W.P.(C.) No. 7444 of 2025 Muhammed Anas P, a 26-year-old resident of Palakkad, filed Writ Petition (C) challenging the freezing of his bank account No. 99980103463886 by the 1st respondent bank, allegedly pursuant to a police requisition. He contends the debit freeze is illegal and arbitrary and seeks its immediate lifting beyond the stated amount. The petition relies on the Kerala High Court’s guiding principles, notably Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024) (1) KLT 826), which direct that freezing orders be confined to the amounts specified in police requisitions and that banks be informed promptly to decide continuance. The 1st respondent bank submits that the account is fully debit frozen for Rs. 20,000 under the police requisition. The Court recalls the statutory framework for seizure and reporting under Section 102 Cr.P.C., now interpreted as Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and cites Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd, as well as State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen to illustrate the evolving jurisprudence. In this conspectus, the Court directs confinement of the freeze to the amount in the order, requires police to indicate continuance, and leaves room for the petitioner to approach the Court if information is not provided, while serving copies of the judgment on authorities concerned.
Anoop Paulose, employed as District Urban Health Coordinator under the National Health Mission (NHM), Thrissur, challenges Ext.P21, a recent order terminating his contract following a disciplinary inquiry into alleged misuse of his position for trading face masks. Ext.P16 (dated 21.03.2022) had terminated him on grounds of misconduct, after an internal enquiry and deliberations by an Executive Committee. The petitioner had previously faced dismissal in W.P.(C) No.10871/2022; the High Court, via Ext.P20, directed the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P16 and pass fresh orders after giving him a full opportunity to defend, noting that the termination was stigmatic and required due process. The record shows disputes about the availability of materials, cross-examination of witnesses, and access to witness statements. In compliance with the Court’s directions, Ext.P21 was passed on 29.11.2022 by the 1st respondent, purportedly under Clauses (10) and (12) of the contract, but the petitioner asserts that Ext.P21 does not reflect a proper reconsideration of Ext.P16 and ignores the stigma issue. The High Court ultimately held Ext.P21 not in compliance with its directions, quashing Ext.P21 and reiterating that stigmatic termination requires a full opportunity to defend. The decision reinforces natural justice in contract terminations and outlines the remedial course for the petitioner.
Petitioner Sreehari, an 18-year-old student, seeks bail in Crime No.161/2025 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur, in offences under Sections 115(2), 118(1) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The incident, alleged to have occurred on 17 February 2025 at 4:00 PM, involved the petitioner and fellow students entering an examination hall, restraining and pushing down a teacher on invigilation duty, and assaulting a Plus One student, with claims of destroying exam sheets and creating chaos. The petitioner contends the accusations are false and, at 18 years of age, deserves consideration for bail subject to conditions. affidavits from the school principal-in-charge and the injured student are filed stating there is no grievance against him; the petitioner’s counsel also submits readiness to comply with any conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences. The court, while acknowledging the gravity, weighs the petitioner’s youth and the supporting affidavits, and finds possible to grant bail under stringent conditions. The court reinforces the conventional principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and other precedents including Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Sushila Aggarwal, Anzar Azeez, and Joginder Kumar. The order imposes conditions: appear before IO within two weeks, furnish a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, appear for interrogation as required, not to leave India without permission, avoid reoffending, and comply with ongoing investigations.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1519 OF 2024 The petitioner, Noshad, is the sole accused in Crime No. 85/2024 of Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha, charged under Section 153A IPC for allegedly posting a discriminatory article on his Facebook page to promote enmity between Hindus and Muslims and disrupt communal harmony. The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The Sessions Court had previously dismissed a similar application. The applicant’s counsel contended his innocence, asserted lack of any motive to create enmity, argued that custodial interrogation is unnecessary, highlighted the petitioner’s cardiac ailment supported by medical certificates, and offered to comply with stringent conditions if bail were granted. The Public Prosecutor argued that the FB post demonstrates intentional fomenting of enmity between religious groups, that custody is necessary for investigation, and that grant of bail would impede the investigation. The High Court relied on established jurisprudence, including Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and the Sibbia conventions, emphasizing that anticipatory bail should not be guided by rigid rules and should be grounded in the facts of each case, with consideration of nature and gravity of the offence, the accused’s role, antecedents, possibility of fleeing, and risk of witness tampering. After evaluating the materials and submissions, the court held that no case for pre-arrest bail is made out and dismissed the application, upholding the Sessions Court’s assessment of the seriousness of the offense and potential impact on communal harmony.