This Kerala High Court judgment arises from MFA (RCT) No. 22 of 2012, an appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, filed by M.P. George against an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, dismissing his compensation claim for injuries sustained on 5 October 2009 while boarding the Guruvayoor-Chennai Express at Aluva. The Tribunal held that the incident did not constitute an untoward incident under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and thus rejected the claim. The appellant, a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket, claimed compensation under the no-fault liability regime (Section 124A) and argued that the accident occurred during boarding, an ordinary part of railway operations. The High Court, after reviewing the evidence (tickets, DRM report, discharge summaries, and medical certificates) and precedents, held that the incident falls within the scope of an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c)(2) — accidental fall of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. It relied on Sahadeo Sindhu Sanas, Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, Union of India v. Rina Devi, and Union of India v. Radha Yadav to interpret the term purposively rather than literally, and to reject any exclusion for falls inside the train. The court concluded the appellant is entitled to compensation under Section 124A, applying Rule 3 of the Schedule to the 1990 Rules, and, following modern precedents, awarded Rs. 1,60,000 (plus interest) as compensation, with a direction to deposit within two months. The decision clarifies no-fault liability extends to boarding/de-boarding incidents, even with contributing negligence concerns.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4948 OF 2023 The petitioner, Saleel Kumar V.S., seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No. 42/2023 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur, registered for offences under IPC Sections 406 and 420, and under the BUDS Act, 2019 (Sections 3 r/w 21, and 5 r/w 23). The prosecution alleges a scheme whereby the accused, as director and promoter of Safe & Strong Business Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (and related entities), collected deposits from numerous victims in the guise of franchise security and promised monthly stipends and future refunds, running into crores of rupees. The report filed by the Public Prosecutor reveals that the petitioner was founder/director in two companies and, despite his resignation on 01.10.2021, remained closely associated with the primary accused, with substantial bank credits and cash deposits traced to his accounts during the relevant period. The prosecution contends that custody is required to unearth the full scale of misappropriation, to unearth diverted funds, and to prevent witness tampering. The applicant argues lack of direct involvement, absence of allegations of money taken by him, and reliance on vicarious liability only. The court notes the large number of cases (over 233) and significant sums, and emphasizes that permitting anticipatory bail could impede custodial investigation and the collection of evidence in economic offences. It relies on established authorities to stress the need for a thorough investigation, and ultimately denies anticipatory bail. The order reflects the court’s concern for investigative integrity and public interest.
Pradeep @ Kuttan, Accused No.11, seeks regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in connection with Crime No.RC-3(S)/2019/CBI(SCP) involving the murder of two Youth Congress activists, Kripesh and Sarath Lal, on 17 February 2019. The investigation originated with Bekal Police Station (Crime No.81/2019) and was later re-registered as Crime No.75/CB/KNR&KSD/2019 by the Crime Branch, before being entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and re-registered as RC-3(S)/2019/CBI(SCP). The prosecution alleges a criminal conspiracy (accused 1–11) in Peria Village to murder in retaliation for prior assault on the first accused; the incident occurred around 19:36–19:45 hours on 17.02.2019. Accused 1–8 allegedly used iron pipes and swords; two victims died. Accused 11, the petitioner, was arrested on 29.04.2019. After investigation, a final report was filed; the matter was transferred to CBI following a writ petition, over which a Division Bench permitted further CBI investigation and directed filing of a supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, with cognizance to be considered after receipt of the supplementary report. The State challenged; Supreme Court dismissed their appeal; the petitioner’s prior bail petitions were dismissed. The Court held there is no change in circumstances warranting bail; nevertheless, it directed completion of the investigation within four months, with a fresh bail application thereafter. The order emphasizes the gravity of the offence, public interest, and the need to safeguard witnesses, while balancing the right to liberty under Article 21.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Family Court, Thrissur’s order dated 23 December 2022 (Ext.P9) in I.A.7/2022 in O.P. No.1249/2021, directing the 1st petitioner (the father, Sulfikkar K. V) to hand over custody of the minor Sulthan Sameen to the respondent mother by 10.00 a.m. on 24 December 2022, in compliance with the prior interim-custody arrangement (Ext.P5). The underlying suit, O.P. No.1249/2021, was filed by Nijina for permanent custody of the child; the Family Court had earlier granted intermittent access to the mother, incorporating a schedule for weekend custody and holiday periods. The petitioners contend that Ext.P9 was issued after repeated opportunities to comply with Ext.P5 were granted and rely on an evidently erroneous cause-title date, later asserted to be a typographical mistake; they have sought a corrected copy of Ext.P9. The High Court, invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, canvassed established principles from Shalini Shyam Shetty, Jai Singh, K.V.S. Ram, and Sobhana Nair on the proper scope of interference, emphasizing limited, non- appellate review and the need to avoid undermining the lower court’s process. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the petition without interfering with Ext.P9, directing production of the child on 20.01.2023 and leaving it to the Family Court to decide further in I.A.7/2022 after interacting with the minor.
