WA Nos. 1757/2020, 15/2021, 22/2021, 24/2021, 1711/2020, 1709/2020 This batch of writ appeals from the Kerala High Court concerns reassessment notices issued under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) and the interpretation of the amended statute extending the limitation for reassessment. Heard by a Division Bench consisting of Justice S.V. Bhatti and Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, the appeals challenge notices issued under Section 25 and the amendments to Section 25B. The core issue is whether the Finance Act 2017 amended period of limitation (from five to six years) applies to assessments and reassessments for years prior to 01.04.2017 and whether such amendment is prospective or retrospective. The appellants, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner-III and the State of Kerala, contend that the six-year period extends the window for issuing reassessment notices and rely on the Baiju A A decision and related rulings to strike down reassessment notices issued after the pre-amendment window. The respondents/dealers counter that the amended provision is prospective and would not apply to the subject assessment years, arguing for adherence to older judgments. The court analyzes these contentions, finds that the amended provision affects the applicable window and that the judgments under appeal cannot be sustained. Consequently, the court allows the appeals, sets aside the challenged judgments, directs filing of appeals before the Appellate Authority within four weeks, and excuses delays, so the matters may be adjudicated on merits under the law.
BAIL APPL. NO. 382 OF 2023 This is a regular bail application (Bail Appl. No. 382 of 2023) by Arun V.P., accused no.3 in Crime No.139/2022 of Vengara Police Station, Malappuram District, before the Kerala High Court. The prosecution alleges that accused Nos.1 and 2 were found transporting 781 grams of MDMA in a car, and subsequent investigation revealed that the MDMA was purchased by the petitioner, who along with others stayed at Olive Residency, Bangalore, where the lodge owner corroborated a related statement. The 3rd accused is said to have purchased and tested the contraband and assisted in its transportation. The offences under Section 22(c) r/w Section 29 of the NDPS Act involve a commercial quantity, which normally triggers heightened scrutiny under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner’s counsel argued innocence and contended that the case against him rests largely on co-accused confessions; he has already undergone extensive custody since 18.6.2022. The Public Prosecutor countered, pointing to the joint stay of accused Nos.1 to 4 at Olive Residency and the 3rd accused’s role in testing the MDMA, arguing that the petitioner’s involvement is prima facie established. He urged the court to apply the twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b) once a commercial quantity is involved, requiring reasonable grounds to believe not guilty and an assurance the accused will not commit an offence if released on bail. The court analyzed the standard of “reasonable grounds” from Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari and subsequent case law, clarifying that this standard is more than prima facie suspicion and is limited to the bail inquiry, not an acquittal. On the facts presented, the court held that the two twin ingredients under Section 37(1)(b) were not satisfied and refused regular bail, dismissing the application. The order thus denies bail for the petitioner.
CRL.M.C. No. 2815 of 2021 This Kerala High Court criminal misc. petition (CRL.M.C. No.2815 of 2021) concerns whether the State can obtain police custody of four accused beyond the initial 15 days of remand under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in Crime No.164/2021 (Nedumudi PS, Alappuzha) for the purpose of custodial interrogation, given that the accused were infected with COVID-19 and subjected to quarantine. Arrests occurred on 13.04.2021 and judicial custody followed immediately; on 16.04.2021 the investigating officer moved Annexure B for custody, but production was impeded by quarantine and infection. Courts repeatedly adjourned custody hearings during the pandemic; the Sessions Court dismissed the custody prayer on 03.06.2021 after hearing the matter, and the petitioner contends that quarantine and pandemic restrictions should justify extending the 15-day limit under Section 167(2)(a). The State relies on jurisprudence emphasizing that Section 167’s period cannot be extended and that custodial interrogation, when essential, should be pursued within the statutory framework. The judgment ultimately reaffirms the strict 15-day limit, rejects a COVID-era extension, and dismisses the CRL.M.C., allowing continued judicial custody with possible interrogation under court permission. It cites a host of precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts to reinforce primacy of statutory limits over exceptional circumstances.
