This Kerala High Court judgment arises from ITA No. 39 of 2018 (AY 2009-10) challenging an ITA Tribunal order (Cochin Bench) that disallowed various claims relating to Rule 7A(2) allowances, maintenance deductions, and losses from a rubber sheet factory. The Full Bench was invoked to determine two pivotal questions under Rule 7A(2): (a) whether the assessee is entitled to an allowance for the replacement cost of dead or useless rubber trees in an area not abandoned, subject to Sec. 10(31) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; and (b) whether upkeep and maintenance expenses incurred by the assessee till maturity of the rubber trees are revenue expenditures deductible under Sec. 37. The judgment also considers whether the loss from the Rubber Sheeting Factory is allowable and how it should be treated under Rule 7A(2) in light of the activity being incidental to agriculture or constituting a separate business. The court ultimately held that the two facets are in the assessee’s favour (to be applied in computation), but remitted the remaining issues for fresh assessment. The tribunal’s conclusions were anchored in a prior Division Bench decision and the Full Bench order of 01.08.2022. The appeal is allowed in part with no costs, and the matter is remitted to the AO for assessment consistent with the Full Bench ruling.
The appellant, Xavier @ Panicker Kunjumon, was charged with murder under Section 302 IPC for a 7 March 2016 incident in a shed near ESI Hospital, Ernakulam North, where the deceased Unnikrishnan allegedly sustained fatal injuries after an altercation during liquor consumption. The trial court, First Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 and an additional six months’ rigorous imprisonment for non-payment of the fine. The prosecution’s case rested on oral evidence from multiple witnesses (PW1, PW8, PW9, PW3-4, PW5-6, PW7) and medical testimony (PW11, PW12) plus the recovery of MO1, a brick, on the basis of the accused’s disclosure statements (Exhibit P4). Exhibit P6 and the wound certificate suggested injuries occurring on 7 March 2016, with the death linked to chest trauma. The defense raised several issues: delay in FIR, inconsistencies in PW1’s testimony and FIS, reliability of PW9’s assertion about the assault, and the questionable link of MO1 to the incident; it also challenged the dying declaration by PW8 and the reliability of the circumstantial chain. The Kerala High Court, while noting the circumstantial nature of the evidence, found serious contradictions, omissions, and lack of direct proof connecting the brick to the crime. It held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant and directing his release.
The Kerala High Court, in Crl.R.P. No.191 of 2023, heard a criminal revision against an order denying a Section 243 Cr.P.C. request to send Ext.P1 (a cheque) for handwriting expert examination. The petitioner, Oolamkunnath O.M. Sindhu, alleges that the cheque issued in favour of the first respondent, Alokandy Krishnan, was old and that the signature/entries were not made by him; the cheque later bounced for insufficient funds, giving rise to a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court examined PW1–PW4 and marked Exts. P1–P7, and then dismissed the petitioner’s application under Section 243 Cr.P.C. to obtain handwriting expert opinion. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the cheque belonged to an older security arrangement and was not recently executed; the defence contends the cheque may not bear his handwriting, thereby rebutting the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act. Respondents argue that the accused admitted issuing a blank signed cheque, making handwriting evidence immaterial under the decision Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari, and that the presumption should stand. The High Court relied on Rangappa v. Sri Mohan and Nagappa T v. Y.R. Muralidhar to emphasize that a probable defence requiring rebuttal requires opportunity for evidence. The court allowed the revision petition, directing immediate referral of Ext.P1 to handwriting experts and continuing proceedings after receipt of expert opinion.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5098 OF 2025 Shinoj, the first accused in Crime No. 202/2025 of Parappanangadi Police Station, Malappuram, applies for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The prosecution alleges offences under BNSS Sections 110, 351(2), and 329(3) read with 3(5). The incident, dated 22.02.2025 near Paruthikkad, involved the petitioner and a co-accused following the defacto complainant, with the second accused brandishing a sword and attacking the complainant, causing injuries and threatening to kill. The petitioner contends he has been in custody since 23.02.2025 and is willing to comply with stringent conditions if released. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing criminal antecedents. After hearing, the court notes the antecedents but emphasizes the detention period and decides that the petitioner can be released on bail with stringent conditions. The court recalls the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and aligns with Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, while applying Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. The bail is granted on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, with conditions including appearance before the IO, no leaving the country without permission, and refraining from further offences. The order clarifies the bail is for the purpose of deciding the case, and cautions that violation can lead to cancellation of bail. The judgment ends with the signature of Judge P.V. Kunhikrishnan.