This Kerala High Court criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC challenges Crime No. 524/2022 of Walayar Police Station and the corresponding proceedings in C.P. No. 4/2023 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Palakkad. The petition, filed by accused Nos. 1–3, contends that the disputes between the parties have been resolved amicably, supported by Annexure A4 and the de facto complainant’s affidavit. The FIR, dated 20 November 2022, alleges offences under IPC Sections 341, 323, 324, 506, 294(b) and 308 read with Section 34, arising from an incident at 6:15 pm on 20.11.2022, where the petitioners allegedly restrained and injured the complainant in furtherance of a common intention. The State represented by the Public Prosecutor acknowledged the lack of other transgressions by the petitioners but expressed reservations about quashing proceedings solely on the basis of a settlement. The court directed the IO to verify the authenticity of the settlement and whether there are criminal antecedents. Relying on State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and other decisions (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Shambhu Kewat, Deepak, Manish, Kamath, Rajveer Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, Kalyan Singh, Dhruv Gurjar), the judge set out the governing framework: quashing under Section 482 CrPC is permissible for private, non‑compoundable offences where disputes are settled and the offence is not heinous. The court allowed the petition and quashed the final report and further proceedings.
MACA No.970 of 2013; CO No.159 of 2021 This is a combined appeal and cross- objection arising from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kasaragod award in OP(MV) No.372/2009, dated 14 May 2012, awarding Rs.12,53,336 for the death of Narayana Rai in a Jeep accident (KL-14D-3276) involving a bus. The appellants (the owner and insurer of the Jeep) challenge the award on two main grounds: (i) the Tribunal incorrectly fixed the deceased’s age at 42 years instead of 47, based on Ext. A3 post‑mortem; (ii) liability on the owner and insurer, despite the FIR/charge against the Jeep driver, is contested; the salary relied upon (Ext. A5) and the calculation of dependency loss are also attacked. The cross objectors, legal heirs of Narayana Rai, contend the compensation under conventional heads and especially future prospects (30%), loss of love and affection, and loss of consortium must be increased, and advocate award under loss of consortium of Rs.44,000 to each survivor (wife and three children). The Tribunal had applied a multiplier of 14 and awarded loss of dependency with Rs.9,336 monthly income; after hearing, the High Court partially allows the MACA and the CO, upholding some findings but revising compensation and liability in light of Pranay Sethi guidelines and Sarla Verma multiplier rules. The insurer is directed to deposit the revised sum with interest within two months.
This writ petition challenges the appointment of two data entry operators (Accountant-cum-data entry operators) under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme by Karode Gram Panchayat. The petitioner, a B.Com graduate with a Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications, contends that the Panchayat conducted a walk-in interview but failed to publicize it effectively and did not verify whether the candidates satisfied the minimum qualification (B.Com with PGDCA) as required by government rules. The Panchayat allegedly selected respondents 5 and 6 despite their not meeting the prescribed qualifications, allegedly due to preferential treatment and urgency. The petitioner asserts irregularities in the selection process, violation of the required qualifications, and demands quashing the appointments and a fresh, lawful recruitment process with due publicity. The Panchayat counters that the petitioner had no locus standi (not an aspirant and not directly affected), that the appointments were temporary and necessitated by urgent day-to-day functions, and that the interview followed guidelines with no vested interest. The court scrutinizes Ext.P4 (qualification norms), Ext.P5 (reply), and Exts.P6–P11 (statements and exhibits) and finds irregularities in the process, including lack of proper verification of qualifications. Consequently, it directs termination of the two appointees and an immediate, transparent reappointment process with publicity, to be completed within two months, with interim data-entry arrangements allowed as needed.
