Dr. Babu Ramachandran, M.D., Chairman and Managing Director of Tely Medical Centre Ltd., challenges the quashment of proceedings against him in C.C. No.19/2018 (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery) arising from Crime No.1232/2017. The FIR alleges that, on the night of 29.11.2017, wastewater from the hospital was discharged into the Eranjoli river in a tipper lorry owned by the 2nd accused and driven by the 3rd accused. The petitioner is implicated as the Managing Director and licensee of the hospital, but the case record reportedly lacks direct evidence connecting him to the act of discharge. The petition relies on Section 559 of the Kerala Municipality Act, which makes a person in charge of a company liable only if the company itself is charged, and cites Supreme Court decisions such as Aneeta Hada and Sushil Sethi to argue that the company must be arraigned to hold directors vicariously liable. The State and the 2nd respondent oppose. The High Court scrutinizes the materials and finds a paucity of evidence to link the petitioner to the offence; it endorses strict construction of statutory provisions and holds that proceeding against the petitioner is unsustainable without arraigning the company. Consequently, the court allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes the final report and all proceedings against the petitioner, while proceedings against other accused may continue.
The sole appellant, Sanath Roy, was convicted by the IV Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, for offences under Sections 449, 302 and 397 IPC in connection with the 2012 murder of Pradeep Roy alias Dheeru at a bricks unit in Aalumthai, based largely on circumstantial evidence and material recoveries. On appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC, the Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench (P.B. Suresh Kumar, J. and P.G. Ajithkumar, J.), examined whether the chain of circumstances reasonably proved the accused’s guilt and whether the disclosures said to have been made by him to PW17 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act could be admitted. The court accepted that the prosecution’s case rested on PW3’s identification at night and on the alleged disclosures to PW17 leading to seizure of MO4 (chopper), MO5/MO6 (mobile phones), MO1 purse and MO2 identity card, but held that the Section 27 disclosures were inadmissible because they were not recorded in the language spoken by the accused and the translator’s role was not properly established. It concluded that, even if the disclosures were excluded, the remaining evidence did not establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the motive and last-seen theories could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment set aside, and the appellant acquitted and to be released forthwith.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C No. 5388 of 2023) filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 seeking to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in CC No. 540/2019 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class III, Kozhikode, arising from Crime No. 444/2019 at Kasaba Police Station. The petition asserts that the parties have amicably settled their dispute, with the de facto complainant stating no lasting grievances in an accompanying affidavit. The petition contends that the offences cited (323, 325 and 341 read with 34 IPC) are non-compoundable, private in nature, and that quashing would serve the ends of justice by preserving peace and conserving judicial time and resources. The Public Prosecutor, while noting the absence of other serious crimes against the petitioners, expresses reservations about invoking 482 solely on the basis of compromise and highlights that certain offences remain of serious nature or arise under special statutes. The court relies on Supreme Court precedents—State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab—to articulate that 482 may be exercised in non-compoundable, civil-character disputes when the settlement is genuine, but not for heinous offences or special statutes. After weighing gravity, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the court exercises its inherent jurisdiction and quashes the final report and further proceedings. The petition is allowed, ending the case with peace and justice.
This is a first appeal from a Kerala High Court judgment arising from an interlocutory application under Section 25(1)(b) of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The appellants (members of the Sree Narayana Health Care Society) challenge an Addl. District Judge, Kollam order dismissing their interim injunction petition in OP (Society) No.122/2021, which sought to restrain the first respondent society from admitting new members or altering the membership register during the pendency of the main petition for framing a scheme. The petition contends that the Byelaw clause 5(d)(1) designates sponsor membership to the Sree Narayana Educational Society (SNES), enabling it to nominate 21 General Body members and seven to the Executive Committee, effectively giving SNES control over governance. The appellants argue this contravenes Section 2(b) of the TC Act and undermines the basic structure and rights of ordinary members; they rely on Section 25 as a remedial mechanism to frame a scheme. The respondents defend sponsor membership as a legitimate governance feature and emphasize SNES’s founder role and the success of the institution. The High Court, while noting the importance of internal governance and the need for detailed trial court adjudication, sets aside the impugned order, directs accelerated disposal of the suit, and maintains a status quo on new admissions until final disposal.
