CON.CASE(C) NO. 488 OF 2020 This Contempt of Court case arises from a petition by six former employees challenging alleged willful disobedience of directions contained in Annexure A1 to the judgment dated 25 February 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 6439 of 2017, which followed Annexure A2 judgment of 12 October 2018 in W.P.(C) No. 13120 of 2015 and connected matters. The Supreme Court’s later decision in Civil Appeals Nos. 8143-8144 of 2022, and connected matters, pronounced on 4 November 2022, upheld the validity of Notification No. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22 August 2014 and directed read-down and extension of the pension scheme for certain employees, including aspects such as option periods and pensionable salary. The petitioners contend that the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) has failed to comply with the directions and thus disobeyed the court’s orders. The respondents, through Standing Counsel, submit that the 2022 apex-judgment requires a reconsideration of the petitioners’ entitlement for higher pension under law. After hearing, the High Court closes the Contempt Case, but with a rider: EPFO may reconsider the petitioners’ entitlement for higher pension in light of the 2022 apex decision, and adjust accordingly, with directions for implementation. The order leaves scope for further actions as per law and the 2022 judgment.
WP(C) Nos. 6561/2023 and 6786/2023 These two writ petitions challenge an order of transfer issued by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) on 23 February 2023 (Ext.P1). The petitioners, both Superintendents at the KSRTC District Office in Thrissur, were transferred to different units as part of a drive to restore “smooth and proper functioning” of the office. The petitioners contend that the Ext.P1 transfer primarily targets the junior employee Kavitha V. Nair and that their own transfers are unnecessary, since Ext.R1(b) (a report by the Executive Director (Vigilance)) primarily documents Kavitha V. Nair’s alleged misconduct rather than misconduct by the petitioners. The respondents argue that the vigilance report disclosed disharmony in the office and that the transfer was necessitated to maintain administrative efficiency. The Court recalls settled law that transfer is an incidence of service and does not create a legal right, and that interference is unwarranted unless statutory violations or mala fides are shown. Clause 11 of the Transfer Guidelines (Appendix-IV to the Long-Term Settlement Agreement 2012) authorizes transfers on administrative grounds to preserve harmony and decorum in the workplace. The judgment emphasizes that employers are best placed to determine deployment in the public interest, and that transfers are not punitive in nature. On this basis, and finding no malice, the petitions are dismissed, upholding the transfers as legitimate administrative actions.
This batch of writ petitions, heard together in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, challenges the upper age restriction introduced for admission to the five-year Integrated LLB course in Kerala for 2016-2017. The petitioners, including V. Anju (WP(C) 33322/2016) and several other students in connected petitions, contend that the Bar Council of India’s Legal Education Rules 2008, particularly Clause 28(a), imposed an upper age limit of 20 years after the initial notification and prospectus for the admissions. They argue that there was no upper age limit in the notification dated 28.7.2016 and in the prospectus; the rank lists and admit cards were issued pursuant to an age-neutral framework. They further contend that amendments and orders post-examination—such as GO (MS) No. 213/2016/H.Edn and a 21.10.2016 directive—altered the rules after the process had commenced, undermining the legitimate expectations of candidates who relied on the original prospectus. The petitioners cite decisions from other High Courts (Punjab & Haryana, Allahabad, Bombay) and Madras High Court proceedings, which treated Clause 28 as unconstitutional or unsettled, and urge that the admissions be finalized per the earlier rank lists and that Clause 28 cannot be validly enforced. The respondents include the State of Kerala, the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, the Bar Council of India and its Legal Education Committee, and the Union of India, among others, defending the regulatory framework. The Court’s decision ultimately acknowledges the ongoing controversy surrounding Clause 28, stayed interim orders, and, after considering the course completion of the petitioners, declares the interim relief absolute and closes the petitions with a direction that certificates be issued on successful completion of the course.
