This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.5366 of 2023) filed in the Kerala High Court by accused nos. 1, 3–6 in Crime No.151 of 2022 of Mayyil Police Station. The charges relate to offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324 read with 149 and under the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 (Section 3 r/w Section 4). The petition was brought under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings on the ground of an amicable settlement between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the dispute has been settled, the affidavits of the respondents support this, and continuing with the prosecution would frustrate peace and ends of justice. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, but acknowledged absence of other serious crimes by the petitioners and no lasting grievances by the complainants. The court referred to State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, summarising the law: 482 can be invoked where the dispute is civil/private in nature and is fully resolved; it should not be invoked for heinous offences or public-interest crimes. After weighing gravity, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the judge held that quashing would not adversely impact society and would serve ends of justice. The petition was allowed and the FIR and proceedings were quashed, effectively ending the case against the petitioners.
WP(C) No. 21360 of 2020; WP(C) No. 19467 of 2021 These two writ petitions, WP(C) Nos. 21360 of 2020 and 19467 of 2021, were heard together due to common factual questions arising from the recruitment of contingent workers in Attingal and Ramanattukara municipalities. The petitioners allege denial of appointment because they were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, even though they had been interviewed, and they seek admission to the rank lists without further delay. The respondents contend, in WP(C) 19467/2021, that one petitioner is ranked No.7 in Ramanattukara’s list and can be considered for vacancies; in Attingal, petitioners were placed on separate lists and sent for government concurrence, which was declined. The court emphasizes that the relevant law mandates selection from a single source to prevent nepotism and other vitiating factors, citing Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India and the Kerala High Court’s endorsement in Hameshdas K.H. That line of authority renders sponsorship from the Employment Exchange illegal as a criterion. Accordingly, the court orders assimilation of the two Attingal lists into a common merit-based list, to be populated by interview marks and vacancies without delay. It also directs Ramanattukara to consider the 19467/2021 petitioner per his rank in the relevant list and, if needed, accommodate petitioners in the available vacancies, disregarding pending government concurrence.
The petitioners, devotees of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, approached this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to include their names in Ext.P1 final list of members in the ‘registered mandalam’ for the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) of Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, which is under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB). They also sought a mandamus to postpone the TAC election until consideration of Ext.P2 representations dated 28.01.2023 (petitioner's), 28.01.2023 (second petitioner) and 29.01.2023 (third petitioner). The respondents countered, explaining that, following a 2022 judgment in DBP No.17 of 2022, election proceedings for the TAC were initiated; a draft electoral list published on 10.01.2023 excluded 17 persons after scrutiny, including petitioners, on grounds of criminal antecedents or holding TAC positions. The court examines Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, and the Rules framed thereunder, highlighting that TAC formation is statutory and membership in the registered mandalam has defined eligibility, including residency within 5 km and active devotion. It cites Chandu K. v. TD Board (2021) and Santharam Roy T.S. (2022) for interpretive guidance on membership rules and notice requirements. Ultimately, the High Court finds no justification to exclude petitioners and directs the 3rd respondent to include them in Ext.P1, enabling participation in the 26.03.2023 meeting, while complying with procedural guidelines and the DBP 2022 directions. The order emphasizes adherence to the Rules and prior judgments in the matter.
WP(C) Nos. 1064/2023 and 28216/2023 This consolidated writ petition challenges orders of the Co-operative Arbitration Court in ARC No.15/2022 and seeks to regulate the bank’s recruitment process amid ongoing litigation. In WP(C) No.1064 of 2023, the Managing Committee of the Vellanad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.2379 seeks to quash Exts.P11 and P12 issued by the Arbitration Court. In WP(C) No.28216 of 2023, M. S. Vimal Kumar seeks directions to the Joint Registrar to expeditiously consider Ext.P8, a Rule 176 complaint, praying to set aside the bank’s resolutions Nos.1554–1557 and to rescind the related selection process. Senior counsel submitted that the bank’s decision to conduct a written examination occurred against a backdrop of active litigation and that the arbitration case would not be maintainable for selection disputes under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, citing Akalakunnam. The respondents urged caution, noting that the Joint Registrar could adjudicate the Rule 176 complaint, and that no appointment should be made until resolution. The court allowed WP1064, quashing ARC 15/2022, and disposed of WP28216 by directing expeditious consideration of Ext.P8 with a stay on appointments until orders. A three-month deadline was set, with interim relief hearings to be held before the Joint Registrar if sought.