This writ petition challenges the disciplinary action and subsequent orders taken against late K. Anandarajan, a Constable of the Railway Protection Force, culminating in his removal from service and the allied appellate orders. The misconduct arose from a 19 December 1990 incident at Ernakulam involving an unauthorised vendor, where a second steel flask was allegedly handed over to the vendor by Anandarajan for a consideration, following a court directive to return seized property. Six witnesses testified, but none saw Anandarajan hand over the second flask; the only incriminating material was a statement attributed to the vendor (Sulaiman) recorded by SIPF/ERS. The disciplinary proceedings were challenged on the ground that a copy of the enquiry report and an opportunity to respond to the findings were not provided, violating natural justice. The High Court had previously quashed the post-report stage of the proceedings (Ext.P1), directing a fresh opportunity to represent against findings and proposed punishment, and reinstated Anandarajan (Ext.P2) with a fresh enquiry (Ext.P3). The penalty order (Ext.P5) and the appellate order (Ext.P8) were challenged as based on no or insufficient evidence. The Court ultimately held that the finding of guilt was based on no evidence, set aside Exts.P5 and P8, and directed disbursement of benefits to the petitioner’s widow within three months, emphasizing that discipline proceedings require some evidence and cannot be sustained on surmises.
Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD) filed WP(C) No. 5627 of 2019 challenging an interim order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (KS HRC) dated 30 November 2018. The order directed the Director, IHRD, to grant revised salary benefits to IHRD workers and guest lecturers in line with the Government’s 10th Pay Commission recommendations. IHRD contends that KS HRC Regulation 17( f ) excludes civil disputes, service matters, labour or industrial disputes from the Commission’s jurisdiction, and Regulation 38 empowers only hearing after summons; the Commission allegedly passed the order without hearing or service of notice, violating principles of natural justice. It was also argued that the Government has not yet decided to implement the 10th Pay Commission, and 9th Pay Revision funds have not been fully implemented, so immediate payment is unwarranted. The petitioner invoked Malabar Cements and District Tourism Promotion Council decisions to argue that HSRC’s jurisdiction over service matters is limited and that interim relief cannot substitute final relief. The court examined Regulation 17’s maintainability criteria and found that the HSRC exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing the interim order in a matter of service pay, without proper notice or hearing and without a valid government backdrop. Consequently, the court set aside the interim order and allowed the writ petition, quashing related proceedings before the HSRC.
W.A. Nos. 729/2016, 978/2016, 1199/2016 & 1284/2016 These four writ appeals, consolidated, challenge orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Ernakulam under the RDDBFI Act, 1993, relating to sale of secured assets following recovery certificates. The court reevaluates whether the DRT’s sale, effected through a Recovery Officer and Recovery Inspector, complied with statutory requirements under the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, the IT Act/Rule regime, and the provision of the RDDBFI Act. The judgment addresses: (i) maintainability of writ petitions given the availability of an appellate remedy, especially in light of the non-sitting Appellate Tribunal at Chennai; (ii) whether proper authority and rules (Rule 13, Rule 15, Rule 19A, Rule 8/9, Rule 61) were observed in the sale; (iii) whether adjournments and absence of fresh proclamation beyond one calendar month necessitated a fresh proclamation; and (iv) the appropriate balance between public policy and borrower injury. It records impleading of legal heirs of parties whose respondents had died, and ultimately reiterates the original judgment pronounced on 12 April 2023, declaring that all subsequent proceedings are to form part of the judgment. The bench, a Division Bench, reaffirms the earlier order and disposes of the appeals.
This Kerala High Court judgment, delivered by a Division Bench, concerns three petitioners in OP(KAT) No. 250 of 2022 who challenged Annexure A6 (01.07.2021) Government Order by the Higher Education Department, rejecting their request to report substantive vacancies existing before the expiry of the Annexure A1 ranked list for advice and appointment by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC). The petitioners, ranked 73, 81 and 92 in the 2015 ranked list for Lecturer in Computer Engineering (Polytechnic), argued that vacancies arising during the lifetime of the list should be reported and filled, and that post-expiry vacancies ought to be advised from the same list. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Addl. Bench) had dismissed their OA 87/2022 on 20.04.2022, noting that the ranked list expired on 05.05.2018 and that, once expired, directions to advise on vacancies could not be issued, citing Vimalakumari v. State of Kerala. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s approach, relying on Shaina.C. v. PSC (2020/2022) to emphasize that vacancy reporting lies within the appointing authority’s domain and that the PSC cannot direct departmental reporting. It distinguished State of Kerala v. C.A. Sreekantan (1993 KLJ 401) and found no mala fide on the part of respondents. Ultimately, the petition is dismissed, preserving the Tribunal’s order.
