Dr. Preema E.P., a Professor in the Department of Organon of Medicine at Government Homeopathic Medical College, challenges the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s OA No.1595/2019 order dated 13 January 2020, which directed the Government to finalize API (Academic Performance Indicator) norms and PBAS (Performance Based Appraisal System) and to convene the Department Promotion Committee (DPC) for consideration of her promotion to the cadre of Professor, Cadre, in Organon of Medicine. The petitioner argues that she is eligible for regular cadre promotion as Professor and had been included in the DPC’s Field of Choice; she contends there has been undue delay in Convening the DPC, adversely affecting her career progression. The respondents contend that UGC regulations, implemented via various GO provisions, mandate API/PBAS norms for teaching staff in Homeopathic Medical Colleges; an exemption existed until 31 May 2018, but the exemption was subsequently withdrawn, making API/PBAS norms applicable for promotions from 01.06.2018 onward. They contend that vacancies arising on 01.05.2019 fall under the post-exemption framework, and hence require conformity to the UGC norms and API/PBAS. Tribunal’s order noted these factual aspects and directed expeditious action once norms were finalized. The High Court, noting long delays and the public interest in medical education, especially during COVID-19, modified the Tribunal’s order by directing immediate action to finalize API/PBAS modalities and consider the petitioner for provisional/temporary promotion if a vacancy exists, with strict timelines, and disposed of the petition accordingly.
This is a Rent Control Revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, decided by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 11 January 2023. The revision challenges concurrent eviction orders against tenants for alleged cessation of occupation of a shop room after the death of the original tenant, Balan. The landladies, Visalakshi, Sheeba M.K., and Shabna M.K., contend the premises remained vacant for years, while the tenants maintain the wife of the original tenant continued business in the premises for the period, except four months in 2014 due to illness. The Rent Control Court had ordered eviction, affirmed on appeal; this Court previously set aside those decisions in R.C.R. No.320 of 2017 and remitted for fresh decision after evaluating an Advocate Commissioner’s report (Ext. C1). After fresh proceedings, eviction was again ordered by the Rent Control Court and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The revision petitions argue illegality, impropriety, or irregularity in those decisions, urging this Court to exercise Section 20 powers by reappraising the facts. The Court clarifies the scope of Section 20: this Court does not re‑weigh evidence unless findings are erroneous or perverse. Citing Hindustan Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, the bench finds no error in the decisions below, and the revision petition is dismissed. The orderly outcome reaffirmed eviction on the ground that the tenants ceased to occupy the premises for six months as required under the Act.
CRL.MC NO. 2802 OF 2023 (and connected cases) This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the interim custody orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kolencherry, in cases arising from motor vehicle fraud allegations against an authorised signatory of Sai Service Private Limited. The petitioners, Sai Service Private Limited and Ashok Kumar, contend that Febin P. Ibrahim, acting as Team Leader and authorised signatory for the subsidiary True Value (used-car dealer), forged records and sold multiple vehicles (e.g., KL-40-K-9867, KL-39-B-2409, KL-01-BB-0019, KL-63-C-6364, KL-34-B-0168, KL-40-B-9428), causing substantial loss. Following seizures, separate Section 451 CrPC applications for interim custody were filed by the petitioners and purchasers (2nd respondents). The Magistrate held the purchasers to be bona fide for value and in possession, with RC books in their names, and granted interim custody with conditions. The petitioners argued that possession and transfer of RCs occurred in the course of a crime, hence they should not retain custody. The State countered that the purchasers had RC books and possession and that ownership remained with them. The High Court, after reviewing the records, noted the purchasers’ possession and that the crime’s causal factor (Febin’s forgery) would have to be established later in court. Citing Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Court held continued police custody would contravene Supreme Court directions, and dismissed the petitions, upholding the Magistrate’s order.
