WA No. 57 of 2023; WA No. 79 of 2023 These writ appeals challenge a common Kerala High Court judgment (WP(C) Nos. 17442/2022 and 17769/2022) concerning the age of superannuation for teachers in private colleges affiliated to state universities under the Direct Payment Scheme. The background traces UGC’s 1998 payscale scheme and subsequent 2010 and 2018 Regulations, with Kerala implementing age rules via Ext.P3/Ext.P11 that effectively maintained a retirement age of 56 for teachers in aided colleges (and 60 for universities). Petitioners argued that once the State adopts UGC Regulations it must implement them in full as a composite package; they relied on older judgments (Radhakrishnan Pillai; Jagdish Prasad Sharma) to argue that central regulations cannot alter State terms under Article 309. Respondents contended that adoption of UGC Regulations as a composite package is permissible and that Ext.P4 (GOI communication) de-linked financial reimbursement conditions, allowing state policy to prevail; they relied on Ext.P5 (Apex Court’s 2022 decision) and subsequent judgments clarifying a State’s policy domain. The Court concluded that the questions are governed by the Apex Court’s decisions and that the state’s policy on age of superannuation can be implemented as a composite package, dismissing the appeals. The bench comprised Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Sophy Thomas. The final disposition is that the writ appeals are dismissed.
P. Veerankutty filed WP(C) No. 18565 of 2011 challenging Ext.P11, a revision order under the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003. Ext.P2 had held the land not to be ecologically fragile, but Ext.P11, issued by the custodian (1st respondent), purported to recall that finding and declare the land ecologically fragile again. The petitioner argues there is no statutory power of review under the Act to pass Ext.P11 and that Ext.P2 was not issued in accordance with Rules 17–20 of the 2007 Rules, making Ext.P11 unsustainable and a fraud on power. The Government Pleader contends Ext.P2 was defective for procedural reasons and Ext.P11 corrects a perceptible error; fraud on power, if established, would justify revising the order. The petitioner relies on T. Eswaranunni v. State of Kerala (2020) to argue absence of fraud and thus unsustainability of Ext.P11. The court analyzes the principles of ‘fraud on power’ versus mere error on merits, and cites authorities on fraud vitiating acts and recalls. It ultimately holds that Ext.P11 is unsustainable for lack of statutory power to revise, and allows the petition, setting aside Ext.P11. Ext.P2’s position, however, is not revived as a contested final order, and no costs are awarded.
This Kerala High Court appeal arises from MACA No. 1649 of 2009, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor’s modest compensation award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Antony, the claimant, sustained fractures and multiple injuries in a road accident on 19 August 2004 when a motorcycle driven by the second respondent allegedly struck him as he walked along the Mattoor–Chengal road. He was hospitalized for 17 days and claimed Rs 2,85,000 in total compensation, with Rs 1,45,000 sought from the insurer. The Tribunal ex parte against the first and second respondents but awarded Rs 92,970 with 7% interest. The insurer contended negligence by the claimant and disputed age, income and extent of disability. The High Court, on the contrary, re-evaluated quantum by applying the law and precedents. It fixed notional income at Rs 4,500 per month (citing Ramachandrappa), recognized disability as functional at 20% (Raj Kumar), and used a multiplier of 16 (Sarla Verma). Loss of earnings was recalculated to Rs 27,000; bystander expenses, extra nourishment, pain and sufferings, and loss due to disability were revised as well, yielding a total enhanced award of Rs 2,68,350. The appeal is allowed, with enhanced compensation, 7.5% interest, costs, and a deposit obligation for the insurer within sixty days for disbursement through the Tribunal.
This writ petition concerns the entitled pension under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, specifically the 2014 amendment. Twenty-three petitioners, retired from various dates, challenge the pension computation under the original framework and seek higher pension under the amended scheme. The judgment notes that the validity of the 2014 amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court in Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B. (2022) (7 KHC 12), and recognizes that decision as controlling authority on the present petitions. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel for EPFO, submit that in light of the Supreme Court ruling, petitioners may file fresh applications for enhanced pension under the amended scheme, which would be decided according to the amended provisions and the Supreme Court directions. The Kerala High Court, after considering the SC decision, disposes of the writ petition by permitting the petitioners to submit appropriate applications for enhanced pension under the amended scheme, and directs that such applications be considered by the appropriate authority without delay. The order thus aligns with the amended framework and endorses expeditious processing of any future applications in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions and the amended scheme.
