this Supreme Court validation and, accordingly, disposes of the petition by directing the petitioners to file fresh applications for enhanced pension under the amended scheme. The applications are to be considered by the appropriate EPFO authority without delay and in accordance with the amended scheme and Supreme Court directions. The appendix lists several exhibits and prior judgments in EPF matters. Overall, the judgment reinforces that pension enhancements must be sought under the amended scheme, guiding petitioners and the EPFO to a structured, expedited procedure consistent with higher court directives.”
This is Bail Application No.1712 of 2023 filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by accused nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.271/2023 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram district, under sections 420 read with 34 IPC. The de facto complainant, a shareholder of Aagaz Properties Pvt. Ltd., alleged that the company availed a loan of ₹8 crore from South Indian Bank and offered landed assets as collateral without a valid special resolution, allegedly violating Sections 185 and 186 of the Companies Act, 2013, thereby prejudicing shareholders. The petitioners contended that private companies are exempt from Section 185 via a 5 June 2015 notification and that Section 186(ii) does not apply to loans to employees, including the Managing Director. They argued the Registrar of Companies had already received a similar complaint and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, pointing to legal questions to be decided on documents rather than interrogation. The de facto complainant opposed bail, contending the acts offend Company Law provisions and IPC 420 r/w 34. After hearing, the Court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary in this matter and granted bail to accused nos. 1–3 with conditions including appearance before the IO within ten days, bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties, continued cooperation with investigation, non-issuance of threats, no travel outside India without court permission, and prohibition on committing similar offences. The Court also noted police power to investigate or recover during bail, citing Sushila Aggarwal.
This High Court of Kerala bail application concerns four accused (1, 2, 4 and 6) in Crime No. 32 of 2023 of Neyyardam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, invoking Section 439 CrPC for regular bail. The prosecution alleges that at about 9:30 p.m. on 15 January 2023, the accused formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with knowledge of a common object to commit murder of the defacto complainant, restrained him, and assaulted him. The offences alleged include IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 r/w 149. According to the petitioners, they are innocent and the allegations are false; it is argued that the defacto complainant, intoxicated, attempted to sexually assault the wife of the first accused, and the petitioners intervened to save her, resulting in a scuffle. A counter case was filed against the wife alleging offences under IPC sections including 294(b), 451, 506(i), 323, 354(B) and 354, as well as Section 3(i)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court noted the accused were in custody from 18.01.2023, and after perusal of the case diary and wound certificate showing multiple injuries, held that prima facie the offences are established but that ongoing investigation and custody warrant bail on conditions. The order grants regular bail with conditions aimed at ensuring cooperation and preventing interference with witnesses and flight.
This writ petition concerns whether a joint locker hirer can operate a safe deposit locker after the death of a co-hirer without obtaining letters of administration or probate. The petitioners Lalithambika (wife) and her daughter Salini and son Shyamlal were joint hirers of Locker No. 26 at the State Bank of India, Chadayamangalam Branch, Kollam. Sasidharan Pillai, the husband and co-hirer, died on 31 July 2022. The petitioners claim they are the sole legal heirs and should be permitted to operate the locker; the bank refused, demanding probate or Letters of Administration (LOA). Respondents rely on RBI circulars, including R2(a) dated 18.08.2021 and R2(b) dated 20.01.2022, and on bank policy requiring proof of legal representation to access the contents, arguing that possession of the locker must be limited to the survivor or nominee with appropriate documentation. The court notes that during the lifetime of Sasidharan Pillai, the petitioners were allowed to operate the locker independently, and RBI circulars address nomination and settlement upon death rather than denying joint access. It cites Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2019) and Hepzibah Annathai Rengachari v. R. Ananthalakshmi Rangachari (1975) to support that letters of administration may be unnecessary in joint holdings payable to survivor. The court also considers the exception under Section 255 of the Indian Succession Act and disagrees with strict LOA requirements. The writ petition is allowed, declaring the first petitioner entitled, as of right, to operate the locker, and directing the bank to permit operation.
CRL.A Nos.269 & 526 of 2016 This is a consolidated challenge to convictions arising from a 2006 murder in which the trial court had convicted accused nos. 2, 4 and 5 in different sessions cases for offences including murder (IPC Sections 302, 364, 395, 307, 143, 147, 148 with 149), and imposed sentences including life terms. The High Court, on hearing the two appeals under CRL.A. Nos. 269 and 526 of 2016 before a Division Bench, undertook a reappraisal of the evidence. The prosecution relied on a sequence of overt acts narrated by PW1, eyewitness identification, TIP (trial identification parade) and various recoveries linking the accused to the crime. The court re-examined the reliability of eyewitness identification, especially given the high-intensity, nighttime setting and the timing of identifications, the absence of consistent details, and the possibility of post-incident identification. It critically assessed the TIP procedure, questioning delay, exposure risks, and masking of faces. The court also scrutinised the circumstantial materials such as recovered articles, weapons, and fingerprints, finding them insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of earlier acquittals of other co-accused in related proceedings and the lack of consistent corroboration. Ultimately, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeals, resulting in acquittal of the appellants and their immediate release.
This writ petition concerns petitioners Binu Joy and Beena P. Babu, owners of a 3.15 ares plot in Peringanattu Village, Pathanamthitta District, who seek a permit to construct a commercial building. They contend that Ext.P2, a 23.12.2002 Adoor Municipality resolution, and Ext.P3 (25.07.2016) notarized agreement, conferred an access/right of way to their predecessor, allowing ingress and egress to the land via a 19-metre strip near the Municipal Private Bus Stand. They argue that Ext.P2 binds the Municipality to permit construction on the basis of that resolution, treating the 19-metre access as an accepted road to their property. Respondents counter that Ext.P2 does not grant a right of way over municipal land; any right would arise only as an easement of necessity or by prescription and must be adjudicated in civil court. They further contend that creation of rights on municipal land requires government sanction under S.215 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the accompanying Rules. The court notes the property was landlocked at purchase and that any right of access, if at all, would be an easement needing proof in a court. It relies on Anil Kumar v. Aluva Municipality to emphasize government authorization. Since issues are factual and writ jurisdiction is unsuitable for resolving such rights, the petition is dismissed with liberty to seek appropriate remedies in a proper forum.