This is a joint High Court of Kerala order disposing of RP Nos. 784/2023 and 785/2023, both reviews of earlier writ petitions challenging stop memos and orders restraining quarrying on lands allotted under the Kerala Land Assignment/ pattayam regime. The petitioners—Poabs Enterprises Private Limited and Poabs Granite Products Private Limited—contend that the Geologist permitted mining activities (including granite extraction and manufacture of M-Sand) and that the Government had issued orders (G.O.(MS) 593/15/Revenue dated 11.11.2015 and G.O.(MS) 95/2019/Rev. dated 08.03.2019) authorising sanction to quarry leases, thereby legitimising the activity. They argue that the District Collector and Tahsildar acted without authority by issuing stop memos despite departmental permissions and long-standing practice to regularise such mining in LA Pattaya lands, including reliance on Kerala State rules and MMDR Act provisions. The respondents counter that review cannot function as a rehearing on merits; they rely on established Supreme Court jurisprudence limiting review to errors apparent on the record, and on prior decisions (including Manu Anand and Manoj Krishnan) that Annexures A3/A4 could not revive the challenged orders. After considering submissions and settled law, the Court dismisses the reviews, upholding the earlier judgment and clarifying the scope of review under Order XLVII CPC.
This writ appeal, filed by the State of Kerala and five government officers, challenges a learned Single Judge’s 5 April 2022 order in W.P.(C) No.28181/2021, which directed refund of Rs.8,83,500 remitted by Joy John under an amended fee regime for changing land category under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner sought mandamus to refund the amount paid under Exhibit-P2, on the ground that the demand arose from an unconstitutional circular and amendment. The appellants argued that at the time of payment the circular was valid and well within the scope of the statutory regime; thus the collection was not illegal and should not be refunded, and that the counter-affidavit presented late could not thwart the government’s action. The respondents countered that the circular dated 23 July 2021, which restricted the exemption up to 25 cents, was unconstitutional in light of Baby M.K. v. District Collector, Ernakulam, and that refunds should follow. The High Court, following well-established constitutional principles and Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Mahabir Kishore, Hmm Limited, Salonah Tea, U.P. Pollution Control Board), held that the circular/interpretation was unconstitutional and directed refund of the amount to the applicant. The judgment emphasizes the court’s power to strike down unconstitutional fiscal measures and to ensure refunds where levies were not legally sustainable. The Division Bench ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the refund obligation and ordering no costs.
TR.P(C) Nos. 445/2021; 446/2021; 453/2021; 734/2021 This is a common order of the Kerala High Court dealing with four transfer petitions filed under Section 24 of the CPC by Neethu V.S., wife, seeking to transfer four matrimonial proceedings from the Family Court at Ettumanoor and Kottayam to the Family Court at Attingal. Neethu, aged 30, alleges that after being driven out of the matrimonial home she relocated to Thiruvananthapuram, where she works as a dentist. Contesting four cases—O.P. 185/2019 (divorce), O.P. 66/2019 (return of money and ornaments), O.P. (Div) 377/2019 (restitution of conjugal rights), and O.P. 1227/2021 (return of money and ornaments)—from distant courts would cause hardship and impede her access to justice. The respondent-husband, John Peter E.S., along with other respondents, oppose the transfers, arguing lack of bona fides and potential hardship if cases are moved. The Court, noting the petitioner’s evidence of permanent residence in Thiruvananthapuram (passport, voter id, bank records) and her professional in that city, emphasizes the welfare and convenience of the wife. Citing Supreme Court precedents that favor considering the wife’s convenience in transfer decisions, the Court transfers all four matters to the lighter Family Court at Attingal, enabling consolidation and a joint trial. Directions include consolidation, partial dispensation of personal appearances for some respondents, and transmission of records to Attingal with notices to follow.