This is a Constitution of India petition under Article 227 challenging a Family Court order in O.P.606/2019 (OP (FC) No.505 of 2022) in Ernakulam. The respondent daughter sought maintenance under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and past/future maintenance, along with marriage expenses, culminating in a Family Court IA 5447/2019 directing interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month. The petitioner-father argues he cannot afford such maintenance, relying on his retirement pension and the financial obligation toward a second wife, daughter, stepson, and mother-in-law. He contends that interim maintenance cannot be ordered under Section 125 CrPC, invoking Abhilasha v. Prakash (AIR 2020 SC 4355), and that the Family Court lacks power to grant interim relief. The respondent counters that due to a substantial pension and other dependents, the father cannot shirk maintenance for his daughter who is studying medicine. The Kerala High Court cites Shaila Kumari Devi v. Krishnana Bhagwan Pathak (2008) to affirm the Magistrate’s implied power to issue interim maintenance and clarifies Abhilasha is not applicable, as this case concerns Christians and Section 7(2) of the Family Courts Act. The Court ultimately upholds the interim maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month and dismisses the petition without disturbing the impugned order, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227.
676/2020 (lead) and connected cases This batch judgment addresses the retrospective amendment to Section 42(3) of the KVAT Act, introduced by the Kerala Finance Act 2016, and its implications for reopening time‑barred assessments under the KVAT Act. The lead matter, WA 676/2020, arises from a PKD/KVAT reassessment for the year 2010‑11 and concerns whether Section 42(3) can be applied beyond the five‑year limitation under Section 25, by virtue of retrospective enactment. The State of Kerala argued that the amendment is valid and intended to provide certainty in tax administration, especially in the GST transition era, and that the “deemed pending” mechanism allows reopening even when periods would otherwise bar reassessment. The dealers contended that retroactive application infringes vested rights, undermines time limits, and creates an impermissible legislative fiction. The court scrutinizes constitutional validity, interpretative principles, and precedent (Ghanshyam Das; Ramdas Laxmidas; Vatika Township; Maruti Suzuki; Taj Mahal Hotel; Najeem; Baiju A A) and concludes that while retrospective operation is permissible, it must harmonize with existing limitations and the statutory scheme. The judgment upholds the impugned order and disposes of all WA Nos. by dismissing the writ appeals, emphasizing the need for consistency, certainty, and reasonable retrospective effect in tax legislation.
WP(C) No. 14342 of 2019 & con.cases The batch of writ petitions concerns encroachments on the Thiruvabharana Patha, the sacred route from Pandalam to Sabarimala used to transport Tiruvabharanam for Makara Samkrama. The principal petitioner, Thiruvabharana Patha Samrakshana Samithi, seeks enforcement of Ext.P1 (2009) decision to remove encroachments and to constitute a survey team to measure the Patha under court supervision, with protection for officials while evicting encroachers. The petitions trace back to ongoing attempts since 2009-2010 to clear encroachments along the 83-km stretch across 11 villages in Ranni and Kozhencherry taluks, with surveys under the District Collector and Land Conservancy Act proceedings. The High Court, hearing on 19.10.2022 alongside connected matters, disposed of WP(C)14342/2019 and connected petitions with directions to ensure due process: set aside notices lacking mahazar, direct Tahsildars to issue fresh notices with mahazar and hear the affected parties, complete eviction actions where appropriate, and consider petitioners’ title documents while safeguarding the rights of landless Scheduled Castes. The court emphasized timely, lawful eviction with proper notice, while preserving the petitioners’ rights and ensuring a time-bound completion of the process, along with interim protections in related matters.