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the formation and approval of Chinakkathoor Pooram Ottappalam Desom Pooraghosha Committee for the festival year 2024. The petitioners, devotees of Chinakkathoor Bhagavathy Temple (a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board), allege that the Desom Pooraghosha Committee is being formed in violation of the principles laid down by this Court in Chathu Achan v. State of Kerala and that it involves political elements, undermining temple administration. They highlight that the Desom Committee is a body under the Societies Registration Act and contends that elections to such a body cannot be supervised as if it were a temple administrator, seeking mandamus to prevent approval by the 3rd respondent, and to enforce actions aligned with MDB circulars and extant guidelines. The respondents, including the MDB and others, contend the petition is not maintainable against a society, that petitioners lack locus standi, and that the decision in Chathu Achan has no application to the current annual-desom committee elections, which are routinely overseen by MDB when there are disputes. The court ultimately directs that Chinakkathoor Pooram activities be conducted by the temple administration in conjunction with devotee committees formed under Circular HRH 8246/06 (15.06.2007), and that the Desom Pooraghosha Committees cannot meddle with temple management, disposing of the writ petition with directions.
This is a writ petition under the Right to Information Act, 2005, filed by P.R. Ramachandran seeking access to information relating to the construction agreement between the Muppathadam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. and a construction agency, as well as the minutes of the bank’s last General Body Meeting. The petitioner approached the 4th respondent (State Public Information Officer) with Ext.P1; the 4th respondent denied the request, directing the bank’s secretary to furnish the information. The bank responded that the information was not available. The petitioner pursued remedies through the First Appellate Authority (the 2nd respondent) via Ext.P3 and then escalated to the State Chief Information Commissioner (the 1st respondent) via Ext.P4. The State Chief Information Commissioner concluded that the information was not available with the 5th respondent (Office of the Assistant Registrar, North Paravur) and that only information within the 5th’s control could be disclosed. The petitioner relies on a Division Bench decision in W.A. No.1485/2022 directing reconsideration and on the Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank decision (2013 (4) KLT 232) to argue that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is a public authority for RTI purposes. The 6th respondent bank argues that the information is not public and not in possession of the 5th respondent, and that the Registrar has no absolute control. The court held that Ext.P5 extends no illegality, noted that the 6th respondent cannot be treated as under Registrar’s control, and dismissed the petition. It affirmed the 1st respondent’s order and upheld the petitioner’s lack of entitlement under RTI.
This is a Kerala High Court bail order under Section 439 CrPC concerning accused nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in Crime No.116/2024 of Thrithala Police Station, Palakkad. The petition seeks bail after the accused were arrested in February 2024 for alleged offences including 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 308 r/w 149 IPC, arising from an alleged common‑intention unlawful assembly that allegedly beat the de facto complainant and friends with iron sticks. The prosecution states that the investigation is ongoing and the 4th accused has prior antecedents, raising concerns about tampering with evidence and re‑offending; however, the petition asserts innocence, false implication, and that Section 308 was invoked only to deny bail. The court notes injuries to the injured as per medical records and observes that co‑accused 6 and 7 have already been enlarged on bail. Citing Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Dataram Singh v. State of UP, and State of Kerala v. Raneef, the judge reiterates the presumption of innocence, that bail is the norm rather than the exception, and that prolonged undertrial detention infringes Article 21. After careful consideration, the court finds detention unnecessary and grants bail subject to stringent conditions: Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, weekly IO appearances, no tampering, surrender of passports (if any), and potential cancellation on violation, with modifications permissible by the trial court. The order underscores the right to liberty while balancing legitimate state interests.