W.A. Nos. 976 & 1408 of 2014 This is a common judgment on two writ-appeals challenging orders that set aside revenue recovery sales under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 and directed mutation in favor the writ petitioners who owed Abkari Workers Welfare Fund dues, Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund dues, and Sales Tax. The writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 33704 of 2011 and 22714 of 2013) were allowed, with the sale conducted under Section 49 of the Act annulled and possession and mutation directed in favor of the petitioners. The court undertook a detailed statutory analysis of Sections 49, 50, 71 and 75 of the Act, emphasizing that sale proceedings must strictly adhere to prescribed publication and notice requirements (Section 49(2), (4) and Section 75(2) read with 49(4)); publication in newspapers or Gazette is mandatory to attract bidders and public notice. It relied on the Subaida Beevi line of authority to hold that when the Government purchases for defaulting institutions, the purchase must be on behalf of the institution, not in its own name. It also noted that the amnesty scheme extended by Government orders did not validate an otherwise illegal sale. On this basis, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals, upholding the Single Judge’s directions for mutation and payment-related orders, while concluding that the Government’s awards were improper and the proceedings vitiated for procedural non-compliance.
This is a batch of writ appeals (W.A. No. 230 of 2017 and connected cases) arising from notices issued under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) for assessment. The common issue concerns the period of limitation and the validity of notices passed beyond the statutory window. The learned Single Judge had grouped the cases based on the provisions invoked (notably Section 25(1) for initiation and Section 25B for extension) and rendered a common judgment, which the present judgment follows. The court holds that the limitation under Section 25(1) is for issuance of a notice to determine escapement, and the proviso extending the time for completion of assessment does not revive lapsed initiation. Consequently, notices issued after five years from the end of the assessment year in Group-A cannot be sustained. The court also examines the introduction of Section 25B (via Kerala Finance Act, 2013) and its power to extend the period for completion of assessment, but concludes that such extensions cannot override the fundamental limitation for initiation of proceedings absent a valid retrospective provision or a proper notice. In addressing Group-B and Group-C, the court reiterates that Section 25B cannot be used to revive proceedings where no notice existed within the prescribed period. The decision relies on a line of authorities emphasizing natural justice (audi alteram partem, nemo judex in re sua), the distinction between procedural and substantive rights, and the nuanced treatment of amendments and retrospection. Ultimately, the appeals are disposed of in favor of the writ petitioners, with the common judgment dated 05.10.2016 upheld, and costs ordered to the parties.
This is a Kerala High Court appeal (MACA No. 2805 of 2012) against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur’s award in OP(MV) 905/2006, arising from a Feb 26, 2006 accident on the Paliyekkara-Pudukkad road that killed Sukumaran, husband of the first appellant and father of the second. The lorry (HR-38-E-3083), owned by the first respondent and insured with the Oriental Insurance Company (third respondent), allegedly struck the motorcycle driven by Sukumaran. The petition under Sec.166 MV Act claimed Rs 9,50,000 for dependents’ future maintenance. The Tribunal, ex parte against the owner and insurer, awarded Rs 3,85,950 with interest and costs. The High Court, while upholding negligence (Ext A6) and insurer liability, re-evaluated quantum in light of jurisprudence. It reassessed the deceased’s notional income to Rs 5,500 per month (citing Ramachandrappa), applied a multiplier of 13 (Sarla Verma), and added future prospects of 25%. After deducting one-third for personal living expenses, the loss of dependency was increased to Rs 7,15,000. Conventional heads (funeral, loss of estate, loss of consortium) were escalated per Pranay Sethi and allied cases, yielding higher figures: funeral and loss of estate at Rs 16,500 each; loss of consortium significantly enhanced; loss of love and affection was disallowed to avoid duplication per New India Assurance Co. v Somwati. The Court finally enhanced total compensation by Rs 4,80,000, directing deposit within 60 days and disbursement to the appellants in a 70:30 ratio, with 7% interest and costs.