BA Nos. 4323 of 2021, 1830 of 2022, 3368 of 2022, 3869 of 2022, 3881 of 2022 Five connected bail applications (BA Nos. 4323 of 2021, 1830 of 2022, 3368 of 2022, 3869 of 2022 and 3881 of 2022) were disposed by a common judgment of the Kerala High Court on 4 July 2023, by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan. The petitioners—Siby Thomas and Aswathykutty—are accused in multiple cases registered at Thodupuzha Police Station and later under investigation by the Kanjur police, under offences punishable under IPC sections 420, 465, 468 and 471. The prosecution alleges that the de facto complainant lent money and provided blank cheque leaves as security, and that the cheques dishonoured at the bank triggered criminal complaints. These petitions had been pending since 2022; the petitioners’ counsel urged bail on grounds of pendency and on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is ongoing and that petitioners may surrender before the IO; if arrest is necessary, bail can be granted on appropriate conditions. Relying on Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court reaffirmed the bail principle and granted bail with conditions: petitioners to appear before the IO within ten days, undergo interrogation, and, if arrest is contemplated, be released on bail on bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties; conditions include cooperation, no inducement to witnesses, and no travel abroad without permission. The petitioners are granted bail accordingly.
This Regular First Appeal, RFA No. 491/2005-B, arises from a suit OS No.126/1995 filed in the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, by the plaintiff for declaration of title to the plaint schedule property on the strength of settlement deed No.3390/1986 (Ext.A1) and for recovery of possession with damages, against defendants including Ramachandran’s heirs and others who claim rights through Ext.A3 partition and Exts.A4-A5 sale deeds. The trial court held Ext.A1 to be genuine and, on that basis, decreed declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff, with recovery of possession, a prohibitory injunction against further transactions, arrears of damages, and mesne profits. On appeal, the appellants challenge Ext.A1 as concocted and seek to portray the extent described in Ext.A1 (4 acre 44 cents) as inconsistent with the plaint description (117 cents), contrive a case of bona fide purchase (Ext.A4-A5 deeds) and argue Ramachandran’s heirs hold superior title. The respondents contend Ext.A1 was properly proved by the plaintiff and document writer PW3; possession and enjoyment of item No.2 by the plaintiff; and that the law governing gifts/settlements under the Transfer of Property Act supports the trial court’s findings. The High Court ultimately upholds the trial court’s decision, dismisses the appeal, and grants costs to the plaintiff.
Naduvil Madom Group of Devaswoms, a hereditary trustee body over a cluster of 18 temples in the Malabar region, challenges Ext.P3 (03.03.2021) and Ext.P5 (28.05.2021) orders of the Malabar Devaswom Board appointing an Executive Officer for Sree Prayangod Siva Temple, arguing that Naduvil Madom’s administration is governed by Ext.P1 Scheme under the Madras HR&CE Act and that Naduvil Madom Devaswoms is a ‘math’ rather than a mere temple. The petitioner contends that the Naduvil Madom Devaswoms has the characteristics of a math (Section 6(10) HR&CE Act) with Moopil Swamiyar as hereditary trustee who must administer all temples under the scheme; Ext.P1 provides for bond requirements, submission and auditing of accounts, and Board oversight. The writ petition reflects a dispute about who may manage day-to-day temple affairs, and whether the Board may appoint an Executive Officer to supervise or take over management. The respondents defend the Board’s authority, citing mismanagement, lack of annual accounts, and violation of circular guidelines (Ext.R5(b)) by the 6th respondent Samithi, and contend the Board’s intervention is legitimate and protective to ensure proper administration. The court examines the math-vs-temple distinction, the applicability of Ext.P1 Scheme, and the scope of HR&CE Act powers before ruling on natural justice and the legitimacy of Ext.P3, ultimately dismissing the petition while permitting Executive Officer action in consultation with the hereditary trustee.