BAIL APPL. NO.1539 OF 2024 Kishore M S, the third accused in Crime No.34/2024 of Mannanthala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC as investigation nears closure. Four accused allegedly siphoned 1,727.77 grams of gold ornaments from the bank’s strong room, with the first accused—then Branch Manager—delivering the ornaments to the second, who passed them to the third, while the fourth replaced the stones and pearls and melted the gold at his residence. The gold was subsequently tested, sold to Kerala Jewellery, East Fort, and the profits shared. The petitioner contends his role is minimal (only introducing the second accused to the fourth) and that ongoing detention is unnecessary since investigation is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The learned Public Prosecutor concedes completion of investigation and recovery but asserts the accused’s complicity through Sections 120(b) and 34 IPC. The court relies on jurisprudence including Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (presumption of innocence), Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. (bail as a rule, detention as exception), State of Kerala v. Raneef (Article 21 and indefinite detention), and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) for reasonable bail conditions. After careful consideration, the court allows the bail application, directing release on bond with specified conditions to safeguard the investigation and ensure compliance while preserving the petitioner’s liberty.
This is a criminal revision petition by the second accused, K. Vasudevan Nair, challenging an order of discharge in C.C. No. 33/2016, before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram, arising from Crime No. 3/2008 of VACB, Pathanamthitta. The prosecution alleges a conspiracy among accused 1 (Vice President of Panthalam Block Panchayat), accused 3 (beneficiary committee convener) and the petitioner to misappropriate rice allotted under the Sampoorna Grameena Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) for a Drinking Water Project at Kuttipalavila SC Colony. The scheme provided rice valued at Rs. 2,00,136 for labor; the rice was allegedly taken from an FCI godown and diverted, stored in witness No.5’s building, and sold in the black market, causing government loss and personal gain to the accused. The petitioner, who served as the Block Development Officer and Secretary of the Block Panchayat (2000–2005), sought discharge under Sections 239-240 Cr.P.C.; the Trial Court dismissed the discharge petitions. The Revisional Court examined whether a prima facie case existed and whether discharge was warranted, relying on Supreme Court precedents that at the charge-framing stage the court assesses whether a ground for presuming the commission of the offence exists, without weighing probative value in depth. It concluded there are prima facie ingredients under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, dismissed the revision petition, and allowed the petitioner’s personal appearance to be exempted on sworn undertakings through his counsel.
Bail Application No. 1576 of 2024 Sirajudheen, the second accused in Crime No. 10/2024 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotics Special Squad, Ernakulam, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC for alleged offences under Sections 27(a), 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Arrested on 8 February 2024, he is alleged to have possessed 6.475 grams of MDMA found at a Cheranelloor residence. The High Court of Kerala weighs whether continued detention is warranted, considering the gravity of the offences, the quantity involved, the stage of investigation, and the accused’s antecedents. The prosecution contends the offences are serious; the contraband quantity is not gross, but the accused’s detention may be necessary for a fair investigation. The defense asserts innocence, claims false implication, and notes the contraband quantity is intermediate, with no criminal antecedents, and that investigation is practically complete and recovery effected. The Public Prosecutor concedes intermediate quantity, lack of antecedents, near completion of investigation, and recovery. After evaluating these factors, the court finds no compelling reason to keep the accused in custody and grants bail. The order imposes a bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties, and conditions including periodic appearance, no tampering, surrender of passport if any, and reporting. It also acknowledges that investigations may proceed during bail, following Sushila Aggarwal, and is dated 7 March 2024.
