W.P.(C) No. 13763 of 2021 Captioned writ petitions before the Kerala High Court, filed as W.P.(C) No. 13763 of 2021 and connected cases, challenge a government communication dated 29/6/2021 withdrawing grace marks for SSLC and Plus Two examinations for the 2020-2021 academic year. The petitioners, including Yadunandan M (minor) and other students involved in extra-curricular activities such as Bharat Scouts and Guides, NCC, NSS, etc., argued that government orders had granted grace marks in the past and that withdrawal by a mere communication violated the policy framework and created a legitimate expectation. The Government contended that the COVID-19 pandemic left no regular classes and there were no educational hours lost; thus grace marks were not required; the Department redesigned the examination pattern to focus on essential areas and raised overall performance; it further argued that the decision was a policy measure, not an isolated administrative whim, and that a large student body would be affected if grace marks were granted to only a subset. The court, in a division bench led by Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, held that while grace marks are not a vested right and judicial review can examine policy decisions, the circumstances of 2020-2021 justified withdrawal. It concluded that there was no arbitrariness and dismissed the petitions. The judgment discusses the legitimate expectation doctrine and several precedents, ultimately upholding the State's course of action.
Muhammed Nazarudeen J., an Arabic teacher appointed in 2007 as a part-time post in K.V. UP School, Asramam, Kollam, seeks approval of his appointment from the date of initial appointment and a directive to the respondents to finalize his status. His case sits within a framework of government orders that banned recruitment in additional division vacancies from 2005 to 2010, and later lifted the ban subject to conditions. The petitioner was included in the comprehensive teacher’s package of 2011 and his appointment was regularized with effect from 01.06.2011. He contends that similar cases have been decided by this Court directing approval from the date of appointment on the ground that the managers had bound themselves by implied bonds; the State counters that appointments in such vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and bonds must be executed if not already done, with some challenges to the 2010 order pending before the Supreme Court. The court notes the Suma Devi decision, which holds that non-execution of bonds should be deemed to have been executed and that managers must appoint from the protected list equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban. After weighing arguments, the court disposes of the petition by directing the first respondent to decide the revision petition Ext. P11 expeditiously, taking into account the deemed bond and the protected-list appointments, while reserving final orders in light of Apex Court proceedings.
This suo motu DBP concerns alleged irregularities in the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Major Chengalathukavu Devi Temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board. Initiated on 16.06.2023 from a devotee complaint, it scrutinizes governance, financial management, and functioning of the TAC, including Covid-era extensions and approvals. The matter engages the framework of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, especially Section 31A, concerning formation of Temple Advisory Committees, and the bye-law rules framed by the TD Board (approved in 2011). It analyzes Clauses 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 18 and 21 of the Rules, addressing objectives, membership, office-bearers, term of office, powers, prohibitions, and special powers of the Board. The 7th respondent, Sanil Kumar Onattu Kalathil (originally named Sanal Kumar) was suo motu impleaded, with his counter denying the allegations as dubious and false, attributing statutory and Covid-era extensions as the reasons for certain conduct. The judgment cites precedents such as Chandu K., Santharam Roy T.S., Sunil Kumar C., Major Vellayani Devi, and Rajalekshmi P. It disposes of the DBP with directions for internal audit and approval of the newly elected TAC, while ensuring scrutiny of the alleged irregularities.
This is a High Court of Kerala, in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, considering an interim custody order passed by the Family Court, Ettumanoor, in a Guardians and Wards matter. The petitioner-mother, Aswinidev T, challenged Ext.P4 of the Family Court’s order dated 28.09.2022 in I.A.1/2022 of O.P.(G&W) 267/2022, which granted the father, Rajesh @ Rajesh R. Nair, overnight custody of the minor Navaneeth, aged five, on weekends with a provision for video interaction on alternate days. The mother contends that the weekend travel and overnight arrangements disrupt the child’s schooling and stability, given that the child is substantially with maternal grandparents and studying in Kottayam, while the father travels to Canada for education and employment. The Family Court observed the child’s happiness and good spirits during an interaction and found no prima facie evidence of distress in the child’s life with the father and maternal grandparents, justifying weekend custody. The respondent-father argues the arrangement is welfare-driven, noting the child’s positive interaction with him and the absence of difficulties. The High Court relies on well‑settled custody principles, including the welfare of the child as paramount and the child’s right to contact with both parents, to refuse interference with Ext.P4. It directs that modifications may be sought later if warranted, but declines to upset the interim arrangement.