Rajesh Babu K.G., a regular Upper Primary School Teacher who was promoted to High School Teacher (Physical Science) at TM Varghese Memorial High School, field WP(C) No. 5264 of 2023 seeking mandamus to sanction and disburse revised salary in the promoted post with effect from 15.07.2021; to grant 15 years’ higher grade in the Upper Primary cadre from 14.06.2015; to provide 2019 pay revision benefits; and to declare entitlement to the revised salary and allowances in view of Exts P7 and P8. He contends that although his promotion to H.S.T (Physical Science) received approval (Exts P7–P8), he has been drawing salary only in the lower post due to a technical defect in SPARK data uploading. The petition traces his service since 2000, his promotion history and an earlier revisional order (07.06.2017) in WP(c) No. 18898/2017 that dealt with qualifications for a post. The respondents include the State, the Director of General Education, the Deputy Director (Education), the District Educational Officer, SPARK-PMU, the Manager and Headmistress of the school, and an additional 8th respondent, Secretary to Government, Finance (SPARK-PMU). After hearing, the Court held that the petitioner’s promotion to H.S.A (Physical Science) was approved and directed immediate disbursement of salary, along with processing of the higher grade and 2019 pay revision, while noting SPARK-upload issues as the cause of delay and directing timely action by the authorities.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a civil dispute in which the plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule building after termination of a licence arrangement. The defendant contends that the occupation arose not as a licence but as a lease, making him a tenant. The Trial Court held that the arrangement amounted to a licence and ordered vacatur along with damages for use and occupation from 01.06.2010; the Sub Court in AS No.64 of 2015 and the High Court on appeal affirmed this. The appeal hinges on whether Ext.A1, titled a “license deed,” creates a lease by virtue of exclusive possession or a mere licence granting occupation without transfer of interest. The court recalls the long-standing distinction between lease and licence, citing the six-parameter test from Delta International Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar Ganeriwalla and the landmark Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor, that the intention of the parties and the reality of possession govern the true relationship, not mere nomenclature. It also cites subsequent rulings including Victory Iron Works Ltd., Guruashish Constructions (P) Ltd., Nazir Mohamed, Government of Kerala v. Joseph, and Santosh Hazari/Kondiba Kadam to emphasize the proper framing of substantial questions of law for second appeals. Ultimately, the High Court concludes Ext.A1 conveys a licence, not a lease, and dismisses the second appeal as meritless, with orders to communicate the decision to trial and appellate courts.
Antony Sajan, the appellant, was convicted under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession of multiple ampules of Buprenorphine and related drugs seized on 30/9/2015. The prosecution case rested on seizure at Palachuvadu junction during police patrolling, followed by arrest and seizure memos, with notes and samples sent to court. On appeal (Criminal Appeal No.147 of 2021), the defence raised multiple irregularities: unexplained delay in FIR registration (18 hours post-seizure), delay in forwarding the FIR to court, and delay in producing the accused before a Magistrate within 24 hours; delay in producing the seized contraband in court; absence of the specimen seal on the seizure mahazar; and non-compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act. The appellant argued that these delays and omissions created a “shadow of doubt” over the integrity of the evidence, including sampling and storage of drugs, and suggested possible tampering. The Public Prosecutor countered that delays were explained and not prejudicial. The High Court, after analyzing the record and reliance on precedents (Gian Chand, Faijas, Shameer, Hansraj, and others), held that delays cannot be treated as ritualistic proof against the prosecution, especially where other factors undermine reliability. On balance, the court concluded that the prosecution’s omissions and inconsistent evidence warranted giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant, resulting in acquittal and setting aside the trial court’s conviction.
This appeal arises from MACA No.1708 of 2017 challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam award in OP(MV) No.304/2014, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of Satheesan Pillai in a road traffic collision on 04.11.2013. The deceased, a reportedly hardworking individual, left behind his wife and three children who claimed Rs.15,00,000 as compensation. The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider (1st respondent) and the car driver (4th respondent); the insurer (2nd respondent) and another insurer (5th respondent) defended the claim, while contesting liability and/or quantum. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,16,600 with 9% interest, ordering insurers to pay equally and allowing recovery from the driver due to lack of a valid licence by the rider. On appeal, the appellants contended that the income of the deceased was underestimated (they claimed about Rs.30,000/month), and that higher compensation should be awarded, guided by principles in Ramachandrappa, Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, including 25% future prospects, 14 multiplier, and 1/3 deduction. The High Court recalculated the quantum: loss of dependency Rs.12,60,000; future prospects Rs.2,01,600; loss of consortium Rs.1,45,200; loss of estate and funeral Rs.18,150 each; pain and suffering enhanced to Rs.25,000; others unchanged, yielding a total of Rs.14,69,500. The appeal was allowed in part, with enhanced compensation and a pay-and-recover framework retained, plus 8% interest on enhanced amount.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5129 OF 2025 Petitioner Rishi Sajeev, aged 20, is an accused in Crime No. 400/2025 registered at Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam, facing charges under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(b) and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for allegedly possessing 0.76 grams of MDMA and 4.80 kilograms of ganja. He seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), contending that he has been in custody since 25 February 2025 and that the contraband constitutes an intermediate quantity, with Section 37 of the NDPS Act not attracted. The petitioner expresses willingness to comply with stringent conditions. The State Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting criminal antecedents and involvement in another case with similar allegations. The court notes that a prior bail application (B.A. No. 4161/2025) was refused and that the petitioner withdrew that application. The court observes that, although the contraband is an intermediate quantity, the doctrine that bail is the rule and jail the exception applies, and imprisonment for 46 days is not inherently excessive. Relying on jurisprudence including 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 holds that bail can be granted with stringent conditions if statutory criteria are satisfied and directs release on bail with conditions.
