This writ petition challenges the non-grant of parole/leave to the husband of the petitioner, a convicted prisoner undergoing life sentence in Central Prison, Viyyur, arising from the judgment in S.C.No.246/2014. The petitioner contends that under sections 73 and 78 of the Prisons Act and the Prisons Rules, particularly Rule 397, a convict who is well-behaved and eligible is entitled to ordinary leave (60 days in a calendar year) and that leave is a right, as evidenced by recent district- and High Court precedents such as Noushad A v. State of Kerala. The respondents submit that leave/parole is discretionary, and not an absolute entitlement; adverse police reports can justify denial, even where probation reports are favorable. The judgment undertakes a thorough survey of the Act and Rules—Sections 73, 78, 79 and 99 of the Prisons Act; Rules 397, 399-404, 408 of the Prisons Rules—and relevant case law, including Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan, Dadu @ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra, Narayan Sai, Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, and H. Nilofer Nisha, to clarify that no vested right to leave exists. The court distinguishes Patna’s Chandra Sekhar Bharti and Madras’ Saleema while endorsing the principle that leave is not an unconditional entitlement. Ultimately, the writ petition is dismissed, but with directions that leave applications must be considered promptly in accordance with Section 78 read with Rule 397, and that the convict may approach this Court under Article 226 in exceptional circumstances. The decision emphasizes rehabilitation, public order, and the balancing of individual liberty with societal interests.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4547 OF 2025 The petitioner, Anwar, the first accused in Crime No.46 of 2023 registered at the Agali Excise Range Office, Palakkad, seeks bail in a NDPS case in which 120 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered from accused numbers 1 to 4 on 13.11.2023. The case now stands as SC No.415/2024 in the Additional District and Sessions Court, Palakkad. The offences alleged are under sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner has been in custody since 14.11.2023, totalling over one year and four months. The counsel for the petitioner relied on apex court decisions, including Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024 Live Law SC 416), Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. State of West Bengal (SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769 of 2022) and Hasanujjaman v. State of West Bengal (SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023), urging that, where incarceration is prolonged, the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act can be diluted and bail may be warranted. The Public Prosecutor argued that the seized quantity constitutes a commercial quantity and Section 37 is attracted. The court examined the authorities, noting that Ankur Chaudhary, Hasanujjaman and Nitish Adhikary support bail in analogous circumstances and that Shuaib A.S v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC Online 618) emphasises the balancing of Article 21 with NDPS restrictions, including the procedural lags. Ultimately, the bail application is disposed of with directions to file a fresh bail plea within two weeks, and for the trial court to decide in light of the cited principles and judgments.
This is a writ petition under WP(C) No. 11978 of 2022 filed in the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, by seven petitioners challenging land acquisition for National Highways 17. The petitioners complain that although compensation amounts have been deposited in their accounts, they have not received a copy of the Final Order/Award under Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act (NH Act). They challenge the determination of compensation by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), alleging deductions for salvage and disputes over electrification, plumbing, and the value of the buildings acquired. They seek issuance of the Final Award under Section 3G(1) so they can pursue remedies under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act. The respondents, including the Union of India and NHAI, contend that if copies are lacking they can be furnished by CALA and that they will be heard when applications under 3G(5) are filed. The court, after hearing, disposed of the petition with directions: applicants may approach CALA within a week of receiving a copy; upon receipt, a Final Order/Award should be furnished within ten days, and applicants may file 3G(5) applications before the District Collector with hearings by NHAI officials. The court also allows objections on salvage, electrification, plumbing, and building valuation and directs consideration of related judgments Exts.P2 and P2(a).