Geetha Surendran and her husband Surendran Nair challenge notices and a sale under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, seeking relief from actions taken by the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC). The petitioners mortgaged about 32.38 cents of land in Re-Survey Nos. 187/6, 187/6-1, 187/6-4-1 and 187/6-3 at Vellarada Village to secure a loan, with Surendran Nair as guarantor for 12.14 cents in the same survey. Despite substantial payments, default occurred and a notice dated 05.11.2008 showed an outstanding balance around Rs. 2.00 crore. A one-time settlement of Rs. 73.75 lakhs was offered but could not be concluded. The petitioners argue that Section 29 cannot authorize attachment or sale of guarantor property that lies outside the mortgage, relying on Ormi Textiles v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) to contend the corporation’s power is limited to mortgaged assets. The respondents counter that the petition lacks clean hands, contending the mortgage deed was not placed on record and that the petition is otherwise untenable. The court considers Section 29 (rights to take over management/possession and to transfer property) and Section 31 (court intervention) and notes that the right to sell must nexus with the mortgaged property. It finds Ormi Textiles distinguishable, and ultimately dismisses the writ petition for lack of merit, observing the ratio of Ormi Textiles does not apply to the present facts.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC 5642 of 2021) disposed by a single judge of the Kerala High Court on 18 January 2022. The petitioner, Yusuf M.A., is the registered owner of car KL-41-L-4961. He seeks quashing of an interim custody order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Adimaly, which had refused to grant him interim custody of the vehicle seized in connection with Crime No. 1414/2020 of Adimaly Police Station. The underlying incident allegedly occurred on 07/12/2020 when the petitioner and three companions formed part of a trip to Tamil Nadu for treatment of Sakheesh, who died after a sequence of events including alleged drunkenness and a collision with a motorcycle. A crime under CrPC section 174 was registered; the car was seized and kept in custody pending investigation. The petitioner contends that the car is new and remaining in police custody devalues it; he undertakes to produce original documents, execute a bond for Rs. 10 lakh with two solvent sureties, and keep the vehicle in proper maintenance without alienating or changing its character or color. The court cites Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) to emphasize that idle police custody of vehicles is detrimental, and accordingly allows the petition, releasing the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the enumerated conditions.
Radhamani, the petitioner, challenges Exts.P2, P3 and P5 in WP(C) 7587 of 2022, concerning a boundary dispute between her property and that of the second respondent, Nanu Nair. The petition, filed before the Taluk Legal Services Committee, sought to fix the boundary and erect a fence after a verified measurement by an Advocate Commissioner and a Taluk Surveyor. Ext.P2 purports to be an award dated 8 December 2012 recording that the parties agreed to measure based on title deeds and survey records, fix the boundary, and permit the petitioner to place a boundary fence; it also states that if there is encroachment on puramboke land, both parties would surrender it. Ext.P3 contains the Commissioner’s report, which was objected to by both sides (Ext.P4). The petitioner argues that the process did not secure mutual acceptability and that Ext.P2 cannot be treated as an award under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, since it lacks executability. The second respondent contends that the award arose from the parties’ consent and is executable. The court held that Ext.P2 reflects a clear, executable settlement and rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Vijaya K. v. Muraleedharan, distinguishing the cited proposition. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding Ext.P2 and denying interference.
The petition seeks relief for a retired KSEB official (S. Unnikrishnan Nair) who was suspended during service following registration of a criminal case for forgery/misappropriation (IPC sections 406, 477-A, 468). He was reinstated after suspension but faced non-disbursal of pay, with Ext.P2 directing suspension as leave without allowance and Ext.P4 affirming it. Although acquitted by the criminal court under Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C., the applicant contends that, on acquittal, eligibility for regularisation of suspension arises under Rule 57 of Part I KSR, a position supported by several precedents. The respondents contend that the acquittal stemmed from hostile witnesses, not a clean exoneration, and disciplinary proceedings could not be finalized due to administrative lapses. The judgment scrutinizes Ext.P1 paragraph 13 to determine whether the acquittal is honorable. It concludes that the prosecution failed to prove guilt, and the court’s findings indicate an honorable acquittal. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P2 and P4 are set aside, and the period of suspension (11.05.1990 to 02.01.1992) is to be treated as duty for all purposes, with full pay and allowances, revising retirement benefits accordingly. The orders are to be issued within three months of the judgment copy. Overall, the decision favors regularization and monetary benefit restoration in light of honorable acquittal.