WA 746/2023, WA 1155/2023, WA 1216/2023 These connected writ appeals challenge the qualification criteria for the post of Headmaster in aided schools in Kerala. The core issue is whether the University of Kerala’s December 2021 recognition of the Acharya Course offered by the Kerala Hindu Prachar Sabha as equivalent to a B.Ed. degree can substitute for the B.Ed. requirement under Chapter 31 Rule 2 of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, for vacancies that arose on 01.04.2017. The Government had previously relied on its 1988 order recognizing the Acharya Course as an alternate qualification for Hindi teachers; the University’s later equivalence creates a potential conflict with the appointment norms for Headmasters. The learned Single Judge had upheld the Government’s approach; the Division Bench, however, has set aside that order and directed the Government to re-examine the matter after hearing all claimants, within two months, and to decide the attendant benefits if eligible. The court discusses whether the equivalence principle can relate back to the original acquisition of the degree (citing Praveen Kumar v. Kerala Public Service Commission) but clarifies that there is no rule to deny consideration to other contenders with superior rights as of the vacancy date. The judgment emphasizes primacy of the primary authority to decide qualification issues, rather than judicial intervention, in post-2017 disputes affecting headmaster appointments.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) from Kerala High Court arising out of a 2008 accident in which the appellant, Ramesh, sustained grave injuries including amputation of his leg, and challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad’s award in OP(MV)760/2009 (awarded on 8.7.2014) of Rs.12,50,050 on a claim of Rs.23,32,000. The appeal was admitted with consent of both sides for final disposal. The key dispute centered on the calculation of compensation and the notional income used for assessment. The learned judge accepted undisputed evidence and, relying on established jurisprudence, enhanced multiple heads of compensation. Notably, on the question of notional income, the court applied the Ramachandrappa principle to fix Rs.6,500 per month for 2008, and adopted 40% future prospects per Pranay Sethi for an 80% disability. It corrected the Loss of Earning period from 12 to 10 months, consistent with the medical record. The court also applied the Sarla Verma multiplier (18) for calculation. The final order partly allowed the appeal, increasing compensation across several heads including permanent disability, loss of earning, bystander expenses, extra nourishment and pain & suffering, while altering interest and costs and directing deposit within two months. The judgment cites several precedents to justify the enhancements and clarifies the operative orders.
P. M. Salim, a daily-wage Operator who joined the Kerala Water Authority in 1987, was later regularised with retrospective benefits including time-bound higher grade and pay revision. He retired on 31 May 2018 as Head Operator. About two years after retirement, the regularisation of his service was modified by Ext. P3 (4 April 2020) to count his service from 1 January 1988 rather than 1 August 1987, resulting in reduction of pay, increments, grade promotion and pensionary entitlements that had been granted since 1991 by Ext. P1. Ext. P4, a gratuity-related order issued in 2020, also reflected adjustments. The petitioner contends that benefits granted over three decades cannot be withdrawn and seeks restoration of the earlier treatment and disbursal of pension, DCRG and Commuted Value of Pension based on the actual last drawn pay. He relies on Ext. P10, the Court’s common judgment in WP(C) 8670/2020 (2021), to argue that recovery of long-paid sums would be impermissible in certain hardship circumstances. The respondents counter that daily-wage service for Time Bound Higher Grades is excluded from such benefits and that final audit flagged an overpayment of Rs. 84,025, justifying recovery. The court held that Exts. P3 and P4 must be quashed and ordered restoration of pay and service benefits from 1.8.1987 up to retirement, and reworking of Pension, DCRG and Commuted Value based on the actual last drawn pay, within three months.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA 65/2013) decided by a single judge of the Kerala High Court (Mary Joseph, J.) on 15 February 2023. The appellants—Shanthamma and Prasanna, legal representatives and dependents of Pradeep, who died following injuries in a motor vehicle collision on 15 June 2008—challenge a May 8, 2012 award of Rs 3,55,600 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV) 1364/2008. The incident involved an autorickshaw driven by the deceased and a car driven by the first respondent; the insurer is the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal held the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the car’s driver and directed the insurer to pay. The appellants contend the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s