This criminal revision petition by N. Radhakrishnan challenges an order of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha, dismissing a complaint filed under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 406 and 420 IPC against the then Manager of Corporation Bank (now Union Bank of India) at Vyttila. The revisionist, a guarantor for a loan taken by Sri Mohanan, alleged wilful inaction and collusion by the bank official, claiming that the borrower was financially sound yet the officer pursued action against him while neglecting to proceed against the borrower. The bank had classified the loan as NPA and invoked SARFAESI proceedings; the revisionist had challenged those actions in separate proceedings. The Enquiry Judge found the allegations essentially civil and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The petitioner contends that cognizable offences were disclosed and that the Special Judge was required to order FIR and investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with prior sanction as per the PC Act. Relying on Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa and Muhammed V.A, the court held that without sanction under the PC Act there cannot be a registration of FIR/investigation for offences under Section 7. It also noted that revisional jurisdiction is not a power of appeal and confirmed dismissal for want of merits. Final order: petition dismissed.
CRL.M.C.4582/2021; CRL.M.C.4705/2021 This common order of the Kerala High Court deals with two criminal miscellaneous petitions (Crl.M.C.4582/2021 and Crl.M.C.4705/2021) challenging the registration of FIR No.1717/2021 at Perumbavoor Police Station and the forwarding of the private complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioners, accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 in one case and accused No.5 in the other, are lawyers who acted as advisers for the accused in related family and civil matters. The de facto complainant, a lawyer himself, accuses them of conspiring to extract money and of providing legal advice that spurred the alleged offences, including sections 376, 406, 420 and 120B r/w 34 IPC, though the complaint itself lacks direct overt acts by the petitioners. The petitioners argue mala fides, lack of cognizable offence, and a breach of procedural guidelines—especially Priyanka Srivastava’s directions on Section 156(3) referrals and the necessity of mindful judicial scrutiny. The court reiterates the Bhajan Lal framework and Neeharika guidelines, emphasizing that Section 482 Cr.P.C. powers are meant to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice when the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not establish a prima facie offence or when the proceedings are mala fide. Relying on these principles, the court finds the forward of the complaint to be a mechanical act, and the FIR to be an abuse of process, warranting quashing of all proceedings against the petitioners.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These writ petitions, filed by Managers of Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala, challenge Government Order G.O.(M.S.) No.121/2022/G.Edn dated 07.07.2022 and the Plus One admission prospectus for 2022-23. The petitions contend that the Government has reduced the management quota in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools to 20% and introduced a 10% community quota to be filled by meritorious students of the declared community, with a rider that if the management does not declare its community, those 10% seats would be converted to merit seats. They argue this violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, and seek quashing of the community quota and restoration of the previous 30% management quota. The State defends the policy as a corrective measure to address past anomalies where management quotas and community reservations were mismatched, arguing policy decisions lie within the executive domain and require deference, citing precedents on judicial restraint in policy matters and the need to balance merit and social justice. The Kerala High Court holds that the 20% management quota is permissible, but the 10% community quota is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15. Consequently, the court quashes the 10% community quota and directs that those seats be treated as open merit seats to be filled through the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP). Admissions already made under community declarations are not disturbed. The petitions are disposed of accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5566 OF 2023 Adithya Krishnan, the fourth accused in Crime No.612/2023 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, petitioned for regular bail under the NDPS Act after a search at Sidra Pristine Hotel, SRM Road, Ernakulam, led to seizure of 294 grams of MDMA from Room No.317. The prosecution alleges that accused 1 to 4, acting in concert, transported the contraband in a car (KL 62B 3022) and stored it in the hotel for sale, forming a joint venture with common intention to commit the offences under NDPS sections 22(c) r/w 29. The petitioner contends innocence, asserting that nothing was recovered from his conscious possession; he is a student and not involved in the alleged conspiracy. The 2nd and 3rd accused are stated to be neighbours of the petitioner, further casting doubt on the petitioner’s alleged central role. The final report reportedly indicates the 1st accused dealt with the contraband, and the petitioner’s complicity is not established. The Public Prosecutor maintains that the accused, including the petitioner, participated in a joint venture and that the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies when commercial quantities are involved, requiring two conditions: reasonable grounds to believe not guilty and likelihood of not committing an offence while on bail. The Court relies on Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari and other precedents, emphasizing that Section 37’s two components must be satisfied conjunctively. Having examined the materials, the Court concludes there are no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty or that he will refrain from offences on bail, and thus the bail application is dismissed.