OP(KAT) Nos.300, 317, 325 & 335 of 2019 These Original Petitions arise from Kerala Administrative Tribunal orders directing counting of prior service for placement under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for lecturers in government and self-financing institutions. The State of Kerala and the Higher Education Department challenge the Tribunal’s directions that prior service in Government-controlled self-financing colleges should be counted for CAS, contending that such institutions are not under state control and that the service cannot be treated as regular. The respondents/applicants in OA, comprising Assistant Professors from various Government Colleges, Government Engineering Colleges, CAPE, IHRD, LBS, and related self-financing entities, contend that past service in these institutions qualifies for CAS under the UGC scheme as per Annexure A1 (G.O.171/99) and Annexure A25, and that GO 204/2019/H.Edn further clarifies counting of past service, including self-financing colleges, for CAS. The Tribunal held that prior service in Government-controlled self-financing colleges should be counted if the conditions in Annexure A1 are satisfied. The High Court, after detailed hearing, held that the pre‑existing Government Orders (Annexure A1 and Annexure A25) and subsequent GO 204/2019 apply and that there is no valid justification to deny counting; it extended the compliance period by two months and dismissed the petitions, thereby upholding the Tribunal’s directions in substance.
This is a Rent Control Revision (R.C.Rev.No.188 of 2021) filed by the tenant, Shaji Joseph, challenging eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court, Thiruvalla, had summoned eviction on the landlords’ bona fide need to start a hardware business, including petition schedule shop rooms and adjacent rooms already in their possession. The Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the eviction, and the tenant challenged this order under Sec. 20 of the Act before the Kerala High Court. The tenant argued (i) lack of bonafide need and misapplication of Section 11(3); (ii) res judicata due to withdrawal of O.S.571 of 2014; (iii) availability of other rooms; (iv) that subsequent events—especially the death of one landlord—extinguished the need. The landlords contended the need was genuine, based on their intention to start a hardware business, and that no other suitable building was available in the locality; the death of one landlord did not eclipse the need since both landlords contributed to the requirement, and Section 11(3) was correctly invoked. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, invoking jurisprudence on bona fide need (Adil Jamshed Frenchman, Shiv Samp Gupta, Deena Nath, etc.) and the principle that subsequent events may be considered to mould relief. It dismissed the revision but granted eight months for vacating, subject to conditions: affidavit of surrender, arrears deposit, and continued rent payment.
This writ petition challenges constitutional and statutory provisions surrounding Goods and Services Tax (GST) implementation in Kerala, specifically the 101st Constitutional Amendment to the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act 20 of 2017), and Ext. P2 under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) for the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner contends that subsections of Section 174(2) of the 2017 Act, along with related savings provisions under the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, exceed constitutional limits (ultra vires) and that the KVAT regime could not be invoked post GST. The court notes that the central challenge to the 101st Amendment has already been considered in Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (IB) 1, Investigation Branch, Thiruvananthapuram and others (2019 KHC 205), and is decided against the petitioner, thus denying relief on that ground. The pivotal issue, however, concerns natural justice in Ext. P2: the KVAT penalty order, where no personal hearing was granted despite the petitioner requesting one, and where the notice Ext. P1 demanded objections within 16 days. Section 67(3) mandates a hearing before any penalty. The court determines a violation of natural justice and directs reconsideration of Ext. P2 after affording a personal hearing, with a three-month deadline, thereby disposing of the petition by remitting the matter for compliance with due process.
This writ appeal challenges an order under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 that demanded six rupees per every hundred rupees of value (Article 42(b)) for a partition deed (Exhibit P2) among co-owners who descend from Vallon and Kurumba. The appellant Mohanan and co-owners sought to register a partition deed executed on 19-01-2021, treated as a partition among ‘family’ under Article 42(a) (as amended) read with sections 2(fb) and 2(k). The Sub Registrar rejected registration, holding that the parties did not fall within the amended ‘family’ and thus were liable to higher stamp duty. The writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge. The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench, examined the amendments to Article 42(a) and the definitional provisions, especially 2(fb) (family) and 2(k) (instrument of partition). It held that the wife and children of Velayudhan (the line of Thalary) are legal heirs of Vallon and Kurumba and thus fall under the amended category entitled to reduced stamp duty. Consequently, the P5 order was set aside and the partition deed was directed to be registered with lesser stamp duty within two weeks. The appeal is allowed.