This Kerala High Court MACA arises from a Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in which the appellant claimed compensation for injuries suffered in a 19.02.2006 accident involving a goods auto. The Tribunal found the driver negligent and awarded Rs. 76,322, directing the insurer to pay. The appellant challenges the quantum, arguing that the Tribunal erred in fixing his monthly income at Rs. 3,000 though he allegedly earned around Rs. 9,000 as a wholesale seller; contends that notional income should be Rs. 5,500 in 2006 per Ramachandrappa; asserts the disability is 16% (not 10%) as per Ext A11, requiring respectful judicial deference; and seeks enhancement for future prospects, loss of earning, pain, loss of amenities, bystander expenses, and other heads. The Tribunal reportedly undervalued several heads and failed to refer the injured to a medical board when disability certificates were questioned. The High Court reviews quantum, the disability assessment, future prospects, and the appropriate multiplier, applying established Supreme Court precedents to re-calculate compensation. The result is a partial allowance of the appeal with enhanced compensation and a direction to deposit the amount with interest and costs, to be disbursed to the appellant by the Tribunal.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 5371 of 2023) heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The petition, filed under Section 482 CrPC, challenges Crime No. 163/2023 of Pangode Police Station for offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 326. The petitioners, four accused, contend that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and no longer wish to pursue prosecution; they rely on affidavits from the de facto complainants supporting settlement. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, though notes no other serious crimes against the petitioners and that the respondents do not have lasting grievances. The Court surveys established law—particularly State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab—and reiterates the principles governing 482 CrPC quashing: quashing is permissible for non‑compoundable, private‑nature offences with settlement, not for heinous acts or offences under special statutes, and only after assessing the nature of the offence, evidence, antecedents, and public interest. After weighing factors, the judge concludes quashing would not adversely affect society and would serve ends of justice. The petition is allowed, and the FIR and all further proceedings are quashed.
WP(C) Nos. 23186 of 2022 & connected cases This batch of writ petitions challenges Government Order G.O.(MS) No.121/2022/G.Edn dated 7 July 2022 and the related Plus One admission prospectus for 2022-23, which together reconfigure the management quota in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala. The Government reduced the management quota to 20%, and introduced a 10% community quota requiring managements to declare the community to which they belong and to admit 10% of seats to students of that community on merit. Petitioners, managers of PAHS, contend this violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and that a vested or contractual right to 30% management seats has existed, while the CAP (Centralized Allotment Process) process would undermine merit. The State counters that it is a policy decision to correct historical anomalies, that there is no vested right to 30% management seats, and that the 10% community seats are intended to ensure merit and transparency. The Court, after reviewing authorities and precedents, upholds the 20% management quota but strikes down the 10% community quota as unconstitutional for violation of Articles 14 and 15 and for irrational community-based classification. It directs that the 10% seats be treated as open merit seats to be filled through CAP, preserving merit while curbing discriminatory practices.