This is an Original Petition (Rent Control) under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, challenging an order of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Ernakulam. The landlords sought eviction of the tenant from a ground-floor shop room of about 200 sq ft on MG Road, Ernakulam, to meet the bonafide need of the fifth respondent to start a DTP and photostat business. The petition leading to the RCP No. 8 of 2018 had relied on the need to evict to enable the landlord to use the space for the fifth respondent’s business; the landlord admitted there was space in the same building but smaller area requirements could be met by leasing the subject room. The tenant initially opposed, and an Advocate Commissioner (IA 3/2020) was appointed; the Commissioner’s report (Ext. P4) addressed lie, area, value, and vacant spaces. Subsequently, the tenant filed IA 6/2021 seeking a second Advocate Commissioner to compare with Ext. P4 and to report anew on lie, area, vacant spaces, and other aspects. The Rent Control Court rejected IA 6/2021 (Ext. P7). The petitioner challenged Ext. P7 in a supervisory original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court upheld the Rent Control Court’s order, holding there was no necessity for a second commission, and that the contested order did not involve grave dereliction of duty or infringement of natural justice. The court relied on established theories of supervisory jurisdiction and declined to interfere. The petition was dismissed with no costs.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition (CRL.MC No. 2693 of 2023) filed under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court by five accused persons who seek quashing of criminal proceedings pending in C.C. No.270/2016 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Perinthalmanna. The offences charged are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, and 324 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 07.11.2015 the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and attacked respondents 2–4 with wooden sticks and stones, causing injuries. The petition rests on settlements reached with the de facto complainants, evidenced by affidavits from respondents 2–4 stating no subsisting grievance and a wish to end the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor opposes quashing, arguing that the law in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and related Supreme Court decisions requires a case-by-case assessment, especially given the accuseds’ extensive criminal antecedents (multiple crime numbers across years) and the potential impact on society. The court, invoking settled jurisprudence, held that quashing under Section 482 is inappropriate for non-compoundable, serious offences and when there is a persistent pattern of crime, as it would undermine societal fabric. The petition is dismissed with a direction to expedite the proceedings before the Magistrate."
The appellant-defendant in O.S. No. 484 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Kannur, challenges an ex parte decree (31.08.2018) in a suit for Rs. 44,00,000 with interest and costs. The defendant was set ex parte on 08.06.2018 while abroad; instead of moving under Order IX Rule 13, 1908 to set aside the decree, his wife, acting as power of attorney holder, filed I.A.12 of 2020, which were subsequently withdrawn. I.A.5 of 2021 (Order IX Rule 13) to set aside the ex parte decree and I.A.1 of 2021 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a 1015-day delay were dismissed by the Sub Court on 03.12.2022. The High Court, in a Division Bench, examines the standards for condoning delay, citing Katiji, Esha Bhattacharjee, and other authorities, and weighs the arguments around “sufficient cause,” liberal but reasoned approach, and prejudice arising from inordinate delays. The court ultimately allows the appeal, holding the delay should be condoned (560 days) with a cost of Rs. 10,000, restores the suit to file, and directs expeditious proceedings within four months, with appearance fixed for 18.07.2023.
The petitioner Nochiyoor Sureshkumar, holder of identity cards issued under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, challenges a notice dated 22.08.2022 canceling his identity card on the basis of a complaint submitted by 21 workers. He asserts that Ext.P7 and its exhibits have not been supplied, and that the Deputy Labour Officer cannot proceed without a report from the Registering Authority (the Assistant Labour Officer) under Rule 26A(4). He seeks records, quashing of Ext.P7, and mandamus directing service of copies of the complaint and the Registering Authority’s report; he also argues that compliance with Rule 26A(4) is required and that the proceedings are premature in the absence of these documents. The petitioner further requests directions dispensing with English translations of vernacular documents. On the other side, the respondents’ counsel submits that the Deputy Labour Officer has authority to entertain the complaint and must adhere to Rule 26A and natural justice. The court notes that Rule 26A contemplates registration, notice, objections, hearing, and potential cancellation based on a report from the Registering Authority, with prior notice. It directs the Deputy Labour Officer to follow natural justice, enclose copies of the complaint and exhibits, and proceed accordingly, ultimately disposing of the petition with guided directions to uphold due process.
