This bail petition, BA No.5127 of 2025, arises from Crime No.129/2025 of Guruvayur Police Station, Thrissur, under NDPS Act, alleging possession of 2.250 grams of MDMA (Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985). The petitioner, Dilkumar, aged 27, is in custody since 22.02.2025. The petition is filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, seeking bail with stringent conditions. The prosecution highlights criminal antecedents and a separate NDPS case under Section 27(b) for consumption, arguing bail should be denied or restricted. The court, after hearing both sides, notes that the seized quantity is an intermediate one and that, in such circumstances, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act may not be attracted. Relying on established bail jurisprudence, the court reiterates the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 KHC 6431), as well as Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426). It also accords weight to the principle laid down in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260). The court ultimately allows bail on stringent conditions, clarifying that violation of any condition may trigger cancellation by the jurisdictional court, even though the order is issued by this Court. The order underscores that the observations are confined to deciding this bail petition. The neutral citation for the document is 2025:KER:31411.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5262 OF 2025 This is a bail petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed in the Kerala High Court by petitioners Nos. 3 and 4, Shanavas and Ansar, in Crime No.54/2025 of Enathu Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 29(1) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The petition seeks bail after the petitioners spent time in custody since 22 February 2025; the prosecution contends there are criminal antecedents. The Court notes the earlier bail petition BA No. 3747/2025 which was not granted, with liberty given to renew after two weeks; the present application argues that the seized quantity—reported as 6.075 kg of ganja—falls under an intermediate quantity and does not attract the rigour of Section 37 NDPS. In its reasoning, the Court cites the general principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, supported by dicta from Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and emphasizes the need to balance liberty with public interest. It also relies on the principle from Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. The order grants bail on stringent conditions, expressly reserving the jurisdiction to cancel bail for future violations, and reiterates that the observed conditions are for the bail decision only.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Cr.M.C. No. 8237/2022) filed by the accused Sujith A.V. under section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging orders in a NI Act case (ST No. 1457/2018) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class and Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The petitioner seeks to recall and examine the Secretary of Kottur Service Cooperative Bank as a defence witness to explain a financial transaction linked to cheque No. 33752, which purportedly bears on the allegations under section 138 NI Act. The trial court had dismissed the plea to summon this bank official as a defence witness (CMP No. 479/2022) and the Sessions Court dismissed the revision petition (CRP No. 46/2022). The core issue is whether the accused can compel the attendance of a prosecution witness, already examined, and reclassify him as a defence witness under Cr.P.C. 233(3), or whether such recall is permissible only as a discretionary act for essential evidence. The petitioner contends that section 233(3) permits “entering upon defence” and that the bank official’s testimony could elucidate the financial transaction and the true nature of the cheque. The respondents rely on Supreme Court precedent (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Badri Yadav) to support the view that section 233(3) cannot compel prosecution witnesses to become defence witnesses and that recall is discretionary. The Kerala High Court ultimately held that such recall is not permissible, dismissing the petition for lack of merit and upholding the concurrent orders of the lower courts.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5265 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed by the petitioner Akhil P P, the 1st accused in Crime No.1/2025 of Kannur Cyber Crime Police Station, seeking bail in a case registered for alleged online fraud. The prosecution contends that, in November 2024, the petitioner and others, by luring the defacto complainant through social media platforms such as Facebook and Telegram, offered huge profits from online trading and received a total sum of Rs. 31,61,632 from the complainant through multiple bank accounts, without paying any profits or returning the amount. The offences alleged are Sections 111(2)(b) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner has been in custody since 21.02.2025. Counsel for the petitioner submits willingness to comply with stringent bail conditions, highlighting absence of criminal antecedents and emphasizing that the alleged offense, though serious, should not fetter the right to a fair trial. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but concedes no antecedents on investigation. The court recognizes the seriousness but reiterates the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v Directorate of Enforcement. It ultimately allows bail with conditions, noting that Anzar Azeez v State of Kerala is applicable and stressing safeguards to prevent misuse. The order confirms the bail as granted with detailed conditions.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4228 OF 2023 This is an anticipatory bail application in Bail Application No. 4228 of 2023, before the Kerala High Court, involving Shafi Chembarikayil, accused in Melparamba Police Station Crime No. 486/2022. The petitioner is charged with offences under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and Sections 465 and 468 of the IPC, alleging passport forgery and possession of two passports (Z 2922363 and A1773251). The prosecution alleges a long period of alleged passport forgery from 1995 to 2022, with the latest passport (Z 2922363) issued in 2015 after multiple renewals. The petitioner contends falsity of the allegations, claiming a single passport was used for travel; Annexure 1 shows renewal of that passport, and Annexure 2 indicates a Karnataka case where anticipatory bail was granted in a related matter. The defense emphasizes enmity with the defacto complainant, and that there is no concrete evidence that a second passport was in his possession or delivered to him. The Public Prosecutor counters that the second passport’s issuance and renewals point to possible misuse, but admits no passport was recovered at the house. The court evaluates the gravity of charges, prior bail history, and the necessity of limited custody for investigation, ultimately granting anticipatory bail with conditions.