WA Nos. 26 of 2023 & 128 of 2023 This is a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court hearing two writ appeals (WA Nos. 26/2023 and 128/2023) arising from W.P.(C) No.24561/2022 dated 04 January 2023. The appellants/petitioners include Annam Steels Pvt. Ltd. and several individuals, challenging a sale of mortgaged property under the SARFAESI framework (Ext. P11) by a bank consortium. The core issues concern whether the sale notice and subsequent auction were valid and whether the interim deposits (Rs. 790 lakhs) should be retained or refunded, and whether the banks must convene a one-time settlement meeting. The single Judge had dismissed the petitions, holding sale validity and directing refund of the interim deposit; the appellants argued that the writ court should refrain from deciding on disputed facts merits and that remedies under SARFAESI are efficacious before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The banks contended that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to challenge sale on merits since an efficacious statutory remedy exists. The Kerala High Court ultimately held that the impugned judgment should be set aside, and the writ appeals disposed of with directions: the DRT to proceed according to law, the delivery of the sold property deferred for four weeks, and a three-week window for approaching the DRT, with no costs. The decision reiterates that writ courts should defer to statutory remedies under SARFAESI for sale-related challenges while ensuring due process in interim arrangements.
Shaheer, the appellant, challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Ernakulam's award in OP(MV) No. 2800/2005, which granted Rs. 67,511 with 8% interest for injuries sustained as a pillion rider on 26.02.2004 when a stage carriage negligently veered and struck the motorcycle. The rider and the owner (first and second respondents) were ex-parte; the insurance company (third respondent) contested liability and argued that the petition claimed excessive sums. The Tribunal awarded part of the claim but did not grant compensation for disability despite Ext.X1 (31.03.2009) showing disability and Ext.X2 (23.09.2010) confirming 20% permanent disability. The appellant pressed the need to follow the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi framework, which requires just compensation to be determined on fairness, reasonableness and equitability. The High Court, applying Pranay Sethi principles, found the Tribunal erred by omitting disability compensation and by mis-sizing some heads (notably loss due to disability and loss of amenities). It held that with the appellant aged about 40, a 20% disability merits Rs. 1,08,000 under loss due to disability and reduced loss of amenities to Rs. 10,000. Other heads were deemed reasonable. The Court enhanced total compensation by Rs. 93,000 to Rs. 1,60,011, at 9% interest, directing the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount within two months. The appeal was allowed in part.
Indus Towers Ltd, which provides telecom infrastructure for multiple mobile operators, sought a Building Permit to erect a Telecommunications Tower at Thrikkunnapuzha Grama Panchayath. It filed Ext.P1 invoking Kerala Panchayat Building Rules 5(1)(b), 75(1), 87(1) and 93(1), and KCZMA approved it as per Ext.P3. The Panchayat Secretary issued Ext.P4 denying the permit on the ground of a mass complaint by 143 local residents and a Panchayat Council resolution. Ext.P5 records the Panchayat Committee’s view that the tower would be in a densely populated area and could cause radiation and health concerns, hence the permit could be considered only after KCZMA clearance. The petitioner argued that the Secretary is the licensing authority and must act under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules without external interference; relying on Antony K.P. v. Chellanam Grama Panchayat, it was urged that interference by the Council is impermissible except by statutory appeal. The respondents contended that the Committee acted within its powers, reflecting public health considerations and ongoing District Telecom Committee inquiries. The Court held Exts.P4 and P5 unsustainable, set them aside, and directed the Secretary to consider Ext.P1 in light of the statute and rules within six weeks. It clarified that District Telecom Committee remedies remain available for aggrieved parties and that the statutory scheme contemplates recourse for health-hazard concerns.
WA 1312 of 2023; in W.P.(C).5260/2009 This writ appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C).5260/2009 challenging an Industrial Tribunal award (dated 19.08.2006) directing reinstatement with back wages under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant (Sukumariamma) worked as a sweeper at the 110 KV substation in Chengalam and later at Poovanthuruthu; she was terminated in March 1999 without reasons and without following the mandatory procedures under Section 25F. The Tribunal found that she had worked more than 240 days in the preceding year, and that KSEB failed to comply with Section 25F, directing reinstatement with back wages. The learned Single Judge, however, allowed the W.P.(C).5260/2009, holding that the employment was piece-rated and thus governed by Section 2(oo) bb, and that 25F did not apply. The appellant contends that her appointment was on contract basis and that the manner of appointment is immaterial for 25F, citing Anil Mithra K.V. and others; she argues 25F should apply because she worked >240 days. The respondents argue that non-renewal of a contract does not amount to retrenchment under 2(oo) bb, supported by Ext. R2(b)-(f) showing contract-based work, and that the Single Judge was correct. The Division Bench dismisses the writ appeal, upholding the view that 25F does not apply in these facts and that the termination due to non-renewal of contract is not retrenchment.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 4535 of 2014) filed in the Kerala High Court by seven partners of M/s Aditya Finance challenging an FIR (No.1191/2014) registered at Ollur Police Station under sections including 420 IPC, Section 18A of the Kerala Money Lenders Act (KML Act), and Section 3 r/w Section 9 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012 (Interest Act). The petition contends the FIR is baseless and the petitioners operated under statutory licences; the search occurred on 04.06.2014 while their renewal application for the 2014-15 licence was pending. The court examined the statutory framework: the KML Act requires a licence to conduct money-lending business (Section 3(1)); licences may be granted with retrospective effect (Section 4(4A)) and deemed till renewal orders are issued if notified timely (Section 4(7)); and the proviso to Section 3(1 allows continued operation pending licence decisions. The court noted the petitioners had valid licences retrospectively from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, with renewal application submitted on 29.04.2014, and the final renewal order issued on 09.06.2014. It held that prosecution under the stated offences cannot stand, citing a lack of illegal operation given regulatory compliance and absence of cognisable offence. The court quashed the FIR, holding the FIR to be an abuse of process under S.482 Cr.P.C. and allowed the CRL.M.C.