This writ appeal challenges a 2017 order that upheld an action by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) to recover arrears of current charges relating to Consumer No.353 at Kesavadasapuram. The appellant, Santosh Wilson, contends that he cannot be liable for arrears unless ownership of the premises is properly transferred to him; the earlier challenge to the recovery was addressed by the Lok Ayukta/upa Lok Ayuktha framework, and the change of ownership issue was not adequately resolved before the Board’s action. The learned Single Judge held that KSEB could recover the amount due, including any statutory interest, either by encashment of a Bank Guarantee or by proceedings against the consumer’s property, and even directed recovery in certain circumstances. On appeal, the Court examined the Regulating framework: Regulation 15 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy (1997) and Schedule VI of the Indian Electricity Act, noting that the transfer of ownership requires timely intimation and proper compliance before reconnection or new connection; arrears are a first charge on the consumer’s assets; and a new owner cannot circumvent dues. Citing Suraj K.R., Abdul Wahab, K.C. Ninan, and Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, the Division Bench upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Single Judge’s reasoning.
OP(Crl.) Nos. 304/2023, 305/2023, 308/2023, 310/2023, 313/2023, 317/2023, 319/2023, 320/2023, 322/2023, 323/2023, 324/2023, 331/2023 These Original Petitions (OP(Crl.) Nos. 304/2023 and connected cases) challenge orders of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry, directing the petitioners to pay 20% of the amount covered by cheques under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as a condition for proceeding with trials. The petitions rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana to contend that Section 143-A is prospective in nature and should be applicable only to offences where the offence under Section 138 NI Act is committed after the introduction of Section 143-A on 1 September 2018. The respondents contended that the relevant date is the date on which the accused pleads not guilty during summary/trial proceedings. The Kerala High Court, hearing these connected original petitions, agrees with the petitioners, following G.J. Raja, and holds that 143-A cannot be invoked for cases where the alleged offence predates the amendment. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the court is instructed to proceed with the trials and render judgments expeditiously, given that the complaints are from 2018. The judgment consolidates multiple OP(Crl.) cases and directs expeditious disposal of the matters, clarifying the prospective operation of Section 143-A in light of binding Supreme Court authority.
Prasanth Kumar.K., aged 39, owner of K.P.R. Hollow Bricks, with two workers (petitioners 2 and 3), challenges obstruction by a local headload workers union led by the 5th respondent in its loading and unloading activities at his factory. The unit has Udyam registration and a Consent to Establish from the Pollution Control Board; the 5th respondent asserts that only registered headload workers or pool workers under the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Scheme may perform loading/unloading. Petitioners 2 and 3 have applied for headload registration (Rule 26(A) of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules), but their applications were rejected, with a statutory appeal pending before the District Labour Officer. The 4th respondent (police) is involved in maintaining order, while the 3rd respondent Board claims the area falls under the welfare scheme and that only registered or pool workers can work. The court ultimately disposes the petition by permitting the 1st petitioner to continue loading/unloading using petitioners 2 and 3 until the appeal is decided, with the caveat that any other engagement must be from the headload workers’ pool; if the District Labour Officer rules against the petitioners, they must compensate the pool workers for lost income. The judgment cites Theresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police; Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad; and Sunny Varghese v. Assistant Labour Officer to frame its reasoning regarding the welfare scheme and employment rights.