WP(C) Nos. 33774/2018; 33778/2018; 33932/2018; 3529/2019; 5443/2019; 5478/2019; 5510/2019; 8293/2019; 10979/2019; 13419/2019; 5498/2023 These writ petitions, filed by various motor-transport undertakings and individuals, challenge the insistence by regional transport authorities on remittance proofs to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund (KMTWWF) and the associated motor tax under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The petitioners contend that their undertakings are already covered by the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act), and therefore should be exempt from contributions to the Welfare Fund under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (KMTWWF Act). The petitioners rely on the proviso to Section 4 of the KMTWWF Act and argue that the EPF/Gratuity Act regime should suffice, obviating Welfare Fund contributions. The court reiterates the statutory framework: KMTWWF Act requires contributions (Sec. 4), with a proviso exempting undertakings already covered by EPF/Gratuity/other acts; Sec. 4(7) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act requires production of records of contributions, when applicable. A key issue is whether exemptions must be adjudicated by the Welfare Fund Board or can be determined via writ jurisdiction. The court cites George Antony v. State of Kerala (2008) for the proposition that exemption and coverage must be decided in adjudication proceedings, not by the writ court, and then issues broad directions to expeditiously process exemptions by certificates issued by the District Executive Officer upon verification of EPF remittance, with RTOs accepting tax on production of such clearance. The result is not a decision on merits but a procedural framework to harmonize EPF coverage with Welfare Fund obligations and motor tax collection.
CRL.A NO. 986 OF 2021; CRL.A NO. 570 OF 2021; CRL.A NO. 511 OF 2021; CRL.A NO. 887 OF 2021; CRL.A NO. 479 OF 2021; CRL.A NO. 237/2023 These connected criminal appeals arise from Crime No.413/2018 registered at Irinjalakuda Police Station, Thrissur, challenging a conviction by the Addl. Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy and a brutal assault on Vineeth and his family on the night of 27 May 2018, resulting in Vijayan’s death and multiple injuries to family members. The High Court of Kerala, in a common judgment dated 3 April 2025, examined complex evidence including eyewitness testimony (notably the wife PW1), seizure of weapons (MO1–MO39) and articles, post‑mortem findings, and expert reports, along with testimony of medical staff and police officers. The Bench affirmed many findings but partly allowed the appeals: the conviction of accused Nos. 1–3 and 5 under Section 120B with 302 IPC was set aside, while convictions under other charged sections (e.g., 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 450 and 302 with 149) were upheld. The 4th and 8th accused appeals were dismissed. The court held Vijayan’s death homicidal and that identification in court was credible even without a test identification parade; it also cautioned against over-reliance on recoveries lacking direct link evidence. The judgment clarifies evidentiary nuances in identifying, recovering, and linking accused in Kerala’s criminal jurisprudence.
This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges a Family Court Palakkad order (I.A.5/2021 in O.P.930/2018) that granted maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife at Rs.6,500 per month from 03.10.2018 and Rs.10,000 toward litigation expenses. The High Court reviews the scope of superintendence over subordinate courts, emphasizing that Article 227 is not an appellate remedy and should be exercised to correct grave derelictions of duty, gross injustice, or violations of natural justice, with interference kept to a minimum to maintain the wheel of justice. The Court cites Shalini Shyam Shetty, Jai Singh, K.V.S. Ram, and Sobhana Nair to explain the contours of supervisory jurisdiction. It acknowledges that the Family Court’s underlying reasoning on Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not per se illegal or perverse, but finds a material irregularity in granting pendente lite from 03.10.2018, based on materials not available to the Family Court. Consequently, the Court sets aside that portion and modifies the impugned order to grant pendente lite from 11.11.2021 (the date of the interlocutory application), while disposing of the petition as modified. The judgment also notes that post-petition documents cannot be entertained in Article 227 proceedings and relies on cited authorities to delineate the permissible scope of interference.