Getwell Medicare, a partnership firm engaged in wholesale pharmaceutical products, claimed exemption under Section 54EE for capital gains arising from a slump sale transfer to Getwell Medical Solution Private Limited on 20 December 2018 for Rs 10,04,15,000. It contended that capital gains on sale of a long-term asset could be exempt up to Rs 50 lakhs if the gains were invested within six months in long-term specified assets notified by the Central Government and held for three years. The firm had calculated gains under Section 50B and sought a writ, order or direction to compel the Union of India to notify the long-term specified assets under Section 54EE or extend the applicability by Explanation 2 and other means. The petition argued that the memorandum to Finance Act 2016 and a Minister's Lok Sabha answer, together with a press release about funds of funds for Startups, created legitimate expectations and a promissory estoppel that the government would notify such assets by 1 April 2019. The court considered three issues: (i) whether failure to notify is arbitrary under Article 14; (ii) whether the government is bound by promissory estoppel; (iii) whether the petitioner had legitimate expectations. The court ultimately rejected the petition, holding that notification of such assets is a policy matter; promissory estoppel is not applicable in taxation; and there is no enforceable legitimate expectation. It allowed a representation to be made to the government.
This Kerala High Court, in CRL.M.C.No.7545 of 2018, disposed of a petition to quash the final report in CC No.528/2018, JFCM-I, Kodungallur. The petitioners, Shoma G. Madan and Ashish @ Kuttan, were accused in a case arising from alleged forgery and cheating connected to permanent registration of a Maruti Ritz in the name of Amal, a deceased spouse. The prosecution charged offences under sections 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 and 420 read with section 34 IPC. The petitioners contended that there was no material showing that they made, signed or executed any false document or that they caused any person to part with property, or engaged in any fraud. The court reviews the elements of forgery, including the definitions of “false document” and “making a false document” under IPC Sections 463–464, and clarifies the meaning of mens rea: “dishonestly” and “fraudulently,” per sections 24 and 25 IPC, citing Vimla and the Bhajan Lal doctrine. It notes that the prosecution failed to show any dishonest or deceitful act by petitioners, or any wrongful gain or loss caused to others. The court finds the uncontroverted allegations insufficient to sustain any offence and holds that continuing prosecution would amount to abuse of process under Bhajan Lal’s Category No.3. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and the FIR, final report, and all further proceedings are quashed.
The petitioner, Sundaram Home Finance Ltd, seeks a court direction to register a sale certificate issued under the SARFAESI Act following the auction of a mortgaged property. Respondents 4 and 5 availed a loan of Rs. 4.25 lakh from the petitioner and furnished an equitable mortgage on 31.01.2012. When default occurred, SARFAESI proceedings were initiated and the property was sold; Ext.P4 is the sale certificate. The 2nd respondent refused to register the sale certificate contending an attachment in O.S. No. 1043 of 2013 (Wadakkanchery Munsiff Court) at the instance of the 6th respondent (deleted per order dated 07.11.2023). The attachment date is 23.11.2013, while the mortgage predates it; the suit was ultimately dismissed (Ext.P6) in 2015. The petitioner contends that attachments created after the equitable mortgage cannot affect the bank’s right to sell; the borrower’s right to redeem under Section 13(8) SARFAESI is extinguished; that ROR production is not mandatory for registration (citing Jacob P.C.). The petitioner relies on Madhan S. v. Sub Registrar (2014), Keechery Service Co-operative Bank v. Sajitha Nizar and Ali Asharaf M.M. v. Sub Registrar to argue post-mortgage encumbrances should be effaced and the sale registered. The court disposed of the petition by directing the 2nd respondent to efface the attachment from the encumbrance register and to register Ext.P4 without ROR, with mutation to the purchaser.