Pradeep, the appellant before the Kerala High Court, challenged the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, dated 22.06.2016 in OPMV No.876 of 2007, which assessed compensation at Rs 2,78,557. The accident occurred on 28 February 2007 when a trailer KL 7 V8937, driven rashly, struck the appellant as he rode a motorcycle, resulting in serious injuries and 20% permanent disability. The insurer admitted the accident and policy but disputed negligence; the Tribunal found negligence and directed payment of Rs 2,78,557 by the insurer. The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing a low notional income (Rs 3,000/month) given the salary particulars Ext. A18 showing a quarterly salary of Rs 25,779 (monthly Rs 8,593) and that Exts. A7–A11 – though not examined – prove loss of promotions and substantial financial loss. The court relies on established precedents: James Joseph v. National Insurance Co. Ltd (multiplier as on date of accident), National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (50% future prospects), and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corp. (16 as multiplier). The High Court finds error in the notional income approach, applies the accident-date multiplier, and awards enhanced compensation: Rs 7,24,686 in total, with heads adjusted (loss of disability, loss of earnings for 33 inpatient days, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities). The appeal is allowed in part, and the insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within two months with interest.
WP(C) Nos. 23186 of 2022 & connected cases These batch writ petitions challenge Government Order GO(MS) No.121/2022/G.Edn. dated 7.7.2022 and the Plus One admission prospectus for 2022-23, brought by Managers of Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools. The petitions contend that the Government’s policy to reduce management quota to 20% and the provision to reserve 10% of seats for the community to which the management belongs (to be admitted on merit) violates fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and contravenes prior orders and policy. The Court traces the evolution of management quotas in Kerala’s PAHS sector: from earlier open-merit, management, and community quotas; the 2003–2005 shifts; the merging of community quotas into management quota; and the 2022 GO, which allegedly seeks to rationalize but also perpetuate community-based preferences. The counsel for petitioners argues that any reservation based on religion or community in private secular institutions is unconstitutional; the Government contends the policy is a valid executive decision aimed at transparency, merit, and curbing malpractices under CAP (Centralized Allotment Process). The judgment ultimately holds that while the 20% management quota is permissible, the 10% community quota is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15; the 10% seats will be treated as open merit seats to be filled through CAP. The petitions are disposed of accordingly.
BA Nos. 7407/2023, 5214/2023, 6694/2023 These bail petitions arise from Crime No. 51/2022 of the Amaravila Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram, under the NDPS Act offences 22(c), 29 and 27A. The petitioners—4th accused in BA No. 7407/2023, 3rd accused in BA No. 5214/2023, and 2nd accused in BA No. 6694/2023—seek regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. The prosecution alleges that on 10.11.2022, during vehicle inspection near the Amaravila RTO checkpost, a vehicle (KL-01-AM-7666) was found to carry 75 grams of MDMA; the contraband was seized and a series of linked financial transactions and communications allegedly connect the accused. The 1st accused is said to have conscious possession of the drug; the 2nd accused funded the purchase; the 3rd accused is described as the supplier; the 4th accused allegedly acted as intermediary, with Rs.92,000 transferred to the 3rd accused as per instructions. The chemical analysis confirms methamphetamine. The defense contends that the case largely rests on the co‑accused’s confession and that there is no direct possession or independent corroboration against the 3rd and 4th accused; a rent deed and certain internet calls do not prove involvement. The State argues that call data, banking transactions, and CW statements indicate involvement and that the investigation will be delayed if bail is granted. The court, after hearing, grants regular bail to all three petitioners on conditions, noting the preliminary material is not sufficient to satisfy Section 37 NDPS standards and to prevent delay in trial.