CANFIN HOMES LTD., a housing finance company, challenged an encumbrance entry (Ext. P6) reflecting Ext. P5, a sale deed dated 24.07.2014 in favour of respondents 3 and 4, registered after the creation of an equitable mortgage in its favor (Ext. P1 on 12.11.2011). The bank had pursued SARFAESI proceedings and obtained possession orders, but the borrowers defaulted again and the asset was offered for sale; no bidders ensued. On obtaining Ext. P6, the petitioner found Ext. P5 recorded behind the mortgage and sought to efface it, arguing that the mortgagee’s priority and rights prevail over subsequent encumbrances. Respondents 3 and 4 are alleged purchasers; the 3rd and 4th respondents did not appear, while the 2nd respondent contested by filing a counter; she claimed there was no actual transfer of title and emphasized settlement options. The court relied on established jurisprudence that a mortgagor cannot further encumber the property without the mortgagee’s junction and that subsequent attachments or sales cannot defeat the mortgagee’s priority. Citing Travancore Devaswom Board, State Bank of India v State of Kerala, Housing Finance v Corporation, and Madhan S., the court held that post-mortgage sales cannot survive over a prior equitable mortgage, and, following Kerala State Financial Enterprises v. Meenachil Bank, that such entries must be effaced to preserve marketability. The petition is disposed of with a direction to efface Ext. P5 from Ext. P6.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1550 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by the second accused, Ramesh alias Gautam Ramesh, in Crime No. 1755/2023 of Palakkad Town South Police Station. The offences alleged include cheating and misappropriation (IPC Section 420 read with 34), along with offences under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (Section 4) and the Kerala Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013 (Section 5). The prosecution contends a Ponzi-like scheme where the first accused, MD of M/s Universal Trading Solutions, advertised doubling investments within three years and paying 12% interest, leading to deposits of Rs. 4 lakh (11.03.2019) and Rs. 10 lakh (30.04.2019) with non-payment of returns. The applicant has been in custody since 20.01.2024; prior orders by the Supreme Court and the Kerala Court are referenced, indicating liquidation actions and an earlier bail release in a related matter. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting multiple other crimes and the risk of flight. The judge notes substantial progress in investigation and recovery, and that moral culpability is established, yet observes that the petitioner has already undergone lengthy detention and that liquidation and prior bail orders reflect ongoing proceedings. In this backdrop, the court grants bail subject to conditions, balancing the likelihood of investigation completion against the freedom of the accused.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1459 OF 2024 This is a Kerala High Court bail application (Sec. 438 CrPC) by Suresh, the sole accused in Crime No. 99/2024 (Kuthiyathode Police Station, Alappuzha), charged with offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC for alleged misappropriation of Rs. 40,74,977 and 371 commercial gas cylinders during 02.08.2021 to 13.08.2023 while working as a distribution agent for Preethy Bharat Gas Agency. The defense contends innocence and false implication, attributing the case to animosity from the defacto complainant. It is argued that he worked as a manual labourer on a contract basis, left the complainant’s service to join another gas agency, and that custodial interrogation or recovery is unnecessary; the bail should be granted to avoid harassment and protect personal liberty. The State Prosecutor counters that the offences are grave economic offences; misappropriation of customer dues and critical gas cylinders necessitate custodial interrogation to ensure proper investigation. The court anchors its reasoning in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra for flexible, case-specific anticipatory bail considerations, and cites Sibbia and Jai Prakash Singh to emphasize cautious exercise of discretion, noting anticipatory bail is not an entitlement and should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. After evaluating the materials, the judge holds no exceptional grounds exist and dismisses the bail petition, but allows surrender within ten days with a direction to interrogate and consider bail on merits thereafter; otherwise arrest may follow.