Mat.Appeal No.171 of 2021 The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, heard Mat.Appeal No.171 of 2021 arising from Kannur, where the appellant, Rarima R., filed O.P. No.400 of 2019 before the Family Court seeking damages for defamation against her husband, Rejulal K.V., and his father, V.V. Damodaran. The respondents challenged the Family Court’s jurisdiction by moving I.A. No.1070 of 2019, which the Court allowed, returning the petition to a more appropriate forum. The appellant challenged this order under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, arguing that when the cause of action arises from a marital context, a Family Court can adjudicate matters relating to the marriage. The High Court examined whether the defamation claim, framed as a tort resulting in harm to reputation, falls within the ambit of Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, which authorizes proceedings arising out of a marital relationship. Relying on decisions such as K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida and Mini and others v. Sivaraman, Leby Isaac v. Leena M. Ninan, and Anilkumar v. Sheela, the Court held that the dispute is primarily a tort with no direct nexus to the marital relationship. Accordingly, the Family Court’s inference of lack of jurisdiction was correct. The appeal was dismissed, preserving the impugned order. The judgment reiterates that Liberal construction of Family Court jurisdiction must not erode the requirement of a matrimonial nexus for certain proceedings.
Dr. N.S. Beena, a gynecologist at Govt. Taluk Hospital Karunagappally, challenges a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of a cheque issued to discharge a debt of Rs. 1,50,000. The Judicial First Class Magistrate convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and ordered imprisonment till rising of the Court with Rs.1,50,000 as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.; the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence. The Revision Court (High Court of Kerala) examined whether the revisional power under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. could re-appreciate evidence or should limit itself to correcting miscarriage of justice. It reaffirmed the principle that revision is supervisory rather than appellate and normally cannot re‑weigh evidence unless there is gross miscarriage (citing State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri and later cases). The court analyzed presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act, citing Rangappa, Kalamani Tex, and Bir Singh to emphasize that once signatures on a cheque are established, the presumption in favour of a legally enforceable debt arises and the onus shifts to the accused to rebut by preponderance of probabilities. The petitioner did not rebut the presumptions, and the Court upheld the concurrent findings, while granting three months’ time to pay the compensation and deferring execution to 20.02.2023 to preserve justice.
This writ appeal arises from a decision in WP(C) No.18035 of 2022, where Sabna M.S. sought a building permit for a residential construction on a small land parcel in Nedumangad. The Nedumangad Municipality rejected the application (Exhibit P3) for reasons including absence of plot subdivision details. The High Court of Kerala, in a decision dated 10.06.2022 in Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality and related judgments, held that a development permit is required only if there is a subdivision of plots; where a project does not involve land development, a building permit can be granted without insisting on a development permit. Following that line of reasoning, the learned Single Judge disposed of Sabna’s writ petition by directing the Municipality to consider the building permit without requiring subdivision or a development permit, provided the applicant is otherwise eligible, within three weeks. The present writ appeal challenges this. The Division Bench reviews the precedents, notably Nafeesa and Panjal Grama Panchayat v. Aneesh P, and agrees with the principle that a small landowner seeking construction need not obtain a development permit for the entire property, so long as statutory requirements are otherwise satisfied. The appeal is dismissed; time for consideration of the application is extended by three weeks.
BAIL APPL. NO. 587 OF 2023 This is a bail application filed by the 3rd accused, Bineeth, in NDPS case No.1092/2021 at Tirur Police Station, Malappuram, currently pending as Special Court NDPS Case No. 344/2022. The prosecution alleges that on 03.09.2021 a lorry transporting 230 kg of ganja was intercepted near Chamravattam on Tirur public road, establishing the accuseds’ involvement in possession and transport of contraband in commercial quantity. The petitioner contends his innocence, asserts that he is the sole breadwinner, and seeks regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing that accused 1 to 3 were nabbed together, with the same contraband and in a manner suggesting complicity, and that the offence involves a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The court notes the quantity qualifies as commercial and that bail is subject to the rider under NDPS Section 37. It analyzes whether there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the accused is not guilty and would not commit an offence while on bail, citing Supreme Court and Kerala cases to interpret the standard. After evaluating the materials and arguments, the court concludes there are no sufficient grounds in this case to grant bail and dismisses the application. The petition is accordingly rejected.