This writ petition is filed by twenty-eight petitioners challenging provisional daily-wage appointments as sweeper cum cleaners in the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) and seeking conversion of their engagement into permanent posts, as well as consideration of their Ext. P5 representation. The petitioners were included in Ext. P1, a ranked list published on 28/12/2018 for the post of sweeper cum cleaner, and were granted provisional appointments on daily wages with their term due to end on 02/07/2021. They approached the third respondent with Ext. P5 dated 16/06/2021, seeking timely consideration of their representation before termination and a mandamus to convert their appointments to permanent posts. The University counters that Ext. P5 will be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, citing the need to follow due process. The judgment refers to Biju C.V. v. Jashna K.J and others (2021 (2) KHC 550) to support the right of ranked-list holders in provisional appointments. The court directs the third respondent to consider Ext. P5 after giving notice and hearing to the petitioners, preferably via video conferencing, within two months of receiving the judgment. Till orders are issued, petitioners are to continue in service. The Division Bench decision is to be considered while passing orders.
This is a Kerala High Court revision (ST Rev No. 223 of 2010) arising from the assessment year 2000-01, where the State of Kerala challenged the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 25.02.2010 in TA No. 400/2009, which granted exemption under SRO 1090/99 as amended for poultry reared on the assessee’s own farm within the State. The core issue is whether a poultry farmer is entitled to exemption on turnover when the farm operates on leased land, i.e., whether land ownership is a prerequisite. The assessing authority had denied the exemption on the ground that the assessee did not own the land; the Appellate Tribunal allowed the exemption, interpreting the notification to cover poultry reared on the farmer’s own farm within the State, regardless of land ownership. The State relied on earlier amendments and case law to argue that the land must be owned, and cited Selvam Broilers (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) and Others (2003) 129 STC 389 (Ker.) to contend that SRO 7/2002 has no retrospective operation. The court, however, holds that the issue is squarely covered by the legal principle in Selvam Broilers and that the notification, together with the amendments, supports exemption for 2000-01. The revision is dismissed, and the Tribunal’s exemption order is sustained for that year.
RCR 78 of 2025 arises from eviction proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Muhammed Kunju, the tenant, challenged the concurrent eviction findings of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court. The respondents, owners of the petition-scheduled shop, purchased the property and sought vacant possession for a planned multi-storey building to establish a gold and textile business, arguing bona fide need. The petitioner contends the transfer of property is sham, denying landlord-tenant relations, and claims permanent tenancy by virtue of occupancy since 1938, with a rent deed dated 10.09.2012 executed by the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents. Evidence was led: PW1-PW4 for respondents; DW1-DW2 for petitioner; Exts. A1-A8, X1-X10, C1 and C1(a) Commission reports. The Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority concluded against the tenant, holding lack of bona fide title denial, absence of permanent tenancy, and satisfaction of genuine need by landlords. The High Court refused to reappreciate the evidence under Section 20, citing Ubaiba v. Damodaran to uphold concurrent findings. The court directed dismissal of the revision petition, but granted six months for surrender upon certain conditions, including an affidavit, arrears payment, and maintaining rent.
Teliz Realtors and others filed O.S. No. 380 of 2010 in the Sub Court, Ernakulam, seeking recovery of Rs. 3.61 crore from JTL Projects Pvt. Ltd. and others. The plaintiffs allege a sham joint venture, fraudulent inducement, and transfers based on false promises of a housing project, without licenses or actual construction. The trial court held the dispute involved construction and infrastructure contracts under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act and transferred the case to the Commercial Court under Section 15. The petitioners challenge the transfer, contending the transaction was not a genuine joint venture and that the claim seeks embezzled money rather than a commercial dispute; therefore the Civil Court should retain jurisdiction. The respondents contend the agreement was for land purchase and villa construction, a classic construction/infrastructure contract, thus a commercial dispute and deserving CC Act treatment for speedy disposal. The High Court analyzes the object of the Act and the definition of ‘commercial dispute’ under Section 2(1)(c) (vi, xi), citing Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises and IHHR Hospitality to emphasize strict interpretation. It ultimately finds that the suit does not fit the CC Act’s criteria and that the Section 15 transfer was improper. The petition is allowed; Ext.P4 is set aside, and the matter is to be disposed by the Civil Court within one month.