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC 5558 of 2021) heard by a single judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The petitioner, Joy @ Joy Antoparauam, is the sole accused in Crime No.46/2015 of the Perumbavoor Police Station, originally registered for offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. The initial investigation led to Annexure-A2 final report (filed in CC 677/2015), which prompted the petitioner to seek further investigation, resulting in a supplementary final report (Annexure-A3). Following orders in a prior CRL.MC (Annexure-A4 dated 27.9.2019), the magistrate was directed to consider both the primary report and the supplementary report to determine whether to drop the prosecution under Section 258 Cr.PC or proceed. Annexure-A5 and Annexure-A6 reflect the magistrate’s dismissal of the application to drop and continuation of the proceedings based on the original final report. The High Court, however, found discrepancies in the magistrate’s approach: it reasoned that when two reports exist—one implicating the accused and another exonerating—the two must be read conjointly, and the magistrate must apply his mind to both (citing Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali). It also noted reliance on Joseph v. Antony Joseph (2018) but concluded the crucial issue is proper application of mind to Annexures A2 and A3. Consequently, Annexure-A6 is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in light of Vinay Tyagi’s principles.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 2234 of 2014) before the Kerala High Court, arising from an award in OP(MV) No. 257/2011 of the III Additional District & Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The claimant, SASI N.I., sustained injuries in a Feb 14, 2011 accident when his scooter was struck by a car driven rashly. The Tribunal held the driver negligent, awarded Rs. 91,918 (rounded to Rs. 91,920), and directed the insurer to pay. The appellant challenged the quantum, arguing that the tribunal erred in fixing income at Rs. 4,000 per month though he claimed earnings as an electrical contractor (~Rs. 10,000). He relied on Ramachandrappa to press for a higher notional income (Rs. 8,000 in 2011) when actual income is not proved. The appellant also contends the disability certificate (Ext. A7 shows 15% disability) was unfairly reduced to 5% by the Tribunal without a valid reason, violating the principle in Manikantan G. v. Janardhanan Nair that, if not satisfied with a disability certificate, a medical board reference is warranted. The insurer admitted the accident but disputed negligence. The appeal culminates in recalculated compensation using the Pranay Sethi/Sarla Verma framework for loss of earnings, disability, and non‑pecuniary heads, enhancing several heads and increasing total compensation. The court holds that the appeal is allowed in part, directing deposit of Rs.3,11,558 with 8% interest and two months for deposit, with disbursement to the claimant.
WP(C) Nos. 35237/2009; 11018/2019; 25113/2019; 25138/2019; 26976/2019; 30913/2019; 30892/2019; 35561/2018; 35745/2018; 31589/2019; 31613/2019; 40417/2022 Captioned writ petitions, preferred by teaching faculties of Shree Vidyadhiraja Homeopathic Medical College, Nemom, seek disbursement of salaries, arrears and other monetary benefits for posts sanctioned by Government and approved by Kerala University of Health Sciences under the Direct Payment System (DPS). The Court traces the history to Ext.P4 (2015) common judgment directing adherence to Central Council for Homeopathy Regulations (1983, 2002) and staff pattern; Ext.P5 (2016) GO sanctioned posts and prescribed payment; Ext.P6 (2018) KUHS approval of appointments. The State contends Ext.P5 lacks Finance Department concurrence under Rule 10(1) and Rule 26 of the Rules of Business and argues that Ext.P4 judgment became final, with finality supporting the Government’s stance to restrict disbursement. The petitioners counters that Ext.P4 is final, the University approved appointments, and arrears must be released; they rely on finality, estoppel and the Regulations. The Court, after detailed analysis, holds Ext.P4 final; Ext.P5 is to be implemented; the arrears and pay scales must be disbursed from 01.09.2002 in line with 1983/2002 Central Council Regulations and KUHS approvals; it upholds Ext.P4, rejects Finance Department objections, holds that Rule 10(1) and Rule 26 do not bar implementation, and allows all petitions except WP(C) No.35561/2018 which is dismissed for inter-se seniority issues. The ultimate order directs salary/arrears disbursement and staff pattern implementation across the concerned colleges.