W.A. Nos. 1446, 1447, 1448 & 1512 of 2022 These writ appeals are filed by FL3 licensees challenging the Kerala High Court Single Judge’s dismissal of their claim for remission of foreign liquor license fees for periods during which the sale of liquor was permitted but operations were constrained by lockdowns and government restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellants—Avenue Hotels & Resorts (Kochi), Muthoot Hotels (P) Ltd. (Taj Green Cove Resort, Kovalam), and MPG Hotels & Infrastructure Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (Hotel Novotel Kochi Info-Park)—assert that remission is warranted for the periods during which the license could not be profitably operated due to extraneous factors beyond their control, following the Supreme Court’s discussion in Chitra v. State of Kerala. The State and Excise authorities contend that a license is for sale of liquor and, although lockdowns were imposed and later exemptions granted, there was no embargo on sale during the relevant periods; further, the appellants themselves chose not to sell over the counter, which cannot be treated as an extraneous reason. The Division Bench clarifies that the lockdown periods were excluded and that remission for subsequent periods was already granted, and distinguishes Chitra, holding that the present cases do not warrant remission for periods when sale was permitted but counter sales were refused. The appeals are dismissed with costs, and the parties must bear their own.
Nelson P.S., a railway contractor, approached the Kerala High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking reference to arbitration for disputes arising from Annexure A2 of a work contract for doubling the Chengannur–Chingavanam railway track. He contends that after performing the work and executing Annexure A2 following Annexure A1, he was paid Rs. 31,78,000 but is owed Rs. 20,87,326, which prompted Annexure A4 demanding payment or arbitration. Respondent K.V. Anilkumar disputes any liability, arguing no amounts are due and that no dispute exists; she insists the arbitration clause is not triggerable. The Court notes the arbitration clause (Clause 22 of Annexure A2) mandating resolution of disputes through arbitration and the fact that the arbitrator is to be appointed by the respondent, while acknowledging amendments under the Arbitration Act, including Section 12(5). Relying on Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Another v. HSCC (India) Limited (AIR 2020 SC 59) and Tulsi Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr.Appu Benny Thomas (2021 (5) KHC 404), the judge held that a party cannot unilateral arbitrage or appoint an arbitrator. The AR is allowed, appointing Sri Thomas Pallickaparambil as sole arbitrator, with directions to obtain a disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1), and to commence proceedings with appearance fixed for 28.01.2022. Fees will follow the Fourth Schedule of the Act.
This is a Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused, Mrs. Shafeela Nasar, challenging the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) and the concurrent appellate judgments. The matter relates to a cheque for Rs. 5,00,000 dated 18.09.2012 that allegedly bounced after the accused failed to repay a debt; the prosecution contends the accused owed Rs. 5,00,000 and issued the cheque in discharge of that liability. The trial court recorded the evidence of three witnesses and, after the accused remained silent, convicted her under NI Act and imposed imprisonment till rising of the Court and a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 with default imprisonment for three months. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal, sustaining the conviction and sentence. The High Court, in revising, clarified that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and not a second appellate remedy and should not re-appreciate evidence, except to correct miscarriage of justice. It relied on State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan, Kishan Rao, Rangappa, Bir Singh, Kalamani Tex, and Kishan Rao to emphasize limitations on re‑ appreciation and the operation of reverse onus. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence: simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 under Cr.P.C. 357(1)(b) with four months to pay, directing surrender by 02.03.2023 and deferring execution until 01.03.2023.
This writ petition challenges EPF contributions assessed for the period April 2009 to October 2012 after a notice (Ext.P1) directed production of records. The petitioner contends that medical reimbursement was paid only to a limited number of employees as per contract and not to all, and that the remittance calculations (Ext.P2) do not establish default by the firm. The assessing officer (Ext.P3) levied Rs. 6,33,014 on the basis that wages were bifurcated into basic, DA, HRAs etc. The petitioner appealed (Ext.P4) and deposited Rs. 2,00,000 as stay (Ext.P5), but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal (Ext.P6). The petitioner argues that, under Sections 2(b) and 6 of the EPF Act, and based on documentary evidence showing medical reimbursement was not universal, the liability should not extend to all employees. The respondents contend that concurrent factual findings justify the demand. The court references several key authorities to interpret basic wages—Manipal Academy of Higher Education v PF Commissioner; Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd v Tarai Chini Mill Majdoor Union; Daily Partap v RPFC—and discusses the welfare nature of the Act. Notably, Vivekananda Vidyamandir is cited for a general principle but distinguished in light of the facts. Ultimately, the court quashes Exts.P3 and P6, allows the petition, and directs adjustment/refund within 45 days, emphasizing that medical reimbursement granted to only a subset cannot automatically render the entire workforce liable.