Rivaj P.V., the first accused in Crime No. 625/2022 of Pariyaram Medical College Police Station, approached the Kerala High Court seeking regular bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigation stemmed from an incident on 27 September 2022 when the accused allegedly restrained and assaulted the defacto complainant with an iron rod, inflicting injuries and causing the robbery of the complainant’s mobile phone valued at about Rs 17,000. The FIR invoked IPC sections 341, 323, 392, 506(i) and 500, read with Section 34. The petitioner contended innocence and argued that the case is politically motivated, pointing to his involvement as an active worker of the Muslim Youth League and to alleged inappropriate messages sent by the complainant to his wife. He submitted that he has been in custody since 30 December 2022 and urged for bail on grounds of lack of direct evidence linking him to the actual violence, the possibility of coercion, and the need to attend to personal and political commitments. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the recovered mobile and alleging the petitioner’s history of substantial criminal activity (including numerous cases under various IPC sections) and contending release would endanger witnesses and obstruct investigation. After considering the custody period (roughly 75 days), the nature of the offences, and antecedents, the court granted bail under stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with authorities and prevention of further offences.
Santosh A.K., the claimant in OP(MV) No. 587/2016 before the II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, challenges the Tribunal’s award of Rs.10,01,540 with 9% interest for injuries sustained in a road accident on 20.03.2016 when an autorickshaw struck him on the Malayinchi–Chelakkattu road. The Medical Board assessed 40% permanent disability (Ext. A-15), and Ext. A-17 shows his monthly income of Rs.25,500 (Rs.3,06,000 p.a.). The Tribunal accepted the disability but used a notional income (Rs.9,000 p.m.) for calculating loss of earning capacity, rather than the evidence of actual earnings. The applicant contends that the disability should be computed against the actual income, with future prospects, and that promotion losses due to disfigurement should be taken into account. Counsel invokes the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Ajay Kumar and others; Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar; and Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which require assessing the impact of permanent disability on earning capacity rather than a mechanical application of the percentage. The Tribunal’s finding of no post-accident income loss is challenged. The High Court ultimately adopts a functional disability approach, finding 20% functional disability, re-computes compensation to Rs.13,70,880, and awards Rs.50,000 for amenities, with enhanced totals of Rs.7,18,730 and a reduced interest rate of 7.5% on the enhanced amount, directing deposit within two months.
T. Jacob, a Kerala-origin CRPF officer posted at Belgaum, filed WP(C) 27588/2021 seeking transfer to his home state Kerala under Standing Order paragraph (6) concerning home zone/home state postings after completing 20 years of service. The respondents rejected his transfer request, prompting the challenge on maintainability and territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner contends that the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226(2) because part of the cause of action arises within Kerala, where the denial of transfer will have consequences and where his home state is located, citing precedents like Sudharshanan v. Union of India. The respondents rely on established precedents that emphasize territorial limitations, notably Indian Maritime University v. Viswanathan and Dental Council of India v. Viswanathan, to argue lack of jurisdiction. The court clarifies the scope of Article 226(2), explaining that it empowers writs to be issued within the territories where the cause of action arises, as per CPC Section 20(c). It concludes that the cause of action here is the rejection of the transfer request, which retains the petitioner in Belgaum, and not a direct action within Kerala, thereby upholding lack of territorial jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed, while preserving the petitioner’s right to approach an appropriate forum for relief.
An appeal by Aneesh challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam's quantum of compensation for injuries suffered in a 04.09.2014 motor accident involving a bus insured by the United India Insurance Co. The Tribunal held the bus driver negligent and directed the insurer to pay Rs. 9,12,155 with 7% interest. The appellant argued that the award undervalued his loss given the extent of disability and the loss of future employment. He had been selected for a Border Security Force position as a Constable (GD) in 2013, evidenced by Ext. A14, but his injuries led to amputation below the knee and he was declared unfit for the post, preventing employment that was certain had the accident not occurred. The insurer disputed liability for salary-based compensation, noting that the applicant never joined BSF and that the appointment was subject to a two-year probation. Relying on Valsamma and Another v. V.A. Baiju and Other, a Division Bench of this Court held that where future employment is certain but for disability, the compensation must reflect the probable income he would have earned; the court calculated a higher monthly income (Rs.25,000) and added future prospects at 50%, producing a total enhancement of Rs. 44,41,000 beyond the Tribunal’s award. The appeal is allowed, and the insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 8% interest, with 165 days of delay excluded.