income, neglected future prospects, and inadequately awarded compensation under heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium; they invoked the Pranay Sethi guidelines to justify enhanced awards and inclusion of future prospects. The 3rd respondent admitted insurance coverage; the 1st and 2nd respondents contested the petition. The High Court re-fixes the deceased’s monthly income at Rs 6,500, applies a multiplier of 18 (age 25), and, after 50% deduction for personal expenditure and a 40% addition for future prospects, arrives at Rs 9,100 monthly. Funeral expenses and loss of estate are raised to Rs 16,500 each; loss of consortium is Rs 44,000 per head. The court determines the additional compensation at Rs 7,51,800 and directs payment by the insurer within two months per Circular No. 03/2019. The MACA is allowed accordingly.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) arising from OP(MV) No.2551/2007 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, seeking compensation for the death of T.S. Prasanth who died in a motor accident on 24 October 2007. The petition was filed by the wife (Binumol), the son (Sidharth, a minor), and the parents, who were later joined as legal heirs after the death of the 3rd claimant. The Tribunal held the third respondent-insurance company liable, assessing the compensation at Rs 13,33,498 with 8% interest and directed deposition by the insurer. The appellants challenged primarily the quantum, arguing that the monthly income ought to be higher than Rs 6,000; that future prospects (40%) were not added; and that heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium/love and affection required adjustment in light of Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur judgments. The High Court, applying Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq for the baseline income and Pranay Sethi for future prospects, increased the monthly income to Rs 7,000, added 40% future prospects, and reworked several heads of compensation. It ultimately allowed the appeal, awarding an additional Rs 6,77,200 and directing deposit by the insurer within three months, with a provision to exclude 264 days of delay for interest purposes.
Rasheed, a 19-year-old painter, sustained serious injuries when a mini lorry hit his motorcycle on 14.06.2006. He filed O.P.(M.V.) 1596/2006 seeking Rs 3,00,000 as compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, held the negligence of the 2nd respondent and awarded Rs 1,66,869 with 8% interest; it held respondents 1–3 jointly and severally liable and directed the 3rd respondent Insurance Co. to satisfy the award at first instance and recover from the owner. The 3rd respondent disputed age, occupation and income, and contended the accident was not reported, with driving license/vehicle documents not produced and the vehicle allegedly lacking a valid fitness certificate and permit. The appellant challenged the quantum, arguing the Tribunal undervalued the notional income and the degree of permanent disability. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram, the High Court re-fixed notional income at Rs 5,500 per month for 2006 and retained an 8% whole-body disability with a multiplier of 18. It recalculated compensation across heads: enhanced loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and permanent disability. The court held total enhanced compensation of Rs 1,00,060, directing the insurer to deposit within two months, while leaving the pay-and-recovery against the owner undisturbed; the appeal was disposed of.
The Kerala High Court, in CRL.MC 3075 of 2023, exercises its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to terminate criminal proceedings against the petitioner, Jithin Varghese, who stood charged in CC No.611 of 2021 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tripunithura, for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The background is an on-road accident on 31.10.2021 near Hill Palace Junction, wherein the petitioner allegedly drove rashly and negligently, injuring the second respondent. The parties have since arrived at an amicable settlement, supported by Annexure IV affidavits, and they prefer to end the prosecution to restore peace and normalcy. The investigating officer was directed to verify the genuineness of the settlement and to check for any criminal antecedents or impediments to termination. The Public Prosecutor initially voiced reservations, citing concerns about quashing. The court, after scrutinising the records and considering binding Supreme Court authority, concluded that quashing is permissible where offences are private in nature, non-compoundable under Section 320 IPC, and where the parties have resolved all disputes, provided the act does not involve heinous crimes or public interest concerns. Relying on various precedents, the court held that the ends of justice would be served by terminating the proceedings, noting the potential for peace and waste avoidance of trial. The petition was allowed and the related proceedings were quashed.