This writ petition, filed by Cherian Varkey Construction Co. Pvt Ltd. (the JV partner of RDS-CVCC), challenges the evaluation of bids for upgrading a State Highway project (Konni–Placherry, SH-8, Package 8B). The central dispute revolves around the bid security and its validity, specifically whether the bank guarantee extended for a period beyond the bid’s original validity can be treated as a substantive cure for a technical defect. Ext.P1 lays down the bid security requirements, including a bid validity of 150 days and a bid security validity of 45 days beyond the bid’s validity, cumulatively requiring 195 days. RDS-CVCC submitted Ext.P2 with a bank guarantee valid only till 06.06.2019; later Ext.P3 extended the guarantee to 07.10.2019. The petitioner contends that this extension was a curable technical defect and that rejection would lead to retrial and unnecessary public expenditure, especially since only one other bidder existed. Respondents contend the bid security was not in conformity with Ext.P1, rendering the bid non-responsive, and the World Bank procurement guidelines mandate rejection of defective bids. The court scrutinized Ext.P1 Clauses 19.1–19.8, 18.1–18.2, 27.1, 29.1–29.2, 31.2, ITB 20.1, 22.1, 23.1, and related World Bank Guidelines (2.16, 2.61) and PWD Manual 2009.2. Relying on PES Installations, Kapsh Metor JV, and Tbas Construction decisions, the court held the bid non-responsive and dismissed the petition, underscoring that employer interpretations in procurement should be respected unless malafide is shown.
The petitioners run a footwear business in Perinthalmanna Municipality and challenge Ext.P7, a communication by the Secretary directing closure and denying a fresh D&O licence. They contend they have been in possession of the shop since 2016 under tenancy with the 6th respondent and that a valid tenancy existed, with one co-owner (the 4th respondent) having executed Ext.P2 tenancy agreement dated 08-12-2022 and Ext.P3 consent dated 24-12-2022. They applied for a D&O licence on 15-12-2022 along with the consent, but the 2nd respondent refused, insisting that consent of all landlords is necessary under Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act. They filed OS No.4/2023 in the Munsiff’s Court, which granted a temporary injunction, and later faced a closure order. The petitioners rely on Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram (2016) 14 SCC 263 to argue that consent from all owners is not required for renewal, and on Jayaprakash P.S. v. Kozhikode Corporation to contend that consent from one co-owner may suffice for a licence. The court notes that this case concerns a first-time licence, not renewal, and holds that Section 492(3) requires written consent of all owners; Ext.P3 cannot substitute for all-signatures. The petition is dismissed; Ext.P7 is upheld and the licence process must comply with statutory requirements.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) from Kerala High Court, filed by six appellants (the parents and siblings of the deceased Joseph) challenging an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The deceased was a 21-year-old pillion rider who died in a road accident on 07-01-2008 when a lorry driven rashly by the 1st respondent struck the motorcycle. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,87,000 as compensation. The appellants contend the quantum is not just, especially the income of the deceased, which the Tribunal fixed at Rs. 3,000 per month, whereas the appellants rely on Ramachandrappa for a higher notional income, together with subsequent Supreme Court guidelines on future prospects (Pranay Sethi), multiplier (Sarla Verma), and deductions for personal living expenses. The court applies a series of authoritative precedents to compute enhanced damages: notional income Rs. 6,500, 40% future prospects, multiplier 18, and 1/2 deduction for personal expenses, with adjustments for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and love/affection. It also deducts love/affection against the earlier loss of consortium as per Somwati. The result is a total enhanced compensation of Rs. 11,46,900, with annualized interest and proportional costs, and a direction to the insurer to deposit the amount within two months from the date of judgment, pending actual disbursal to the petitioners.