Cont.Case(C) No.69 of 2021 The petitioners—eight individuals (petitioners 13, 50, 67, 70, 73, 75, 87 and 91 in W.P.(C) No.13124 of 2015)—filed this Contempt Case under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience of Annexure A1 judgment dated 12 October 2018 in W.P.(C) No.13124/2015 and connected matters. The larger backdrop is the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) dispute over pension under the 1995 scheme and its 2014 amendment via notification G.S.R.609(E). The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. held the post‑2014 amendment provisions legal and valid, with directions for applying the amended pension scheme. The Kerala High Court had, in earlier judgments, indicated the need to implement these directives and consider higher pension benefits for eligible members. In the present proceedings, the petitioners contend that the EPFO has not complied with the apex court’s directives and seek enforcement through contempt. The EPFO submits that any such exercise be undertaken in accordance with law. After consideration, the court closes the contempt petition, holding that the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by the EPFO consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners.
MACA No. 3544/2021; C.O. No. 36/2022 This is a Kerala High Court appeal (MACA No. 3544/2021) along with a Cross Objection (C.O. 36/2022) filed by Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. against an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, in OP(MV) 705/2017, arising from a road accident on 14.09.2016 in which Abdul Latheef, the cross objector, sustained grievous injuries while riding pillion on a motorcycle. The insurer contends the Tribunal’s award is too high under “Pain and Suffering” and that no separate compensation for “Partial Loss of Earning” should be granted since earnings had already been compensated under “Loss of Earnings.” The cross objector’s counsel argues the Tribunal correctly assessed a notional income of Rs. 10,500/month, but erred by failing to apply the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa dictum to add future prospects, given 85% functional disability. The matter focuses on the extent of disability, proper evaluation of future prospects, and the appropriate heads of compensation. The Court, after considering medical evidence (Ext.X1) and submissions, holds that the cross objector’s whole body disability should be 75%, with 25% future prospects to be added to income, and enhances permanent disability compensation to Rs.16,53,750 while reducing Pain and Suffering to Rs.2,00,000, keeping other heads intact. The insurer is ordered to pay the enhanced amount with 7.5% interest and costs, within liberty to recover from the insurer.
The petitioners, owners of 74.06 acres in Kakkanad, Ernakulam, challenge the omission of the 3rd respondent Tahsildar in entertaining their application for reassessment of the Basic Tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. They had secured non-agricultural use permissions under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (Exts. P4 and P4(a) in 2022) permitting conversion of land, but their land tax records still reflect Nilam/Paddy land statuses. They filed Form-A (P5) seeking re-assessment under Section 6A of the LTA, 1961, which the Tahsildar did not decide. The respondents opposed contending the need to verify Exts. P4/P4(a) and the current land status before any reassessment. The Court, referencing Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala (2020) and District Collector v. Fr. Jose Uppani (2020), held that once an enabling order under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 is granted, prior entries in the Basic Tax Register become surplus and a fresh assessment under Section 6A is obligatory upon competent revenue authorities, subject to verification of authenticity. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the 3rd respondent is directed to consider Form-A and pass appropriate orders within one month, after due verification of the enabling orders."
This is a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 204 of 2023) before the High Court of Kerala, challenging the order/judgment in CC No.255/2021 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod. The petitioner, Abdul Sathar K.S., accused No.1 in the case, moves under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the final report on the ground of amicable settlement between himself and the de facto complainant, Ayishath Shamees K.M. The de facto complainant has filed an affidavit and appeared through counsel; the prosecution confirms that the dispute between accused No.1 and the complainant is settled. Five accused are named (accused Nos.1–5) with the state as the state and de facto complainant as respondent 2. The offence alleged is under Section 498-A IPC. The court acknowledges decisions by the Supreme Court — Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Laxmi Narayan — endorsing quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C where the matter is settled, even where the offence is non-compoundable, to serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. It also notes Lovely Salhotra and Sajeev & Another to illustrate partial quashing in settled cases. The court ultimately allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes only the proceedings against accused No.1. The order cites that the settlement involved the petitioner with the de facto complainant, and that the other accused were not parties to the settlement, with no public interest impediment. The matter is resolved by quashing the final report against the petitioner alone, while other proceedings continue as to the remaining accused.
WP(C) Nos. 82/2021, 155/2021, 509/2021, 496/2021, 497/2021, 489/2021, 285/2021, 318/2021 This is a batch of writ petitions filed by Trivandrum Club challenging a common Labour Court order dated 19-11-2020 that quashed the domestic enquiry against eight workers employed by the Club. The Labour Court held that the enquiry officer conducted the process arbitrarily, with a common preliminary award for eight separate disputes, and that the charges were not answered individually, with the officer condensing 12 charges for convenience. The court directed the management to prove the charges again. The petitions argue that the Labour Court’s approach was perverse, prejudicial to workers, and that the common preliminary award and the concatenation of charges undermined due process. The High Court, under Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, cites Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala (2022) 4 KLT 90 to affirm a procedural principle: challenges to preliminary Labour Court orders should ordinarily be relegated to the Labour Court and may be challenged along with the final order, rather than as standalone writs. It also notes the St. Thomas Missions Hospital v. State of Kerala (2007) as a cited authority. Ultimately, the court finds no perversity in the Labour Court’s approach and disposes of the petitions, while reserving the petitioners’ right to challenge the preliminary order along with the final award.