This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order of the II Additional District Judge, Kollam in O.P.(Electricity) No.218 of 2006, arising from compensation for damage caused by the erection of 400 kV transmission lines through the petitioner’s land. The petitioner claimed enhanced compensation for trees felled and for diminution in land value, alleging the lower court’s fixation was inconsistent with established precedents. The court below held that the corporation’s compensation was not just and proper, relying on Ext.A9 (deposition of an Agricultural Officer under Section 32(4) of the Indian Evidence Act) and Ext.A8 (sale deed) to compute yield, tree-value, and land value, fixing Rs.69,891 for land diminution and Rs.4,87,860 for tree loss, resulting in Rs.3,17,843 total after deducting prior payment. The petitioner argues the yield and land value were miscalculated, and that the court rejected the expert’s findings without reason, also noting the land value fixation at Rs.6,000 per cent against Rs.40,000 in Ext.A8. He contends that multiplier was improperly set (8 instead of 10) contrary to Supreme Court guidance. The respondent argues the lower order was well-reasoned and warranted no interference. The High Court found merit in these objections, set aside the impugned order, and remanded for fresh assessment of just compensation, with disposal expected within four months."
CRL.MC 3111/2023 & CMP 241/2023; CRL.MC 3171/2023 & CMP 242/2023 Two related Criminal Miscellaneous petitions (CRL.MC Nos. 3111/2023 and 3171/2023) arising from orders of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolencherry, challenge interim custody determinations over seized Maruti vehicles registered in the name of Sai Service Private Limited and its associate. Sai Service Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, and Ashok Kumar contend that Febin P. Ibrahim, the team leader and authorized signatory for the True Value showroom in Kolencerry, forged documents and sold used cars resulting in losses of about Rs. 11.35 lakh. The police seized two Maruti Alto cars (KL 39 B 2409 and KL 40 K 9867) and two petitions were filed under Section 451 CrPC seeking interim custody. The Magistrate rejected interim custody due to lack of original ownership records. The petitions under Section 482 CrPC seek quashing. The High Court, after examining annexures including purchase agreements, delivery receipts, Form 29/30 and sale receipts, held that neither party could produce originals; relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Court found police custody of vehicles unnecessary where ownership remained disputed. The court allowed the petitions, quashed the Magistrate’s orders, and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the applications and grant interim custody of the vehicles to the petitioners under suitable conditions, noting the second petitioner as the defacto complainant and that the forged records caused loss to the petitioners.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 2286 of 2012) before the Kerala High Court, arising from a MACT Thrissur award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellants, as dependents of Ouseph (a civil engineer who died following a scooter-van collision in September 2004), challenged the Tribunal’s quantum of compensation awarded against the insurer (Oriental Insurance) and owner. The Tribunal had granted Rs. 3,25,500 payable by the insurer, but the appellants sought enhanced compensation based on evidence of income (Rs. 6,000 per month), age (33), and standard multipliers. The High Court re-evaluated several components, fixing income at Rs. 6,000/month, applying a 16-year multiplier as per Sarla Verma, and allowing future prospects at 40%. It deducted 50% for personal living expenses (as the deceased was a bachelor) and enhanced conventional heads in light of Pranay Sethi and related precedents. Notably, the court recognized 10% escalation on conventional heads, effective from the pronouncement of Pranay Sethi, and adjusted funeral, loss of estate, and loss of consortium amounts. It also considered and distinguished the pain-and-suffering head for a death occurring four days after the accident. The appeal was allowed with a total enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,67,894 (rounded to Rs. 9,67,894) and an overall increase of Rs. 6,42,394 over the Tribunal’s award, with interest and costs.
Neena George, the mother of a two-year-old child Ishaani Sarah Alwin, challenges the Family Court, Ernakulam's interim custody order in GOP No. 2336/2022, IA No. 4998/2022, arising from OP(FC) No. 488/2022, before this Court. The matter concerns custody following marital discord and alleged unlawful retention of the child. The Family Court, after hearing both sides, issued interim custody directions permitting the father to have custody on certain Saturdays and Sundays, with the child to be brought to the Family Court premises for handovers, and allowed the father to interact with the child via video calls on Wednesdays. The petitioner contends that the child, who is breastfeeding, should remain with her and argues that frequent travel to the Family Court infringes the child’s welfare; she also points to stress on the child during custody interactions. The respondents submit a counter affidavit and emphasize the child’s welfare and the need for continued paternal contact. This Court cites the principle that welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and that custody determinations must be based on the best interests of the child, not parental ego. It relies on Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and Vasudha Sethi to reinforce visitation rights and the essential contact with both parents. In the end, the Court finds no merit in the petition and dismisses it, upholding the Family Court’s interim order.