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal from the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam. The appellants—parents and siblings of Shajir Abdurahiman—challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode’s award in OPMV No. 1754 of 2012 for death in a road accident on 27 August 2012 involving a stage carriage. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded Rs. 4,67,000. On appeal, the High Court undertook a reassessment of damages using well-established Supreme Court precedents. Since the exact income of the deceased could not be proved, the court applied the Ramachandrappa rule, fixing notional income at Rs. 8,500 per month for a 19-year-old in 2012. It applied 40% future prospects (Pranay Sethi) and the Sarla Verma multiplier of 18, with a 1/2 deduction for personal living expenses, yielding a loss of dependency of Rs. 12,85,200. Funeral and loss of estate heads were revised to Rs. 18,150 each; loss of consortium was fixed at Rs. 96,800 for the two claimants, with love and affection compensations set aside following Somwati. Pain and suffering was increased to Rs. 25,000. The result is a total enhanced compensation of Rs. 14,45,300. The appeal is allowed in part; the insurer is directed to deposit the amount with interest within two months, and the Tribunal shall disburse accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4883 OF 2025 This High Court of Kerala bail petition was heard by Judge P. V. Kunhikrishnan on 4 April 2025. The petitioner, Saleesh, challenges suspension of personal liberty in Crime No. 290/2025 of Kodakara Police Station, registered under sections 126(2), 351(3), 118(1), 118(2) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The bail application is under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The prosecution alleges that on 23 March 2025 the accused allegedly restrained the defacto complainant, threatened to kill her, and injured her with an iron rod on her head and limbs, resulting in fractures and injuries. The petitioner contends severe health issues, including liver cirrhosis, with treatment at Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, and Lakeshore Hospital; he argues that shifting for treatment is life-saving. The Public Prosecutor counters by noting 12 other crimes and prior antecedents, though concedes hospitalization. After considering the health condition, custodial period, and gravity of the offences, the court finds that bail can be granted with stringent conditions. Relying on Supreme Court and Kerala decisions that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the court allows bail with conditions: Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, appearance before IO, no travel without court permission, no offense repetition, and applicable legal principles. Observations indicate that bail can be cancelled if conditions are violated and that Anzar Azeez’s principle applies.
Tr.P.(C) Nos. 544 & 545/2022 This is a common High Court of Kerala order by Justice C. S. Dias disposing of two transfer petitions (Tr.P(C) Nos. 544/2022 and 545/2022) filed by Pushpaja, wife of Babu Mangatt, seeking transfer of two Family Court matters from Malappuram to Palakkad so they can be consolidated with MC No. 145/2022 filed by the same wife before Palakkad. The petitions pertain to matrimonial disputes involving cruelty, non-maintenance and related reliefs, with the wife alleging she and their daughter faced cruelty and neglect. The respondent-husband has opposing the relief in separate proceedings. The Court recalls that transfer of matrimonial disputes is governed by settled law, citing Sumitha Sing and several subsequent decisions, which emphasize the convenience of the wife and children as the guiding principle in such transfers. It notes that the petitioner already filed MC No. 145/2022 before Palakkad and the respondent is contesting that action there, making consolidation sensible to save judicial time and avoid conflicting outcomes. After considering the pleadings, the totality of circumstances, and Section 24 CPC, the Court grants transfer of OP Nos. 779/2022 and 570/2022 to Palakkad, allows consolidation with MC 145/2022, and permits the parties to seek dispensation of personal appearance. It also directs the registry to transmit records to Palakkad and post the consolidated matter accordingly, reflecting a welfare- and efficiency-driven approach.