This Writ Appeal challenges Ext.P5, a discharge order issued by the Vadakkumbad Service Co-operative Bank against Sabitha V, a Bill Collector, following an alleged failure to disburse Social Security Pension instalments and alleged misappropriations. The bank’s proceedings commenced with Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 notices and a reply via Ext.P2 and Ext.P4, leading to Ext.P5, which dismissed Sabitha V from service with effect from 20.07.2020 on the basis of an alleged enquiry by a three-member board. The Single Judge found substantial compliance with the enquiry, albeit without a formal charge memo, and directed production of the enquiry report to Sabitha V before proceeding further, relying on ECIL v. Karunakar to permit continuation from the enquiry stage. The Division Bench, however, held that there was no valid charge memo at all, as Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 were not proper charge memos and were not issued by the competent authority (Managing Committee, per Kodancherry), thereby invalidating the enquiry. The court distinguished or rejected several cited authorities, and ultimately allowed the appeal, reinstating Sabitha V from 20.07.2020 with back benefits and directing immediate reinstatement, while leaving scope for fresh proceedings in accordance with law with loosened liberty for the bank to proceed accordingly."
BAIL APPL. NO.4951 OF 2025 Nithin, the petitioner in Bail Application No. 4951/2025, seeks bail in Crime No. 384/2025 of Pathanapuram Police Station (Kollam) on allegations under sections 333, 115(2), 109(1), 351(2) and 296(b) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The prosecution claims that on 16.03.2025 at about 01:00–01:05 am, amid a property dispute, the first two accused allegedly trespassed into the defacto complainant’s residence, attacked her with a chopper inflicting injuries to the head, left shoulder, left wrist and right palm with an explicit threat to finish her, and uttered obscene words, with the intended result of causing murder. The defacto complainant’s allegations are that the acts amounted to attempted murder. The petitioner has been in custody since 17.03.2025. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the case, though serious, shows no criminal antecedents per the IO report, and the petitioner is ready to comply with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail but concedes absence of antecedents in the report. The court notes the gravity but relies on the established bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, supported by cited verdicts, and grants bail subject to stringent conditions including a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of equal amount, appearance before the Investigating Officer on Mondays at 10:00 am until final report, and other standard restrictions. The order emphasizes that its observations apply only for deciding this bail petition and cites multiple precedents to justify the liberal bail approach.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5284 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), 2023, by Sanjay Lal, accused in Crime No. 468/2025 of North Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam, challenging the order in Bail Appl. No. 4289/2025. The allegations concern offences under Sections 118(1), 118(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, arising from an incident on 16.03.2025 when the petitioner and another individual allegedly injured the defacto complainant with a granite stone and glass, resulting in a nasal fracture and other injuries. The petitioner has been in custody since 20.03.2025. He had earlier moved BA 4289/2025, which the Court did not grant, and liberty to renew was granted after a 10‑day interval; the present bail petition follows. The Court notes that the statute permits stringent conditions for bail and cites jurisprudence: bail as the rule, jail as the exception; the duty to ensure a fair trial; and related dicta from Supreme Court decisions and Kerala cases. It also references an order granting anticipatory bail to a co‑accused (BA 4297/2025, 03.04.2025). After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor, the Court allows the application, subject to conditions including bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the investigating officer, bar on leaving India without permission, and prohibition on committing similar offences. The order states these observations are limited to the bail application and preserves the right of cancellation if violations occur, citing Anzar Azeez and other authorities as applicable. The decision is rendered by a Single Judge.
This Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 concerns Haarish, accused in Crime No.472/2025 of Nooranadu Police Station, Alappuzha, charged under Sections 85, 296(b), 118(1) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Arrested on 25 March 2025, the petitioner contends that the allegations of mental and physical harassment by the defacto complainant are incorrect and states a willingness to abide by strict conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposes release. The Court notes that the case involves matrimonial offences and that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.03.2025, but holds that bail can be granted with stringent conditions balancing the right to a fair trial under Article 21. The court applies the established bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and later pronouncements in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, all emphasizing that bail should not be denied in deserving cases. It also cites Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala as applicable. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed with six conditions: bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the Investigating Officer, cooperation with the investigation, travel restrictions, non-commission of similar offences, and a clause that the order pertains only to this bail petition. The order notes that violations may lead to cancellation.