676/2020 and connected matters (WA Nos. 676/2020, 52/2020, 395/2020, 800/2020, 711/2020, 721/2020, 713/2020, 754/2020, 735/2020, 743/2020, 790/2020, 1382/2020, 765/2020, 801/2020, 773/2020, 774/2020, 805/2020, 1391/2020, 1400/2020, 821/2020, 1363/2020, 1377/2020, 823/2020, 1491/2020, 1416/2020, 1381/2020, 802/2020, 803/2020, 859/2020, 873/2020, 871/2020, 883/2020, 3705/2018, 961/2020, 1036/2020, 1112/2020, 1101/2020, 1338/2020, 87/2022, 1206/2020, 11649/2017, 12570/2017, 12619/2017, 12959/2017, 17753/2017, 19310/2017, 20196/2017, 20283/2017, 1718/2020, 21946/2017, 24228/2017, 1705/2020) The Kerala High Court delivered a unified judgment in a batch of writ appeals (WA Nos. 676/2020 and connected matters) concerning the retrospective amendment to Section 42(3) of the Kerala VAT Act, 2003, enacted by the Kerala Finance Act, 2016 (Act 18/2016). The core issue was whether Section 42(3) could reopen time-barred assessments, and if so, the permissible scope and period. The court analyzed the scheme of the VAT Act (sections 20–25) and Rule 58(20) of the KVAT Rules, contrasting it with the retrospective effect given to Section 42(3) from 1 April 2005. It held that the “deemed as pending” fiction cannot override the statutory time limits in Section 25, and that a retrospective amendment cannot revive final assessments in a manner that defeats existing limitations. The judgment emphasized the need for certainty in tax legislation, harmonizing provisions, and avoiding retroactive reopening beyond reasonable limits. It ultimately dismissed the writ appeals, treating the retrospective operation of Section 42(3) as inconsistent with the KVAT Act’s time limits and principles of fairness and certainty. The decision was delivered by a Division Bench (Justices S.V. Bhatti and Basant Balaji) on 30-11-2022.
BAIL APPL. NOS. 3169 & 3170 OF 2022 This is a common order by a single judge of the High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam) arising from two connected bail applications under Section 438 CrPC, filed by Mebeesh T. K., Baji M.P. and Prajeesh A P (BAIL APPL. 3169/2022) and Govindankutty @ Mani (BAIL APPL. 3170/2022) in Crime No. 474/2022 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur. The FIR alleges offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with 149 IPC, as the petitioners are said to have formed an unlawful assembly with dangerous weapons and assaulted the defacto complainant. The defense contends the allegations are inaccurate and points to a counter-case (Crime No. 473/2022) filed against the defacto complainant; it is claimed that the main case even includes an offence under section 308 IPC, and the petitioners are willing to comply with stringent conditions if released on bail. The Public Prosecutor argues potential risk but indicates that bail can be granted with conditions. Relying on the long-standing rule that bail is the norm and jail the exception, and on decisions in Chidambaram P. v. D.E. and Siddharth v. State of UP, the court allows bail with stringent directions: appearance within two weeks for interrogation, bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, ongoing cooperation, no travel outside jurisdiction without permission, no commission of similar offences, regular appearances on Mondays, and potential cancellation if conditions are breached. The two applications are disposed of by a common order due to the shared facts and counter-case posture.
Kuruvilla, the appellant/claimant in OP(MV) No.2087/2006 before the MACT, Perumbavoor, sustained serious injuries in a motor-vehicle accident on 14.04.2006 on the Aluva–Munnar road near Iringole when his motorcycle KL-17/B-5785 was struck from the east by the motorcycle KL-17/D-4924 driven rashly by the 1st respondent. He was treated as an inpatient at Medical Trust Hospital and other facilities, with radiological evidence of head injuries and post‑traumatic seizures. The offending vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent; both were held liable by the Tribunal. The 1st respondent appeared ex parte; the 2nd respondent admitted coverage but argued license violations and that policy conditions prohibited indemnification, contending no liability. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,37,621 with interest at 8% from the date of application till 03.03.2009 and from 08.10.2009 onward to realisation. On appeal, the appellant claimed that the monthly income was undervalued at Rs.3,000 and relied on Ramachandrappa to contend a higher minimum income, while producing medical records suggesting long recovery. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, increasing loss of earnings to Rs.30,000 and pain and suffering to Rs.30,000, for a total enhanced award of Rs.60,000, while keeping other findings intact. It directed NEFT/RTGS transfer, set‑offs for prior payments, and an insurer recourse against the owner; it also refused interest on the enhanced amount during a prior retention period.