Abdul Rasheed K. v. Abobacker S/o Mammathali, Shafi P, and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., MACA No. 208 of 2015, is a High Court of Kerala appeal arising from OP(MV) No. 75/2013 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. The claimant sustained a brain injury when his motorcycle collided with a bus on 9 July 2012. The Tribunal awarded compensation which the appellant challenges as being inadequately calculated. The court accepts that the applicant was earning more than the Tribunal assumed: while the Tribunal used a lower notional income, the High Court applies the Supreme Court standard from Ramchandrappa to fix monthly income at Rs. 8,500. It also revises transportation allowances to Rs. 18,000, after noting 18 hospital trips. The period of loss of income is extended to ten months, reflecting treatment from 4.8.2012 to 23.12.2013. Bystander expenses during hospitalization are added at Rs. 200 per day, resulting in Rs. 2,200 for 11 days. The court maintains the trial result on pain and suffering, but increases loss of amenities to Rs. 20,000. It also holds that the Tribunal’s 20% reduction for contributory negligence due to helmet non-use is unwarranted and strikes it down. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the overall compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,53,100, with interest and transfer arrangements prescribed.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 3122 of 2023) is heard by a single judge under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings arising from C.C. No. 984/2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Neyyattinkara. The petition, filed by accused Nos. 1 to 8, challenges the continuation of prosecution for offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341 and 506(ii) read with Section 149. The prosecution alleges that on 12 May 2018 the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly, restrained the complainant, and attacked him with stones resulting in injuries. The petition asserts that the parties have settled their disputes amicably, as evidenced by Annexure-A3, and requests recordal of the settlement and termination of proceedings. The matter was directed to record the victim’s statement and verify the genuineness of the settlement and whether the petitioners have criminal antecedents. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, but acknowledged no other impediments. Relying on the principles laid down in State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and related decisions, the judge notes that Section 482 power may be exercised where private, non‑compoundable offences are settled and the ends of justice demand peace. Considering gravity, injuries, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the court holds that quashing would not harm society and allows the petition. The final report and further proceedings are quashed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4398 OF 2025 This Bail Application, BA.No.4398/2025, is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by Duleswar Bora, the accused in Crime No.253/2025 of Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha, alleging offences under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner, a 34-year-old from Assam, has been in custody since 15 March 2025. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting the applicant’s origin from Assam and arguing risk of non-appearance; however, the report reportedly shows no criminal antecedents. The petitioner volunteered to offer local sureties from Alappuzha, a submission acknowledged but not imposed as a formal condition. The court recalls the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) Scale 870, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 KHC 6431), and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426), to underscore the need to decide bail in conformity with law and constitutional rights. Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260) is cited as applicable in this case. Considering the facts, the court grants bail with stringent conditions: a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties and local Alappuzha sureties, appearance before the Investigating Officer as required, prohibition on leaving India without permission, and a prohibition on committing similar offences. The order states the principle applies to this case and directs compliance with the terms.
MACA No. 2860 of 2009; MACA No. 616 of 2009 These connected Motor Accidents Claims Appeals arise from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, in OPMV No.1593/2001, relating to an accident on 28-04-2001 where Subbalakshmi, a pedestrian, was injured when an auto-rickshaw KL-9/F-9106 struck her. The Tribunal held the insurer (3rd respondent) liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle and awarded Rs. 38,839 with interest. The insurer challenged liability and quantum; Subbalakshmi challenged the award, arguing for compensation coverage as a claimant. The appellant insurer contends that the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and that the policy does not cover gratuitous passengers, citing Supreme Court precedents such as United India Insurance Co. v. Suresh and Tilak Singh, and Baljit Kaur, which hold that the term 'any person' does not include gratuitous passengers. The High Court, while acknowledging these precedents, also recognizes Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh (2017) to allow insurers to pay compensation and recover from the owner, if applicable. The Court disposes of the connected appeals by directing: MACA 616/2009 is partly allowed with the insurer directed to pay the Tribunal award and recover the amount from the owner; MACA 2860/2009 is dismissed with all pending applications also dismissed. Overall, the decision navigates the liability of insurers vis‑à‑vis gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles and enables recovery from the vehicle owner where appropriate.