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1624 OF 2024 Praveen Chandran, the second accused in Crime No. 10/2024 of the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC after arrest on 13 February 2024 for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 5 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. The prosecution case is that the first accused, a society, and the second accused, its zonal manager, induced the defacto complainant to invest Rs. 2,37,000 as a fixed deposit for two years at an advertised interest rate of 9.5% per annum. When the complainant sought withdrawal, he discovered the society had closed and no interest or principal was returned. The petitioner contends innocence and argues he has been falsely implicated; he has been in judicial custody since 13.02.2024; the investigation is practically complete and recoveries have been effected. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, asserting that the investigation is not complete and the applicant is involved in another crime, with a likelihood of interfering with the investigation if released. The court, after considering the submissions and the fact of prolonged custody, the relatively minor maximum sentence, and the progress of investigation, allows bail with a bond of Rs 50,000 and two solvent sureties, and imposes conditions including regular appearance, non-interference with witnesses, no additional offences, passport surrender, address disclosure, and the possibility of cancellation of bail if violated; it cites Sushila Aggarwal for the principle that investigations may proceed under bail.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1372 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, 1973, filed by accused 1 and 2 in Crime No. 885/2023 of Pattambi Police Station, Palakkad, arising from alleged offences under Sections 415, 416, 417, 419, 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The four-accused group allegedly entered into a business arrangement to supply scrap machinery from a defunct NSL Sugars Limited factory in Karnataka. The prosecution alleges that the accused, through the proprietorship M/s Jeeja Products and Agencies along with co-accused, convinced the defacto complainant that they owned the scrap materials and executed an agreement on 21.01.2023 after meeting in Bangalore; the complainant transferred Rs.3.51 crore between 28.12.2022 and 25.01.2023 via cheques and bank transfers, but the machinery was not supplied and consideration not returned. The petitioners contend the transaction is civil in nature and that the predicate offence under Section 420 IPC is not attracted; they have been in judicial custody since 08.02.2024; investigation is reportedly near completion with recoveries effected, yet further detention would cause hardship—particularly since the first petitioner is a woman and the second petitioner is a cardiac patient. Opposing bail, the Public Prosecutor and intervenor emphasize contractual dealings, transfer of funds, cheques dishonoured, and the risk of tampering with witnesses or hampering investigations. The court references established bail principles from Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, Mahipal, and Ash Mohammad, and finds prima facie evidence of the alleged offences, considering the gravity, potential punishment, and risk to witnesses. Result: the bail application is dismissed.
CRL.A No. 639 of 2016; CRL.A No. 683 of 2016; DSR No. 2 of 2016 This is a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court rendered on 24 May 2024 in Crl. Appeal Nos. 639 of 2016 and 683 of 2016, along with DSR No. 2 of 2016, arising from Crime No. 491/2014 of Attingal Police Station. The case concerns a brutal double murder (Omana and her granddaughter Swasthika) and an attempted murder of PW1, arising from an adulterous relationship between the second accused and the first accused, both technocrats at Technopark, and their alleged criminal conspiracy to live together. The Sessions Court convicted both accused under multiple IPC sections (including 302, 449, 307, 380, 511/201 and 34) and under the IT Act (section 67 and later 67A). The High Court, sustaining the convictions and most sentences, upheld the criminal conspiracy between the two accused by drawing on circumstantial evidence (recovered weapons and ornaments, CCTV, mobile phones and metadata, and detailed messages and video/photographs exchanged). It held that the first accused murdered Omana and Swasthika and attempted to kill PW1, while also stealing ornaments. Notably, though a death sentence was imposed for the 302 IPC offence, the Bench converted it to life imprisonment with a 25-year minimum, directing non-release for that period, after balancing aggravating factors with mitigating considerations. The court also confirmed other convictions and sentenced concurrently, with compensation orders to PW1 and PW14. The judgment relies on established jurisprudence regarding conspiracy, evidentiary standards for identification, and the evolving approach to capital punishment in India.