This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, heard Bail Application No. 7639 of 2021 concerning Joji John, a Range Forest Officer, charged in Crime No. 533/2020 of Vellathooval Police Station with offences under Section 120B and 379 IPC and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The petition sought anticipatory bail. The allegations allege that, in conspiracy with subordinates and other officers, the petitioner facilitated cutting and removal of teak trees on government puramboke land adjacent to land assigned to a private Patta holder named Joy, by generating false reports, procuring signatures on blank papers, and obtaining cutting permits and transit passes to effect the extraction. It is claimed that six teak trees (and another large teak tree) were cut, with logs transported and stored in property owned by the petitioner's mother, suggesting a personal gain motive. The defense urged bonafide official action, relying on Annexure-B certificate from the Village Officer, Annexure-C report from the Section Forest Officer, Annexure-D cutting permission issued in bona fide discharge, and Annexure-E/F communications, insisting that the patta land did not reserve trees to the Government and that prior circulars supported cutting in non-forest areas. The prosecution contended the petitioner misused his official position despite the paper records, asserting strong evidence and that the accused is the central actor. After hearing, the court found prima facie material indicating misuse of office, noted the timber's age and government ownership, and dismissed the bail application, reiterating the seriousness of the alleged offences and the need to proceed to trial.
Jagadeesh v. State of Kerala concerns the murder of Appu, a daily labourer who lived with his wife Bindu and their two children in a rented house at Neeloor. The sole accused, Jagadeesh, a daily labourer and close acquaintance of Appu, was convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Court, Pala, and he challenges that conviction on appeal. Because there were no eyewitnesses, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence. The sequence of facts sought to establish guilt includes: PW3 and PW4 testifying that the accused was seen in the company of Appu on 06.09.2013 and that the accused left the house in a hurried manner around 4:30 p.m.; PW5 saw him nearby around 5 p.m.; Appu’s body was found next day at the same place, and a plastic rope (MO1) was recovered from the attic with the accused’s disclosure statement; PW10, the doctor, opined that death was due to constriction around the neck, compatible with 18–48 hours before the post‑mortem. The Sessions Court held that the chain of circumstances established the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting the absence of eyewitnesses and the absence of a credible alternative cause. The High Court reiterates the standard for circumstantial evidence: the circumstances must be of conclusive nature, form a complete chain, and be inconsistent with innocence. It also recognizes that motive is not essential. It ultimately upholds the conviction and sentence, and dismisses the appeal, finding no merit to interfere.
This is a Circular/Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 5241 of 2018) filed by Radakrishnan challenging the order of 26.07.2018 in EP No.14/2015 in CC No.31/2013 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The underlying dispute concerns a 15.03.2011 agreement to construct a villa in Guruvayoor, pursuant to which the petitioners allegedly paid Rs. 85,75,000 but the villa was not delivered. The State Commission allowed the complaint, directing a refund of Rs.84,35,000 with interest at 15% per annum from 27.11.2014. When the petitioner failed to comply, the Commission proceeded under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arresting him and later remanding him to custody with a bond requirement. The petitioner contends that enforcement under Section 27(2) is quasi-judicial and requires a formal charge and trial, and that the remedy should be via appeal to the National Commission; the respondents argue that Section 27 provides expeditious enforcement and that a remedy exists by challenging orders before the National Commission. The Court discusses the legitimate enforcement purpose of S.27, cites earlier authorities (Venugopal; Joseph; Jancy Joseph), and ultimately holds that the proper remedy is to approach the National Commission challenging the 8 August 2018 order. The petition is closed with no relief granted here, and the respondents may seek enforcement of the orders."