The petitioner, A.R. Narayanan Arath, sought renewal of an Arms licence under the Arms Act, 1959. The original licence, Ext.P1, was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur and valid until 31 December 2009. Before expiry, he applied for renewal, which was rejected by the District Magistrate (Ext.P2) on the report of the Superintendent of Police asserting no subsisting threat to the petitioner’s life and hence no renewal. The Land Revenue Commissioner confirmed this by Ext.P3, in appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act. The petitioner challenged Exts.P2 and P3 in a writ petition. He relied on Chandran Nair v. Additional District Magistrate (2015) 1 KLT 41 to contend that licences granted under the Arms Act must be renewed unless grounds for refusal under Section 14 exist. The respondents argued that renewal can be refused where licensing authorities deem it necessary for public peace or safety and that the police report and hearing records support non-renewal. The court examined Sections 13, 14 and 15 and noted that a refusal must be grounded in statutory grounds and that the reasons given were inadequate. The judgment quashes Exts.P2 and Ext.P3, and directs the 6th respondent to consider the renewal afresh in light of the Arms Act and the Aboobaker decision, within two months, disposing of the petition.
WP(C) Nos. 36272 & 33982 of 2022 Two writ petitions before the Kerala High Court challenge objections to the draft voters list in the forthcoming election to the Kalloorkkad Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Managing Committee of the Bank (WP(C) No. 36272 of 2022) objects to communications issued by the Assistant Registrar (General), Muvattupuzha, requiring the society to produce details regarding members whose inclusion in the voters list is under objection and seeks removal of such objections raised by a member in WP(C) No. 33982 of 2022. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 33982 seeks removal of ineligible members from the voters list, directing the Electoral Officer to take action accordingly. The core dispute concerns whether the Assistant Registrar, in his capacity as a supervisory official, can compel the Managing Committee to furnish evidence before the Electoral Officer, and whether the Electoral Officer can conduct a roving inquiry contrary to Rule 35A. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the roles of Assistant Registrar and Electoral Officer are distinct and that the Electoral Officer must act independently to ensure fair elections; Rule 35A expands the time for objections and mandates consideration of objections by the Electoral Officer. The Government Pleader and Co-operative Election Commission reinforce these points, citing Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar as guiding principle. The High Court clarifies that the Electoral Officer must function independently and that objections must be considered with specificity and reliability. The petitions are disposed of with directions for the Electoral Officer to decide on objections in light of these principles and the Vijayakumar dictum, leaving it to the electoral authorities to take further action as appropriate.
The petitioner, E.M. Paraswaran Somayajipad, a resident of Malappuram district, seeks a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to compel the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and its Administrator to grant him the benefit of Dwadasipanam and permit his participation in Vechunamaskaram at Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple. He traces a Somayagam performed in 2007 near Panniyoor and asserts that, as a Somayajipad, he preserves the Agnihothram at home and should be permitted to participate on Dwadasi; he also points to Thriprayar Temple’s practice and a 2013 acceptance by Thriprayar Devaswom Board granting similar rights. He filed representations Ext.P5 (2007) and Ext.P8 (2014) requesting favorable orders, which remained unacted upon. The respondents counter that only Agnihothris from Perumanom, Sukupuram and Irinjalakuda villages participate in Vechunamskaram on Dwadasi, and that a resident of Panniyoor is not eligible, citing temple custom and the Thanthri’s opinion (Annexure R1(a) dated 21.12.2015). The court recorded the Thanthri’s view and, while acknowledging religious autonomy, ultimately held that the writ petition is not maintainable as it cannot adjudicate civil rights; it dismissed the petition with no costs, leaving factual contentions unresolved.
S.T.Rev. Nos.13, 14 & 15 of 2021 This is a common High Court of Kerala decision disposing of three Sales Tax Revision petitions (S.T.Rev. Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of 2021) heard together on 29 November 2022. The State of Kerala, represented by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, challenges the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal’s orders on limitation and the correctness of Annexure-A assessment for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12; Hotel Veeyemmar International (P) Ltd. is the respondent. The Tribunal had held that Annexure-A’s assessment order was barred by limitation in TA Nos. 45 and 46 of 2018 (and TA 53/2018). The State contends that the Tribunal’s finding on limitation requires independent scrutiny and that the Tribunal relied on a judgment later reversed by this Court in Commercial Tax Officer v Hotel Breezeland Ltd. The hotel seeks a proper interpretation within the law. After hearing, the Court sets aside the Tribunal’s orders and remits the matters for reconsideration and disposal by the law, leaving merits open. It allows the revisions, with remand to determine the time-bar issue afresh and to apply the relevant law. The judgment treats Hotel Breezeland as persuasive authority for the remand approach, while keeping the broader merits open for later decision.