This is a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Rent Control Revision No. 76 of 2015. The petitioner (revision applicant) RadhaKrishnan seeks eviction of the respondent from a shop room under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Rent Control Act. The core controversy centers on title and bona fide need: the petitioner asserts he has become the absolute owner through Ext.A1 (assignment deed dated 06.09.2010) from Kichi Madhurakka, wife of Perumal, and subsequent releases by co-owners M.P. Premalatha, C.R. Rajesh and M. Renjith Kumar, with further releases admitted during the revision (Exts.A12–A13). The respondent admits attornment after Perumal’s death but disputes the petitioner’s absolute ownership and the need’s genuineness, arguing Perumal and wife were the owners and that non-production of all release deeds undermines the petition. The Rent Control Court dismissed, finding lack of bona fides and other technical defects; the Appellate Authority reversed some points but held the petition not bona fide due to absence of title proof and non-pleading of earlier eviction proceedings. The High Court, however, concluded that non-production of all release deeds is not fatal, and that Ext.A1 along with released rights establishes ownership; it found the claimed need bona fide, relying on evidence including Ext.A3 ownership certificate and post-department releases produced under Order XLI Rule 27. The revision is allowed directing eviction with surrender within one month. The decision clarifies evidentiary proof of title in eviction actions and endorses grant of eviction where bona fide need is demonstrated.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4423 OF 2025 Abhiram, a 26-year-old man and the second accused in Crime No. 95/2025 of Ambalamedu Police Station, Ernakulam, seeks bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The prosecution accuses him and others of offences under sections 126(2), 118, 351(2), 296(b), 110 and 3(5) of the BNS. The alleged incident occurred on 23 February 2025 near a bakery in Karimugal, where the first accused assaulted the complainant with a beer bottle and threatened him; others allegedly beat and kicked the complainant. The petitioner contends the allegations against him are incorrect and that the ingredients of Section 110 BNS are not attracted. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing possible criminal antecedents. The court acknowledges the seriousness of the allegations but notes there are no serious injuries and states it need not decide on Section 110 BNS at this stage. Relying on authorities such as Chidambaram P. v. Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Sushila Aggarwal, Anzar Azeez and others, the court holds bail is the rule, not the exception, and grants bail with conditions: the petitioner shall appear before the IO within two weeks for interrogation; if the IO contemplates arrest, he shall be released on bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties; shall not leave India without court permission; shall not commit a similar offence; shall cooperate with the investigation; and shall repeatedly appear before the IO on Mondays at 10:00 AM until final report. The order specifies these conditions are to be observed for purposes of bail only and may be revisited if violated. The judge, P.V. Kunhikrishnan, emphasizes personal liberty and the welfare of a fair trial as guiding principles. The order concludes with the bail being granted subject to the stated conditions and that breach could result in cancellation of bail.
This Kerala High Court WP(C) No.17542 of 2020 concerns the petitioner’s challenge to Ext.P14, a demand for conversion fees under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and related rules. The petitioner owns about 83.80 cents of land in Vazhakkad, Malappuram, including 26 cents in Re-survey No.156/7 where a prior Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO) permission (Exhibit P4, 1996) had been granted, and the remainder 57.8 cents had been converted earlier. The record shows building permits (P6, P7 etc.) and occupancy certificates predating amendments to the Act in 2017. The respondent contends that, after amendments, the application must be under Section 27A of the amended Act and that fees can be charged for buildings, with the data-bank status being a relevant factor. The petitioner argues that counting Exhibit P4 land for fee calculation is erroneous and that pre-30.12.2017 construction should be exempt from charges, given occupancy certificates and old permits. The court notes that Exhibit P14 includes an improper inclusion of P4 land for fee computation and that the building charges assume wrongful premisses. The judgment ultimately sets aside Ext.P14, directs reconsideration of Ext.P15 objections, and requires computation strictly under the amended Act, excluding P4 land unless proved otherwise, and considering only pre-existing buildings defeated prior to 30.12.2017, with orders to be passed within three months.