Petitioner M/S Shreyas Marketing, a Kerala-based partnership engaged in marketing and distribution of branded goods, challenges Ext.P1 dated 21.05.2021 issued by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Bangalore, under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. Ext.P1 is framed as an intimation for conciliation directed at payment of Rs. 77,21,127 by the petitioner to the supplier (the 2nd respondent) and is presented as a precursor to resolution of the dispute rather than a binding order. The petitioner contends Ext.P1 was issued without the procedural steps mandated by the Act, notably service of the reference on the buyer and seeking the buyer’s response; it emphasizes that the Council must first examine the reference and only then place the matter before a meeting for conciliation. Reliance is placed on Ext.P5, Karnataka Rules 2007 framed under Section 30 read with Section 21(3) of the Act, especially Rule 4(5), to argue that service of the reference and the response is mandatory. The petitioner also asserts that part of the cause of action arose in Kerala since goods were supplied there, invoking Article 226(2) and Lakshmanan v. Union of India to assert territorial jurisdiction in this Court. The respondents contend Ext.P1 is merely an advisory conciliation step and that any challenge lies in Karnataka, where the supplier is located. Ultimately the court dismisses the petition on territorial jurisdiction grounds, applying the doctrine of forum conveniens and holding that Ext.P1 cannot be challenged here.
This writ petition, filed by four property owners (petitioners) whose buildings stood on land acquired for the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), challenges the computation of compensation for electrification and plumbing under the National Highways Act (NH Act). The petitioners rely on Ext.P4 GO, which allegedly prescribes additional compensation percentages (12.5% and 4% for commercial buildings; 12.5% and 12% for residential buildings) for electrification and plumbing, and contend CALA (Competent Authority for Land Acquisition) incorrectly denied these enhancements while calculating overall compensation. They seek a direction to CALA to grant these amounts in addition to the sums payable under the NH Act. The respondents counter that CALA already issued awards on 13.11.2021, and that post-award writ petitions are not maintainable; the remedy is to challenge the awards under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act. The court notes a settled principle from Usman Arif v. Project Director that once awards are issued, CALA is functus officio except to issue supplementary or additional awards under the NH Act. Since the petition seeks recomputation rather than a supplementary award, the court redirects the petitioners to pursue the 3G(5) remedy. Ultimately, the petition is disposed with liberty to approach the competent arbitrator under 3G(5) for consideration of the claims, and copies of the awards shall be provided on request.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1794 OF 2023 This is a Kerala High Court bail application (Bail Appl. No. 1794 of 2023) by the second accused in crime No. 02/2023 of Manjeshwar Police Station, Kasaragod, challenging an NDPS offence under Section 22(c) after police recovered 12.10 grams of MDMA while the accused and others were transporting it on a TVS scooter on 01-01-2023. The petitioner contends non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and suggests the contraband might be methamphetamine, which would attract Section 22(b) rather than 22(c). He also argues for regular bail given the custody period since 01-01-2023. The Prosecution argues the recovery was a spot/check incident, Section 42(1) compliance is not in issue, and a report under Section 42(2) has already been forwarded; since the contraband is of a commercial quantity, the stringent provisions of Section 37 apply. The court notes accused Nos.1–3 were caught red-handed with commercial quantity contraband, and bail cannot be granted on mere hypothesis that the substance may be methamphetamine. Relying on Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari and allied precedents, the court reiterates that ‘reasonable grounds’ must be more than prima facie, and the two conjunctive ingredients of Section 37(1)(b) are sine qua non for grant of bail in such cases. On evidence viewed, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner innocent or to prevent reoffending on bail, so the application is dismissed.
Sunitha Vasanth P. V., a teacher, filed WP(C) No. 14104 of 2021 in the Kerala High Court seeking promotion to the post of Headmaster of the Sree Narayana Gurudev Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kuzhikalidavaka, Kottarakkara. The vacancy arose on 31 May 2021 following the retirement of Smt. Anitha Vasanth. According to the official seniority list, the petitioner is at Serial No. 6 while the 6th respondent stands at Serial No. 5. The petitioner contends that, under the second proviso to Rule 44A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), teachers aged 50 and above are exempted from the test qualification, but the third proviso requires preference for those who have acquired the test qualification. The 5th respondent appointed the 6th respondent as Headmaster-in-Charge; the 4th respondent refused the approval for the 6th’s appointment as Headmaster and granted approval only as Headmaster-in-Charge. Exhibits P5 and P6 representing the petitioner were not acted upon. The counter asserts that the 6th respondent appeared for the Departmental Test and passed three papers, but PSC postponement prevented completing the balance papers; the 6th respondent is over 50 and senior to the petitioner, hence exempt from qualification. The court cites Padmanabhan Nair v. Dy. Director (1991 KHC 108) to emphasize the necessity of qualified candidates and the vacancy-date rule. Ultimately, the court holds that P8 and P9 require interference, and directs the 4th respondent to consider P6 with notice to all parties, keeping salary disbursement by the current drawing official to avoid disruption pending decision.