MACA Nos 243/2011 and 2460/2016 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Latha Devi N and others concerns two Motor Accident Claims Appeals arising from a common award of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in OP(MV) 2382/2003. The petitioners, on behalf of the family of Sri K. Raja Narayanan, who died in a 12 June 2003 road collision on the Calicut–Kondotti road, seek compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The deceased, a Sub-Inspector in CISF, earned Rs 9,355 per month; the dependants sought about Rs 20 lakh. The Tribunal awarded Rs 10,90,216 plus costs, against which the insurer preferred MACA 243/2011 and the family pursued MACA 2460/2016 arguing quantum and contributory negligence issues. The insurer contends the accident was partly caused by the deceased. The High Court held that, while the charge-sheet (Ext A6) placed responsibility on the other vehicle, no evidence other than the written statement established contributory negligence; following Jiju Kuruvila v Kunjujamma Mohan and Kolavan v Salim, the court rejected reliance on Scene Mahazar to infer contributory negligence. The court confirmed the second respondent’s negligence and proceeded to re-evaluate quantum in light of Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and subsequent decisions, applying 50% future prospects, a 16 multiplier, and a one-third deduction for personal living expenses. It then recalculated conventional heads and, after discarding duplicative items, enhanced the total compensation. MACA 243/2011 was dismissed; MACA 2460/2016 was allowed with further enhancement and interest at 7% from the petition date to realization, with deposit and distribution instructions.
This High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam heard MACA No. 977 of 2013, an appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award of Rs. 1,68,526 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in OPMV 426/2004 for injuries sustained by the claimant, M. T. Thomas, in an accident on 24 August 2003 involving an autorickshaw driven by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was found to have driven rashly and negligently; the insurer, the 2nd respondent, was held liable. The claimant contends that the compensation is inadequate and that the income figure used by the Tribunal is not properly supported by evidence; pleadings suggested a higher income than the Tribunal assumed, and discrepancies were pointed out in the salary certificate (Exhibit A6). The insurer argues that the Tribunal award is just and should not be interfered with. The Court scrutinizes the evidence, noting misalignments between pleadings, evidence, and the salary certificate, and invokes Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., and Syed Sadiq Etc. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., to justify notionally fixing income for unproven employment and to justify the heads of damages. It recalculates components—loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, bystander expenses—arriving at an enhanced sum of Rs. 33,767 (rounded to Rs. 33,700). The appeal is allowed in part, with enhanced compensation and interest at 7.5% per annum from the petition date, excluding 671 days of delay, and the insurer is directed to satisfy the enhanced amount within two months with bank details furnished to the Standing Counsel.
MACA Nos. 370 of 2015 and 707 of 2017 These Motor Accident Claims Appeals arise from OP MV No. 227/2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, concerning injuries to the claimant in a 13.08.2003 accident involving a motorcycle insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. The Tribunal held the insurer liable for compensation of Rs.19,55,681 with 9% interest. The insurer challenged liability and quantum, while the appellant in MACA 707/2017 (Baiju G.S.) sought enhancement of compensation. The central dispute was the quantum under several heads, especially loss of earning capacity due to disability. The Medical Board later assessed the claimant’s whole body disability at 89%, prompting the High Court to treat functional disability as 100% given the claimant’s age (28) and career impact. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi guidelines, the court allowed a 50% addition for future prospects and recalculated compensation to Rs.26,13,852, noting that Rs.10,45,541 had already been awarded for this head. The court erred on an additional Rs.50,000 for loss of earning power, directing its deduction. It disposed of the appeals by modifying the Tribunal’s award, directing payment of the revised amount with 8% interest and costs within three months, and restricting interest on the additional amount for a 961‑day delay. In sum, the decision substantially enhances compensatory awards.