This is a motor accident claims appeal under MACA No. 2120 of 2021 arising from an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta. On 23 February 2019, Noushad, a motorcycle rider, was struck by a KSRTC bus (KA-10F-0263) driven by the 1st respondent while riding along the Sulthan Bathery–Calicut highway. Noushad died from injuries; his dependants claimed compensation of Rs 46 lakh, with a claimed income of Rs 20,000 per month. The Tribunal, after considering Ext. A4 (police charge sheet) showing driver negligence and Ext. A7 (income certificate) corroborating earnings, fixed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs 15,000 and awarded Rs 29,08,000 with interest and costs. The 2nd respondent owner challenged the award, contending that the income figure was too high and the 8% interest rate was excessive. The High Court, per C.S. Dias, J., re-evaluated the evidence, found the Tribunal’s income fixation reasonable, and rejected the challenge to the interest rate by relying on Supreme Court precedents. It noted the accident occurred in 2019, and that courts may exercise discretion in fixing compensation within permissible limits. Uphaar, Kishan Gopal, Vinish Jain, and Kiran Singh were cited to support the approach. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed at the threshold, upholding the Tribunal’s decision.
The appellants challenge an MACT award in OP(MV)800/2015 for the death of Ayyappan, a tea vendor, in a jeep accident on 07.01.2014. The Tribunal awarded ₹11,50,000 with 9% interest; that award was assailed as inadequate, especially under the head of loss of dependency. The High Court notes that while Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2013) SCC 236 provides a method for calculating income for ordinary wage earners, it cannot be mechanically applied to a self‑employed tea vendor. Observing the FIR describing the deceased as a tea vendor, the Court re-determines monthly income at ₹12,000 and applies a 10% uplift for dependency following Pranay Sethi. This yields a revised dependency compensation of ₹11,61,600; after deducting ₹9,68,000 already awarded, an additional ₹1,93,600 arises. On the head of love and affection and loss of consortium, the Insurance Company argues against combining both heads; relying on United India Insurance Co. v. Satinder Kaur (2020), the Court directs that loss of consortium be ₹40,000 per appellant (₹1,20,000 total) and that the love‑and‑affection award of ₹1,00,000 be treated accordingly, resulting in a net adjustment of ₹1,73,600. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the MACT award is modified by granting the additional amount and directing deposit at 7.5% interest from the petition date till realization, within three months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
This writ petition challenges the denial of a correction in the Birth Certificate of the petitioner. Suresh C Varughese sought to correct the Date of Birth in Exhibit P6, arguing that his DOB is 05.08.1976 as reflected in his Aadhaar (Exhibit P2), passport (Exhibit P3) and SSLC (Exhibit P4), while the Birth Certificate issued by the 3rd respondent (Exhibit P6) records 05.09.1976. The Registrar of Births and Deaths (2nd respondent) rejected Exhibit P7/Exhibit P8 on the ground that the gynec register of the hospital where the birth was registered was not produced, and the hospital is defunct. The petitioner relies on the Division Bench decision in Secretary, Registrar of Births and Deaths v. Thomas Jacob and Others (2011 (3) KHC 389) and the line of authority in Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika emphasizing that the Births and Deaths Act and the Rules permit corrections where entries are erroneous, and do not permit denial merely for lack of the hospital record. The court notes public documents (Aadhaar, Electoral Card) carry presumptions under the Evidence Act and that the statutory procedure cannot be thwarted by insisting on an unavailable hospital report. Ext. P8 is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the correction on the basis of Exts. P1–P5 with a declaration under Rule 11(2) of the Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 within ten days. The writ petition is disposed of.