This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case concerns a quashment under Section 482 CrPC in respect of CRIME NO.1053/2024 of Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod, presently CC No.48/2025 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg. The sole accused, Hudaifa C.H., seeks quashing of the entire proceedings on the basis that the parties have arrived at a settlement. The court records show that the defacto complainant (MUHSINABHI M) has no objection to quashing, and an Annexure-A3 affidavit affirms the settlement is genuine, voluntary, and bonafide. It is argued that the offences alleged under Sections 126(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are compoundable, and continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process and futile given the settlement. The court cites established precedents from Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2007) 4 CTC 769, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582, to outline a practical, common-sense approach to quashing in disputes of a personal nature and where settlements are genuine. After considering the defacto complainant’s statements and the statutory provisions, the court holds that continuing proceedings would be futile and a potential abuse of process. Consequently, the Crl.M.C. is allowed; FIR, final report, and CC proceedings are quashed.
Chinnamurugan v. Guruswami and Others concerns an injunction suit over plaint schedule properties in Chathurangappara Village, Udumbanchola Taluk, Iduki. The petitioner, Chinnamurugan, challenged Ext.P7 order dated 07-08-2023 in IA No.3 of 2023 in OS No.44 of 2018 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Devikulam, which impleaded a third party as additional defendant No.6 claiming an absolute right in the plaint A schedule property. The original suit, filed by the plaintiff, sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from trespassing, destroying cultivation, committing waste or disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties. The applicant argues that as dominus litus, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to litigate against a third party and that there is no cause of action pleaded against respondent No.6; he also contends that Ext.P7 was passed without proper consideration of Ext.P6 and that IA No.3 impermissibly creates a party with potential rights in the suit. The respondents submit that Ext.P5 seeking impleadment as additional defendants No.6 is valid and that respondent No.6 has an absolute right and interest in the schedule properties, requiring adjudication to avoid multiplicity of suits, citing Challappan v. Krishnankutty. The High Court, after hearing counsel, held there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P7 and dismissed the original petition, thereby upholding the impleadment and the protection of the parties’ interests.
The writ petition challenges the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account No. 50100595347587 by HDFC Bank, allegedly under a requisition from the police. The petitioner asserts that the freezing is illegal and arbitrary, and seeks relief to enable him to transact through the account. The bank submits that the disputed amount frozen is Rs. 69,456 and that the freeze was imposed following a police requisition. The court situates the matter in the evolving jurisprudence on bank account freezes under criminal investigations, citing Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) and Nazeer K.T. v. Subsequenty, Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768). It emphasizes that freezing orders should be confined to the amount specified in the order and that police must inform banks whether continued freezing is required, with a time-bound procedure for compliance. The court also notes the statutory framework surrounding seizure reporting under Cr.P.C. Section 102 (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). In outcome, the writ petition is allowed to the extent of directing the bank to confine the freeze to the specified amount and to implement the related procedural directions, with liberty to approach the court again if information is not furnished.
Veerankutty filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus to compel the 2nd respondent, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads Section), to implement Ext.P8 (order dated 11.08.2023) of the 8th respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, and to remove the illegal construction referred to therein in a timebound manner. The petitionish arguments centered on the allegation that an appeal by the Cochin Devaswom Board against Ext.P8 before the 7th respondent District Collector is pending in a statutory appeal, with a pending order of status quo. The petitioner contended there is no statutory remedy to challenge Ext.P8 before the 7th respondent. The 5th respondent’s appeal and the District Collector’s status quo order were examined. The court noted documentation of notices and a hearing held on 19.10.2023 and analyzed submissions by both sides, while recalling principles from case law about candor, suppression of material facts, and the discretionary nature of writs. It cited Kensington, Prestige Lights, Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen, and Oriental Bank of Commerce to emphasize that writs are not to be used as instruments of misrepresentation or to bypass statutory processes. Ultimately, the court held that due to the status quo, a mandamus cannot issue, but disposed of the petition with directions to expedite the survey and hearing process and to ensure a reasoned order by the District Collector.