BAIL APPL. NO. 2642 OF 2022 Vinayamohan S., aged 36, petitioner, seeks bail under Section 438 CrPC in Crime No.347/2022 of East Kallada Police Station, Kollam, for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354A IPC. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant. The defense contends that the allegations are false, noting that on 22.03.2022, the defacto complainant and her father allegedly trespassed into the petitioner's property, broke open the gate, and brutally attacked him with a knife and vettukathi; the petitioner has furnished Annexure-A1 demonstrating his police complaint, with additional Annexures A2–A5. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail. The court acknowledges conflicting versions and notes that it cannot determine the truth of the allegations at this stage. However, relying on established bail jurisprudence, the court accepts that custodial interrogation may not be necessary in the circumstances. Drawing on Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh, the court emphasizes the general principle that bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception, in order to safeguard fair trial and personal liberty. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed under stringent conditions: the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer within two weeks and be available for interrogation; if arrested subsequently, he shall be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to additional conditions including non-evading, non-inducement, and no travel abroad without court permission, with regular appearances on Mondays and Fridays until final report is filed. The court retains jurisdiction to cancel bail for breach.
MACA Nos. 1891 & 1944 of 2012 These two Motor Accident Claims Appeals arise from a common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam dated 30 December 2011 in OP(MV) Nos. 2094 of 2004 and 2013 of 2004, awarding modest sums as compensation to the two injured victims in a Pulikkamali accident on 02 June 2004. The High Court, hearing on 9 November 2022, re‑assesses the quantum of compensation in light of evidence and case law. The appellants, Jayamon U Cherian and Anish K.K., challenge the Tribunal's fixation of monthly income at Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 3,500, arguing that the computation must be guided by the Supreme Court's Ramachandrappa decision (2011) 13 SCC 236, and that the loss of earning, bystander expenses, nourishment, transportation, clothing damages and pain and suffering under-compensate them. The 3rd respondent contends the award is just and reasonable and requires no interference. The Court agrees with the petitioners on the notional income issue and fixes Rs. 4,500 per month for computation, applying it to both cases, and recalculates the compensation in steps, enhancing several heads. The Court also awards substantial increases for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and permanent disability, and directs payment of the enhanced sums with 7.5% interest from filing until realization, within two months. The appeals are allowed; the Tribunal's award is revised accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5763 OF 2021 This is a bail application (B.A.5763/2021) filed by Shahabas K and Uma.M, accused Nos. 6 and 7 in Crime No. 1 of 2021, Taliparamba Excise Circle, Kannur District, under NDPS Act sections 22(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29. Accused were arrested on 01.01.2021 after excise officers raided Sneha Bar Inn Hotel, Bakalam, Taliparamba, and found the petitioners with narcotics in Room 103. The contraband included 1750 grams of LSD, 53 grams of MDMA, and 5.37 grams of hash oil, seized during search and verification. A report under Section 36A(4) was filed when the investigation exceeded 180 days, and two months’ extension was granted; the charge sheet was filed on 03.08.2021, and the case is pending trial. The petitioners contend they are falsely implicated and maintained innocence; they have remained in custody since 01.01.2021, and argue that bail should be granted, citing Section 50(1) safeguards and decisions that the standard of “reasonable grounds” requires more than prima facie. The Public Prosecutor refuted these claims, stating the accused were involved in possession and packing narcotics for sale, with the case involving commercial quantity and a real risk of tampering if released. The court analyzes the issue in light of NDPS bail provisions (Sections 37, 50) and established jurisprudence, and ultimately concludes there are no reasonable grounds to grant bail. The petition is dismissed, with a direction to dispose of the case expeditiously.