This is a matrimonial appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arising from an order of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in OP No.1329/2011 dated 13 February 2019. The petition sought the return of gold ornaments (originally 100 sovereigns; the Family Court found 85 sovereigns were misappropriated to start a travel business), recovery of Rs 20,00,000 from the wife’s parents, and maintenance for the wife and children, past and future. The respondent-husband contested the claims, denying entrustment or misappropriation and arguing the wife’s immoral life; on maintenance, he claimed limited means. After trial, the Family Court held that the ornaments were misappropriated to the husband for business purposes and ordered return of the ornaments or their value, and granted maintenance to the wife and two children, while rejecting the Rs 20,00,000 claim. On appeal, the Kerala High Court allowed the appeal in part: it set aside the gold-ornament relief due to lack of documentary and independent evidence of entrustment and misappropriation, while upholding the maintenance awards. The court relied on Rajesh v. Deepthi (2021 (4) KLT 455), a Division Bench decision, to acknowledge that oral evidence can establish possession and entrustment where documentary proof is absent, especially when the wife testifies to entrustment. The appeal thus succeeds to the extent of gold ornaments and remains protective for maintenance.
The CASA writ petition challenges the Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) ability to certify or permit the public exhibition of the film titled “Eso-not from the Bible.” CASA argues that the film, produced by Nadirsah and Arun Narayanan, and advertised with the banner “Eso-not from the Bible,” would offend Christian sentiments and threaten public order, decency and morality, or national integrity. Citing Section 5B(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, CASA contends that a film shall not be certified if it is against sovereignty, integrity, security, public order, morality, or defamation or if it incites offences. CASA further seeks mandamus relief ordering respondents to review any decision to exhibit the film and to compel disclosure of the screenplay and blueprint so the court can determine if the film is derogatory. The respondents counter that the film’s story does not relate to the Bible, and that name alone should not control certification. They emphasize the Board’s guidelines which require assessing the film in its entirety for impacts on violence, obscenity, defamation, and public order, and allow classification (e.g., adult-only or restricted viewership) where appropriate. The Court notes the film’s narrative does not pertain to the Holy Bible and upholds the statutory guidelines; the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
The Kerala High Court, in MACA No. 609 of 2013, allowed an appeal by claimants challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from the death of Abdul Rasheed, a bakery proprietor. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 3,08,624 in various heads including transportation, medicals, funeral, pain and suffering, and loss of dependency and consortium. The High Court re-evaluates the quantum, applying established Supreme Court principles on just compensation (Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi) and related doctrines (Ramachandrapa, Syed Sadiq; Magma General Insurance; United India Insurance). It fixes notional income, applies future prospects, adopts the 1/3 deduction for personal expenses, and uses the appropriate multiplier (9) based on the deceased’s age, consistent with Sarla Verma and subsequent cases. The Court enhances the conventional heads and the loss of consortium for the spouse, while adjusting for overlapping sums (loss of love & affection). It awards a total enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,36,007 with 7.5% interest from the petition date, directs the insurer to pay within two months, and prescribes distribution of the enhanced sum among claimants, with 50% to the first appellant (wife).
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, concerns the Sasthamangalam Devaswom Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) formed under the Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioners, eleven elected members from the temple’s registered mandalam, challenged Ext.P3 (29.09.2022) of the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner which purported to approve the TAC chosen in the 30.08.2022 meeting, contending they should be allowed to function as TAC members. The matter was admitted on 11.11.2022 and interim stay was granted against Ext.P4 (03.11.2022) election by draw of lots. The respondents contended that the TAC is governed by Ext.P1 Rules framed under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, and that elections must comply with these rules, including the procedure of drawing lots when consensus is lacking (Ext.P1 Clause 5). The Devaswom Commissioner and Board repeatedly referenced Ext.P2 (12.09.2022) and Ext.R1(d) (01.11.2022) directing action in accordance with Ext.P1, by drawing lots. The court held that, in the absence of consensus, the election must be conducted by drawing lots as per Ext.P1, and that Ext.P3 implementation in the face of Ext.P1 was impermissible. Consequently, the interim stay was vacated, and the petition was disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent to proceed with a fresh TAC election by drawing lots before the temple’s next festival, ensuring the new TAC takes charge by late December 2022. The judgment reinforces the statutory framework governing temple governance and the Board’s supervisory role.