This High Court of Kerala, in MACA No. 2865 of 2014, heard an appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, in OP (MV) No. 1774 of 2006. The appellant, a 21-year-old final-year B.Tech student, sustained serious injuries on 30 March 2006 when his motorcycle was struck by a jeep; negligence of the driver was found by the Tribunal, which awarded Rs. 1,05,820 against a claim of Rs. 6,00,000 and directed the insurer to pay. The insurer challenged the quantum, and the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in income fixation, disability assessment, and heads of compensation. The High Court examines the notional income for a finishing engineering student in 2006, citing Ramakrishna Pillai K. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Fathima Suhara, and fixes the notional monthly income at Rs.12,000. Disability is accepted at 15% as per Ext. A22, with arguments about the admissibility of that certificate. The Court applies 40% future prospects (Pranay Sethi) and a multiplier of 18 (Sarla Verma) to recompute loss of disability at Rs.5,44,320, and awards additional amounts for loss of study, pain, nourishment, and bystander expenses, totaling Rs.6,84,640. The appeal is allowed in part, with directions for deposit and disbursement of the enhanced amount.
The petitioner, Neeraj A, a bank account holder, approached the Kerala High Court in WP(C) No. 14203 of 2025 seeking quashing of a debit freeze on his bank account No. 40131101107045, imposed by Kerala Gramin Bank pursuant to police requisitions from respondents 5 and 6. The petition asserts the freeze is illegal and arbitrary, interfering with the petitioner’s ability to transact. The Respondents include RBI, National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, State Police Chief, and city police units across India, reflecting a broad enforcement framework in cybercrime investigations. The court heard submissions from the petitioner’s counsel and government counsel. It relied on earlier precedents, notably Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) and Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC Online 768), which mandated that freezing orders be confined to the exact amounts specified by police and that authorities inform banks if continuation is required within a concrete timeframe. The judgment aligns with these decisions, directing the first respondent bank to limit the freeze to the stated amount, and requiring police to communicate whether continued freezing is necessary, with banks acting accordingly. It also imposes time-bound reporting requirements under the provisions discussed (S.102 Cr.P.C. as interpreted by the 2023 BNSS) and directs service of the judgment to the relevant officers. The petition is disposed with these directions.
This writ appeal, WA 1128 of 2023, challenges the order of a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.15568 of 2013 directing the appellants to treat the respondent’s landed property as not being “bought-in land” and to permit settlement of sales tax arrears under the amnesty scheme, with the property to be released upon payment of dues with interest within a prescribed period. The respondent, Kiran Gupta, contends that her business premises and land were subjected to tax recovery and that the amnesty scheme allowed settlement of arrears, with a prior direction by this Court on 20 January 2011 to the Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-1, Kozhikode, to reconsider the matter. The appellants argue that revenue recovery actions were completed; the property was under state custody and slated for distribution to landless persons; the petitioner allegedly failed to clear dues for 1993–94, and the petition was filed after a decade, making equity untenable. The Government pleader relies on Supreme Court precedents to oppose mandamus relief and highlight that equity cannot override statutory rights. The High Court ultimately allows the appeal, setting aside the Single Judge’s order and dismissing the writ petition, reinforcing the primacy of statutory process and the defence of laches in revenue matters.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 filed by K.N. Krishnakumar, secretary of the Thekkan Chittoor Sree Krishna Swamy Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi, challenging the Cochin Devaswom Board’s plan to let out shop room No. III/735 in the Devaswom Shopping Complex at South Chittoor and seeking a mandamus to abstain from the lease in violation of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, especially Section 86. The petition contends that any alienation of Devaswom property requires prior sanction of the Board or Civil Court where a Receiver is appointed, and that a lease deed dated 20.11.2015, which allegedly created a tenancy until demolition, lacks the Board’s signatures and undermines statutory safeguards. The Board’s stand, summarized during the hearing, is that it intends to demolish the existing structure to construct a multistoried shopping complex, and that the lease arrangement was entered into with the aim of generating income for the Devaswom, a necessity given the Board’s fiduciary duties. The Court recalls statutory provisions (Sections 62, 62A, 62B, 68, 73A, 74, 86) and precedent from T. Krishnakumar and Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board, along with M.V. Ramasubbiar, to emphasize prudent, income-generating management of Devaswom properties. The matter culminates in a directions-oriented disposition directing an enquiry to be conducted by the Devaswom Commissioner, with action against officers if warranted, to be completed within three months, thereby balancing preservation of patrimony with need for revenue.