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from an award under OPMV No.391/2012 of the Addl. MACT-II, Kottayam, where the claimant James Varghese sought enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 28.9.2011 while driving an autorickshaw. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,52,730 with interest at 8.5% p.a. The appellant contends that the Tribunal undervalued the claimant’s income (claimed Rs.8,000 per month; Tribunal used Rs.7,000) and failed to take future prospects into account, given his serious injuries resulting in paralysis (Ext.X1 shows 75% disability). He asserts that functional disability should be higher than the Medical Board’s certification and that compensation for future treatment, lost amenities, bystander expenses, and ongoing loss of income were inadequately provided. The insurer defends the Tribunal’s calculations as just and proper. Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, the High Court fixes the monthly income at Rs.8,000. It applies 25% future prospects given the claimant’s age (44) and holds that, due to the nature of his avocation, functional disability should be treated at a higher rate of 85% for computation, supported by unreported Kerala High Court judgments and other SC precedents (Mithun Subramanian, Raj Kumar). Consequently, disability compensation is recalculated to Rs.14,28,000, with Rs.5,46,000 as additional head. After adjusting for revised income (Rs.12,000, loss of income) and bystander/amenities enhancements (Rs.75,000), the court orders a further Rs.6,33,000 to be deposited with interest and costs. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
The petitioner, Saidali Haji, filed R.C.P. No. 49 of 2014 before the Rent Control Court, Parappanangadi, under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking fixation of fair rent for the petition scheduled building. He approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside Ext.P6, the Rent Control Court’s 18.11.2017 order in I.A.1834/2017 in R.C.P. No. 49/2014, which impounded a rent agreement dated 15.04.2016 as insufficiently stamped and threatened to remit the document to the District Collector under Sections 33–41 of the Kerala Stamp Act. The petitioner also sought to admit Exs. P3–P5, recall PW1, reopen evidence, and stay further proceedings. The respondents and petitioner argued over the appropriate action under stamping laws, including Sections 33, 34, 37, 39, and 41, and the related provisions and procedures, as well as the power and timing of endorsements and penalties, while considering the Act’s interaction with CPC Order XIII, Rule 9. The court relied on Ramachandran K.P. v. District Registrar (General) and others (2019 (3) KHC 136), which held that impounding for insufficient stamping is mandatory under Section 33 when such an instrument comes before empowered officers, and that penalties arise only if the instrument is admitted in evidence. In light of this authority and the statutory framework, the High Court set aside Ext.P6 and directed the Rent Control Court to reconsider I.A.1834/2017, and to decide I.A.1832/2017 and I.A.1833/2017 within one month, taking into account the need for timely disposal and the statutory provisions cited.
WP(C).No.16531 OF 2019(N) O.M. Kareem, a retired Civil Police Officer who resigned to care for his Muscular Dystrophy-afflicted son, challenged Ext.P8 (1.6.2019) of the State denying his application for a stamp vendor licence in the Kerala High Court premises, by filing a writ petition under Article 226. Kareem had sought appointment as a licensed stamp vendor in the Court premises after two licensed vendors died, relying on Ext.P1, a no-objection certificate from the Court dated 20.06.2017, and filed Ext.P3 (27.07.2017) for a licence in the existing vacancy. The District Treasury Officer (2nd respondent) rejected the request, citing Rule 35 as amended (2007) and the Government’s stance not to issue new licences in light of planned e-stamping, a policy echoed in Ext.P4 and Ext.P5. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.17451/2018, which was disposed by Ext.P7 directing consideration of his representation, and Cont. Case No.627/2019 leading to Ext.P9. The core issue is whether Ext.P8’s policy-driven rejection can be interfered with; the Court’s analysis centers on Rule 35, its sub-rules, and the policy shift towards e-stamping. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, upheld the policy, and allowed the Ext.P8 order to stand, finding the policy not arbitrary and in public interest.