BAIL APPL. NO.5046 OF 2025 Sharafudheen, the sole accused in Crime No. 56/2023 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Kozhikode, seeks bail under the NDPS Act before the Kerala High Court. The Special Court (NDPS Act Cases), Vadakara, is trying the matter as SC No. 51/2024. The prosecution alleges possession and transport of 260.537 grams of MDMA in a car on 08.12.2023, with the petitioner in judicial custody since 09.12.2023. The petitioner’s counsel contends that incarceration for about one year and four months engages Article 21 rights and urges that the rigour of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may be diluted where delay in trial is attributable to the prosecution. They rely on Supreme Court decisions Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024 Live Law (SC) 416), Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. State of West Bengal (SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769 of 2022) and Hasanujjaman v. State of West Bengal (SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023). The Public Prosecutor counters that the seized quantity constitutes a commercial quantity, thus Section 37(1)(b) remains applicable. The Court, after examining authorities, notes the cited precedents emphasizing that delayed trials and prolonged incarceration may imply Article 21 protection overrides in appropriate circumstances. It disposes of the bail application with directions, inviting the petitioner to file a fresh bail petition within two weeks, to be considered in light of the cited precedents, and within two weeks from receipt of the petition.
Thomas O.D, a quarry operator operating under licences and clearances within Muppainad Village, approached this Court challenging a Panchayat Council resolution dated 07.10.2022 that banned the movement of heavy vehicles on the Valathoor-Aanadikappu Panchayat Road leading to his unit. He contends that the Panchayat lacks jurisdiction to restrict traffic on a road vested in the Panchayat for public use and relied on this Court’s decision in Jimmichan Mathew v. State of Kerala (2022 (1) KLT 373) to argue that traffic regulation powers lie with Government authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, not with a Panchayat. The Respondents contend that the road is dilapidated, with a failing culvert, and that Ext.R1(d) was a valid exercise of Panchayat duties to repair and maintain roads vested in the Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. They argue Sections 169(2) and items 40 and 112 of the 3rd Schedule confer such powers; a Traffic Regulatory Committee under the Kerala Police Act 72(2) also has a role. The Court ultimately holds that traffic prohibition cannot be effectuated by a Panchayat resolution and directs removal of the board; it leaves open the option to seek regulation from the MV Department or Traffic Regulatory Committee if warranted, reaffirming MV Act supremacy over Panchayat power.
This writ petition (C) concerns the Board of Trustees of Sree Thricherumanna alias Kottiyoor Devaswom and the Devaswom challenging show-cause notice Ext.P12 issued by the Malabar Devaswom Board and the 3rd respondent, alleging maladministration and misappropriation in temple affairs and seeking quashment of Ext.P12 and a mandamus restraining further inquiry without adjudication of pending applications in Ext.P9. The petition contends that Ext.P12 targets trustees who have since expired and that continuing proceedings would be meaningless; the petition also argues mala fides or premeditation in issuing the notice. The respondents urge that the show-cause notice must run to its logical end and that the demise of some incumbents does not nullify the proceedings. The court cites Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra to discuss show-cause notices issued with premeditation, and summarizes Aruvikkara Grama Panchayat v. Anandakumal, noting that showcause notices can be adjudicated when ultra vires, fait accompli, premeditated, or mala fide. After hearing, the court holds that Ext.P12 was not issued without jurisdiction or bona fides, and thus should not be quashed. It directs that the 3rd respondent proceed with the inquiry giving reasonable opportunities, while leaving other contentions open for later challenge. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No.1067 of 2014) arises from an award of Rs. 4,91,000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, in O.P.(MV) No.461/2008 for Bibin’s death (age 21) in a vehicle accident on 30.07.2008. The appellants, the deceased’s parents, challenged the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and directed the insurer to pay. The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in calculating compensation, especially the deceased’s notional income; citing Ramachandrappa to fix Rs.6,500 as notional income for a 21-year-old with dependents, rather than Rs.5,000 adopted by the Tribunal. They relied on Ramachandrappa, as well as the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, to claim higher compensation under loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, and to adjust future prospects and the multiplier. The insurer contended the Tribunal’s income figure was reasonable and challenged further enhancement. The High Court, applying the Ramachandrappa framework, fixed Rs.6,500 as notional income, applied 40% future prospects, an 18-year multiplier, and 1/2 deduction, yielding Rs.9,82,800 for dependency, and then restructured other heads per Pranay Sethi and Somwati, resulting in a total of Rs.11,46,900. The appeal was allowed in part with enhanced compensation, the love-and-affection head being curtailed, and a deposit/order mechanism set with 8% interest.
This bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, concerns Shanavas and Sajeena, petitioners in Crime No.173/2025 of Thrikkunnappuzha Police Station, Alappuzha, now transferred to Alappuzha North Police Station as Crime No.519/2025. The petitioners are 1st and 2nd accused in a case registered for offences under IPC sections 376(2)(n), 323, 324, 506 and 34. The prosecution claims that the 1st accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim on multiple occasions, and that the 2nd accused also committed rape after the victim was presented to him, with threats to publish a video on social media. The petitioners contend that even if the allegations are accepted, the offence of rape would not be established and that the relationship was consensual; they submit they are willing to comply with any conditions this Court may impose. The State Public Prosecutor opposes bail, given the serious charges. The learned Court peruses the FIS and, while acknowledging the gravity of the accusations, finds that bail can be considered under stringent conditions. Relying on Chidambaram, Siddharth, Manish Sisodia, Anzar Azeez, Sushila Aggarwal and Joginder Kumar, the Court reiterates the bail principle that bail is the rule, and arrest should not be routine. Ultimately, bail is allowed with conditions: appearance before the IO, two days of interrogation, bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, and travel restrictions until further orders.
Purushan K, a 56-year-old ex-serviceman and pensioner, sought the Jai Jawan Pension Loan under SBI's Pension Loan Scheme. He applied on 14.12.2022, but the bank rejected the proposal, citing a poor CIBIL/credit history and a prior loan write-off. The bank relied on Ext.P2, Master Circular Pension Loan dated 31.08.2019, and its successor Ext.R1(A), which, in force at the time of the loan application, required a credit history check and a CIBIL report for eligibility, and treated a write-off as a negative credit event. The petitioner contends that Ext.P2 did not contemplate a CIBIL score requirement and that, since his pension is regularly credited to his SBI account, EMI could be recovered directly from the pension credits. He relies on judgments including Kiran David v. AGM SBI, Trivandrum (2022 (2) KHC 373) and Pranav S.R. v. Branch Manager SBI (2020 KHC 4695) to argue that denial on the sole ground of a low credit score is unjustified for welfare loans. The respondents submit that Ext.R1(A) replaced Ext.P2 and that the applicant’s scores (CIBIL 533/555; Experian 549) and an account history showing a Rs. 7.62 lakh write-off render him ineligible. After hearing, the court agrees that the decision to sanction is a commercial one and refuses to interfere, dismissing the writ petition.
Stella Kurian, owner of 30.97 acres in Survey No.425/6-1, Veliyannoor, Meenachil Taluk, files a writ petition challenging Ext P3 (dated 05.06.2023) rejecting her Form 5 application under the Kerala Paddy Land Act and removing her land from the Data Bank. She argues the order is nonspeaking, provides no reasons, and ignores critical material. Her case contends the property was reclaimed before the Paddy Land Act, and adjacent lands are reclaimed as well; KSREC satellite data showing pre-Act status was not obtained, though such data is relevant under Form-5, as clarified in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022) 7 KHC 591. The petitioner seeks quashing Ext P3, a mandamus to reconsider Ext P2 after obtaining a KSREC report, and related reliefs including dispensation with translation of vernacular documents. The petition relies on statutory requirements and scientific data to establish eligibility or ineligibility under the Act. The High Court, after hearing, found Ext P3 lacking reasons and failing to consider materials, and disposed of the petition by quashing Ext P3 and directing reconsideration of Ext P2 with KSREC data, including a timeline for obtaining satellite imagery and submitting reports, culminating in fresh Form-5 orders within two months.