This petition challenges the appointment of the fourth respondent as a member of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the related Rules. By Ext.P2 and subsequent notifications, a Selection Committee was constituted under Section 21 of the Act and Rule 20 of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018, to oversee appointments to the Authority. The Selection Committee conducted interviews, awarded marks (Ext.P9) and recommended two candidates for consideration (Ext.P10), with Ext.P11 and Ext.P12 indicating the Council of Ministers’ discussion and final cabinet decisions leading to Ext.P8—appointing the fourth respondent. The petitioner contends that, since he ranked first (Ext.P9) and the panel was prepared in merit, the Government’s selection from the panel should reflect inter se merit; a justifiable reason for excluding him should be recorded. The Government Pleader submits that Rule 20(4) provides that the Committee shall select two persons for each vacancy and forward them to the Government; Rule 20(6) empowers the Government to appoint one of the two, without requiring a stated reason or order-of-merit. The court accepts that Rule 20(4)-(6) governs the process and finds no necessity to justify appointment from the panel in this case; it distinguishes several cited precedents, including Mittal, Chandramohan Nair and Reghu Varma, as inapplicable to these facts. The writ petition is dismissed.
BA No.4700/2025 and Conn. Cases (4700/2025 to 4754/2025) These bail applications arise out of multiple crimes registered at Kottayam West and Kottayam East Police Stations against the petitioner Preethi Mathew, alleging offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and also under Sections 10 and 24 of the Emigration Act. The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, on 8 April 2025, disposed of BA Nos. 4700/2025 and connected cases in a common order, noting the petitioner has been in custody since 25 February 2025. The prosecution contends serious offences and custodial restraint are warranted; however, the court emphasizes the well‑established principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, especially given the relatively small maximum punishment (up to seven years). Citing authoritative pronouncements—Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) SCALE 870; Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India (2024 KHC 6431); Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426); and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (SCC OnLine 1260)—the court reiterates the duty to grant bail in deserving cases and in accordance with statutory conditions. The order imposes stringent conditions: a bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties; appearance before the Investigating Officer as required; prohibition on leaving India; prohibition on committing another offence; and compliance with all directions. It clarifies the observations apply only to these bail petitions, and that violation may lead to cancellation of bail. The common order disposes all connected petitions in a coherent framework, underscoring the right to fair trial with safeguards for investigation.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4045 OF 2025 This is a bail application (Bail Appl. No. 4045 of 2025) under Section 482 CrPC in the Kerala High Court, presented by Thilakan, the 5th accused in Crime No. 250/2025 of Aloor Police Station, Thrissur. The FIR/case alleges offences under sections 333, 118(1), 118(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), arising from an incident on 14.03.2025 in which the accused allegedly trespassed into the defacto complainant’s house and assaulted him and his brother with a sword and iron bar, causing injuries including to fingers. The petitioner contends he did not participate in the actual incident and only assisted others; he is willing to comply with stringent bail conditions. The Public Prosecutor counters with the prosecution’s criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The High Court notes that antecedents alone cannot automatically deny bail, and emphasizes that the petitioner reportedly did not participate in the actual assault. Relying on established jurisprudence, the court reiterates the bail principle: bail is the rule and jail is the exception, with due regard to personal liberty and the likelihood of fair trial. The court cites Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), Siddharth v. State of UP (2021), Manish Sisodia v. CBI (2023), Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025), and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) for guidelines on bail, including conditions and the distinction between arrest power and its justification. The application is allowed with specific directions, including a two-week interrogation window, bond and sureties, and ongoing co-operation, with indefinite travel restrictions and the possibility of cancellation if conditions are breached.
In MACA No. 2578 of 2016, heard by the Kerala High Court, the insurer challenges the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri’s award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from a 29 May 2010 road accident that caused the death of Muhammed Kasim P.V. The Tribunal awarded Rs 14,90,000 as compensation to the wife, mother, minor child and siblings of the deceased. The insurer contends that the quantum is not just, particularly arguing that the Tribunal erred in future-prospects computation and in the notional income. The petitioners contend for a higher quantum, invoking Ramachandrappa to fix the notional income at Rs 7,500 for a coolie in 2010, and advocate 40% future prospects with a multiplier of 18, along with 1/3 deduction for living expenses (Sarla Verma). They also submit that on death at age 25, the dependency loss is substantial; they press for revised sums for loss of estate, funeral, loss of consortium, and other heads in line with Pranay Sethi. The court ultimately modifies the award to Rs 17,21,500, applies 8% interest, and deducts the love-and-affection head (per Somwati), directing deposit within two months and disbursement to petitioners as per Tribunal ratios.