This is a common-ordered bail decision by the Kerala High Court, arising from multiple connected bail applications filed by a single petitioner, Ananthakrishnan, who is an accused in a cluster of crimes registered across Aranmula, Koipuram and Thiruvalla police stations between 2022 and 2023. The petitioner faces offences under IPC sections 406 and 420, read with 34, and under the BUDS Act (Sections 3, 4, 5) as well as the Kerala Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013 (Section 5), in several crimes including 31/2023, 1013/2022, 1018/2022, 1053/2022, 1054/2022, 1159/2022, 85/2023, 39/2023, 116/2023, 57/2023, 117/2023, 205/2023, 78/2023, 222/2023, 27/2023, 36/2023 and 274/2023. The petitioners (in all connected files) are the same person; the prosecution contends that the deposits scheme involved large sums with possible absconding, while the defense argues the accused is a non-operational director living abroad (Singapore) and not involved in day-to-day operations, and is ready to appear for interrogation and comply with conditions. The court repeatedly emphasizes bail as the rule and jail as the exception, citing Chidambaram, Siddharth, Manish Sisodia, Anzar Azeez, and Sushila Aggarwal to justify grant of bail under conditions. The order ultimately allows bail with conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer within four weeks, bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties after interrogation if arrest is contemplated, a no-leave-India restriction, and a clause enabling cancellation of bail on violation. The decision underscores the balance between personal liberty and public interest and leaves room for future monitoring of the investigations.
This Kerala High Court case concerns a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the proceedings in CC No.1196/2020 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodungallur, in which accused Nos.1-4 including the petitioner are charged with offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC for allegedly cheating the informant by promising a Marine Engineer job with V Ships at Chennai. The informant reportedly transferred Rs.50,000 and other sums on the belief that employment would be provided; the job was not offered. The petitioner contends that the materials do not show a crime; essential ingredients are absent; continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of process, urging the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash. The Public Prosecutor submits that the charge has already been laid and that the petition under 482 is not maintainable since the accused can raise objections during framing of charge and at trial. The judge reiterates the settled position: Section 482 powers are wide but must be exercised sparingly to avoid stifling legitimate prosecutions and that the court should not reweigh evidence at this stage. Since the charge sheet has been filed, the High Court declines to quash, but allows the petitioner to plead discharge in absentia before the Magistrate during framing and trial; the petition is disposed of with observations limited to its disposal.
This writ appeal arises from an order/judgment in WP(C) 6706/2008 of the Kerala High Court. The appellant, Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), challenges the delay condonation order for filing WA No.59 of 2023, seeking to set aside the dismissal of two writ petitions filed in 2008. The primary issue is whether the delay of 805 days in preferring the writ appeal can be condoned. The affidavit in support claims the judgment was pronounced on 29.08.2018 but a clerical omission prevented timely obtaining a certified copy; the Board only learned of the disposal on 30.03.2021, and various transitional events—pandemic-related disruptions, changes in Standing Counsels, and heavy workloads—delayed filing further. The respondents oppose condonation, arguing that the delay is excessive and not satisfactorily explained, with the baseline delay computed at 1594 days before accounting for COVID-era suspensions. The High Court, after considering the affidavits and counsels’ submissions, held that there was no plausible reason sufficient to condone the delay, rejected any liberal treatment of the period, and cited several Supreme Court precedents emphasizing strict adherence to the ‘sufficient cause’ requirement and cautioning against bureaucratic excuses. Ultimately, it dismissed the CM.Appl. for condonation and, accordingly, the writ appeal. The judgment underscores that government machinery must demonstrate cogent reasons for delays and that delay cannot be condoned mechanically.