Midland Rubber Produce Company Ltd., the petitioner-employer, challenges Ext. P9, an order rejecting approval of dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer had dismissed the first respondent after a disciplinary enquiry, and sought approval under Sec. 33(2)(b) in view of an ongoing industrial dispute raised by the 3rd respondent union. Ext. P9, however, denied approval on the ground that the dispute was pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent did not exercise jurisdiction correctly, arguing that even with a pending dispute, approval ought to be granted subject to the union’s rights and without prejudicing those rights. He further submits that the enquiry was fair and that the proviso to Sec. 33(2)(b) requiring payment of one month’s wages was satisfied. The respondents’ counsel defends Ext. P9, contending that the union’s dispute defeats approval and that pre-permission under Sec. 33(1)(b) was required. The court holds that Ext. P9 cannot stand as the Section 33(2)(b) enquiry was not properly applied; it is a limited, summary check to ensure fairness, not a merits review. Relying on John D’Souza and Comnico Binani Zinc, the court remands for fresh consideration after hearing both sides, directing a decision within four months.
W.A. Nos. 1682 & 1712 of 2020 These writ appeals challenge a common judgment of the learned Single Judge of 02.03.2020, which declined several reliefs sought by purchasers of apartments in the Vastuhara/Vastugramam project at Guruvayoor, constructed by M/s VasthuHara Developers and Real Estate Ltd. The builder had mortgaged the property in favour of Thrissur District Co-operative Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the Bank initiated proceedings for recovery. The appellants/purchasers prayed for certiorari to quash Exhibits P4 and P5 (notices under SARFAESI), and mandamus to direct the Bank/authorities to take over and complete construction, handover after obtaining a completion certificate, and for forensic audit of the 16th respondent company along with action against auditors and others for alleged corporate fraud and misappropriation. They also sought cancellation of the builder’s company registration, deposit of redirected funds, and time-bound completion under RERA; in short, a broad set of reliefs aimed at salvaging the project and investigating alleged malpractices. The High Court held that SARFAESI notices were issued properly and that the petitioners could pursue remedies under SARFAESI (Section 17) or under the Real Estate Act, 2016, but declined extraordinary writ relief. The appeals were dismissed; the court emphasised exhaustion of statutory remedies and restrained interference in SARFAESI proceedings.
Raphel Rajan v. State of Kerala and Others concerns a writ petition under Article 226 challenging Ext.P7, the District Collector, Kottayam’s 26 December 2018 order under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, which purported to revisit and rectify an earlier assessment through Section 15. The petitioner’s building tax was originally assessed after village and taluk inspections, with subsequent appeals and revisions fixing the plinth area at 277.54 sq m; earlier measurements had shown 332.38 sq m, with a later re-visit showing 297.58 sq m before the revisional authority again settled on 277.54 sq m. During pendency, the petitioner objected to the measurement, contending that a car porch/garage area (17.02 sq m) and attached outhouse space (25.12 sq m) were not to be included as part of the plinth area. Ext.P7 sought to include these areas by rectifying the record under Section 15. The High Court held that Section 15 is confined to rectification of mistakes apparent on the face of the record and is not a remedy to review, revise, or substitute conclusions previously reached by the Assessing, Appellate, or Revisional authorities. Relying on Aswirathul Musthaqeem Sangham and other precedents, the court found Ext.P7 beyond Section 15’s scope and quashed it, allowing the writ petition. The decision clarifies the narrow ambit of rectification under Section 15.