This is a criminal revision petition (Crl.R.P No.1426/2019) arising from an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner-accused, Jacob B alias Jacob Baby, challenges the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta (ST No.307/2016), dated 18.05.2018, as modified by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Pathanamthitta (Cr. Appeal No.38/2018) dated 26.08.2019, which convicted him for issuing a cheque for Rs. 7.5 lakh dishonoured on presentation (Cheque dated 13.07.2016) in repayment of a loan allegedly advanced to him in 2015. The trial court held the complainant (PW1) to discharge the initial burden and applied the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act in the complainant’s favour, with compensation under Cr.P.C. Sec.357(1). The Sessions Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 10.5 lakh, with default imprisonment. The High Court, while dismissing the revision, held that a criminal revision under sections 397/401 Cr.P.C is not a vehicle to re‑appreciate evidence, upheld the concurrent verdicts, and affirmed the appellate modification. It granted one month from 22.12.2022 to pay the compensation and directed appearance by 21.01.2023, with execution deferred to 20.01.2023. The petition is dismissed, but with limited time to comply with the financial penalty.
This Public Interest Litigation filed by an advocate seeks to quash two government orders: Exhibit P1 (dated 05.06.1987) issued by the Central Government permitting star plates and car flags on the cars of senior police officers, and Exhibit P2 (dated 20.10.1997) issued by the Kerala Transport Department exempting police department vehicles from some earlier instructions on name boards. The petitioner contends these orders violate Rule 92A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Sections 44(1) and (2) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, and are not in conformity with the statutory regime governing motor vehicle markings. He seeks a direction to report on any other similar orders and to set aside those that contravene the cited rules, including provisions for fixing name boards on official vehicles under Rule 92A. He also argues for abolition of VIP symbolism on vehicles in light of the Constitution’s equality mandate. The court examines Rule 92A (vi) and (vii), the State Police Chief’s power under Section 44(1)-(2), Rule 36 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Rule 108 and its sub-rules), along with related central and state notifications. While recognizing emergency exemptions and the identification purpose of markings, the court ultimately holds that the challenged circulars fall within the law, finds no public interest justifying interference, and dismisses the petition.
The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 cancellation of registration under the CGST/SGST regime after Ext.P3 show-cause notice for alleged non-filing of returns. The petitioner contends the Ext.P5 cancellation order is illegal and non est, as no opportunity of hearing was granted following the show-cause; it is argued that Section 29 read with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules requires a personal hearing before cancellation and that Ext.P3 was not a proper cancellation notice. The petitioner also notes a belated appeal. The Respondents submit that returns for the specified period were not filed and that the procedure prescribed by law was followed; revocation under Section 30 and appeals within time were not pursued. The court, after hearing, finds Ext.P3 issued in Form GST REG-31 (suspension-related) and Ext.P5’s stated grounds vague, not detailing the period or the precise grounds for cancellation. Relying on established authority that when statute prescribes a manner of doing an act it must be performed in that manner, the court references Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala and Gujarat High Court authorities Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing (Supra) and Sing Traders (Supra) to emphasize that show-cause must specify reasons and be properly framed. The court ultimately holds the petition to succeed, quashing Ext.P5, while clarifying that it does not absolve fiscal liability. The petitioner is directed to file defaulted returns with tax, late fee, interest and penalties within two weeks of restoration of registration.