This Bail Application concerns the 1st accused, Jimil Shaji, in Crime No.1347/2024 of Adimaly Police Station, Idukki, under sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 140(4), 296(b), 324(2), 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS). The petitioner surrendered before the investigating officer in pursuance of Annexure 2 order and has been in custody since 25.03.2025. The 5th accused is already released on bail. The State opposed the bail application. The court, after hearing, relied on established bail jurisprudence: that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that bail should be granted where the circumstances satisfy statutory and constitutional safeguards. It cited Supreme Court guidance in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 SCALE 870) and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 KHC 6431), as well as Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426), to emphasize that the presumption in favour of bail is strong even for serious offences, and that denial must be well grounded. The court recorded the principle in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala as applicable. Ultimately, the court allowed the bail petition, imposing stringent conditions including bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, travel restrictions, no further offences, and ongoing cooperation with the investigation. The order reflects the long-standing public policy that the right to liberty should be protected while ensuring effective investigation.
These bail applications, BA No. 3931/2025 and 3937/2025, arise from two crime numbers—1119/2024 and 1129/2024—registered with Mulanthuruthy Police Station, Ernakulam. The petitioners are six individuals described as directors of Mulanthuruthy Service Cooperative Bank, accused of forgery, cheating and criminal misappropriation. The petitions contend that the petitioners were not involved in day-to-day operations of the bank and therefore should not be subjected to custodial arrest; they express willingness to surrender and abide by conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, urging that the alleged offences are serious and that arrest should be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances after considering Arnesh Kumar guidelines. The Court, noting a common order dated 14.02.2025 in BA 1058/2025 disposing of co-accused bail applications, proposed a similar approach here: direct surrender before the Investigating Officer and interrogation without arrest, except where arrest is indispensable for reasons to be recorded. On 27.03.2025, after hearing both sides, the Court disposed of the two bail applications with directions akin to the earlier order. The directions include surrender within three weeks, police permission to interrogate during non-custodial custody, and if arrest remains inevitable, adherence to Arnesh Kumar’s principles (arrest to be sought and produced in court on the arrest date). Applicants may file fresh bail applications at the stage of production, with priority on the date of filing.
MACA No. 995 of 2014 before the Kerala High Court arises from O.P.(MV) No. 902/2008 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the wife, children and mother of Sudheesh, who died in a motor-vehicle accident on 14 July 2008. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, awarded Rs. 13,00,600 as total compensation for negligence by the bus driver. The insurer, National Insurance Company Ltd., challenged the quantum. The appeal centers on several heads of compensation and methodological issues: the notional income of the deceased (driver by profession), the percentage for future prospects (25% vs 40%), the multiplier (14), and heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium, love and affection, and pain and suffering. Relying on jurisprudence including Ramachandrappa (notional income), Pranay Sethi (25% future prospects) and Sarla Verma (multiplier 14 and 1/4 deduction), the High Court recalculated the award. It also applied New India Assurance Co. v. Somwati to curb double compensation for love and affection. The final order increases the total to Rs. 15,16,900, with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of the petition, directing deposit within two months and disbursement to petitioners thereafter as fixed by the Tribunal.
The petitioner, N. Sasikumar, a contractor with about 30 years of experience, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the 3rd respondent to disburse Rs. 8,83,298.43 alleged to be the contractual liability for interlocking pavers laid between Ramamoorthy Mandapam and the permanent Hotel Building at Pamba during 2017‑2018, and to cause the 3rd respondent and the 6th respondent to consider Exts. P4 and P6 representations. The work was allegedly entrusted to him due to urgency after floods, without inviting tenders. He asserts completion and as‑built measurements in Ext. P1 (measurement book) and Ext. P2 (daily report). Payment was not made timely, prompting representations (Exts. P4 and P6). Respondents deny any contract with him, stating tenders were invited and awarded to Sri. Lenin after competitive bidding, with no privity of contract with the petitioner. The court notes the absence of corroborating contractual documents and that Exts. P1 and P2 alone do not prove entitlement to a contractual payment. Citing settled law that contract disputes cannot be resolved via Article 226 writ petitions, the court dismisses the petition as it involves disputed questions of fact and contractual relationships. It also flags improper custody of the measurement book and directs a three‑month vigilance enquiry into the matter, with the original book to be returned to the Board.