Rajeena, the owner of a motor vehicle involved in a February 25, 2016 accident, challenges the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kollam’s award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal held both the owner and the 2nd respondent jointly and severally liable and directed payment of Rs. 2,06,750 plus interest and costs to the claimant, who sustained serious injuries and became permanently disabled. The appellant contends on appeal that (i) negligence attributed to the 2nd respondent is erroneous; (ii) Ext. A3 Scene Mahazar was not properly considered; (iii) the owner had no connection to the accident since the 2nd respondent allegedly took the motorcycle from a workshop without her consent; and (iv) the notional income and total compensation are excessive. The court relies on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal to treat Ext. A2 (charge sheet) as prima facie evidence of negligence and rejects the appellant’s attempt to contradict it. Citing Kolavan, it holds that once a charge sheet is filed, reliance on scene mahazer to negate the charge sheet is improper. The court also upholds the Rs.12,000 monthly notional income (Ramachandrappa) and the Tribunal’s award, noting the accident occurred in 2016. The appeal is dismissed at the threshold, leaving the Tribunal’s award intact.
This bail application before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam concerns Bail Application No. 4461 of 2025 filed by Lekha Sunil (2nd accused) and Kavya Sunil (3rd accused) in Crime No. 1579/2024 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam, under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners are wife and daughter of the 1st accused, who is alleged to have defrauded the de facto complainant of Rs.25 lakhs by inducing him through a Gulf car-renting venture, promising partnership. The prosecution contends that the two petitioners transferred funds through their accounts, though the core alleged transaction involved the 1st accused and the complainant. The petitioners contend that the primary allegations concern the 1st accused and that their only connection is fund transfer; they are willing to abide stringent conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail. After hearing, the Court observed that the principal dealings were with the 1st accused and that the petitioners, being his wife and daughter, may be released on bail with stringent conditions. Citing bail jurisprudence—bail as the rule and jail as the exception—the Court relied on decisions such as Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Anzar Azeez, and Sushila Aggarwal to justify conditional bail. The order grants bail with conditions, including appearance before the IO, a bond, restrictions on travel, non-commission of offences, and the Court’s power to cancel bail on violation.
The Original Petition challenges the common order in I.A Nos 607/2019 and 608/2019 in O.S No.59/2016 of the Principal Munsiff, Kozhikode, and the concurrent CMA orders in CMA Nos. 21/2020 and 22/2020 of the Principal District Court, Kozhikode. The suit, filed by the first respondent, seeks a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the petitioner and the second respondent from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from committing waste, as well as to award damages. The petitioner, the first defendant, could not attend the trial due to his deployment in Saudi Arabia, leading to an ex-parte decree on 28.09.2018 after an application to remove the case from the list was dismissed. Upon returning to India, he filed Exhibits P4 and P2 to set aside the ex-parte decree and condone a delay of 130 days, which were opposed by the respondents via Exhibits P3 and P5. The Trial Court dismissed Exhibit P6 (common order) and the appellate court, CMA 21/2020, affirmed it. The High Court, invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside P6 and the CMA orders subject to conditions, after considering prior case-law that ‘sufficient cause’ for non-appearance should be liberally construed. It directed deposit of Rs. 10,000 as costs and restoration of the suit for merits with a deadline of 31.03.2023, while preserving the respondent’s rights. The petition is allowed in part to ensure just adjudication on merits.
Musthaakeem, the fifth accused in Crime No. 188 of 2018 (Crime Branch, Malappuram), challenges the conditions attached to his bail in a Special Court for SC/ST (POA) and NDPS cases. He was arrested on 30.07.2022 and was granted bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., with subconditions including surrender of his passport and reporting before the investigating officer every Saturday until the final report. Although he was not named in the FIR, investigators later included him in the case, alleging that he transferred Rs. 10,000 to the defacto complainant’s son. The petitioner seeks to strike down Annexure D (the 22.11.2022 order) and to have his passport released and the reporting condition relaxed to allow him to pursue employment abroad. The State opposes release of the passport, arguing the danger of absconding and the need to complete the investigation, especially since the key witness is abroad. The court acknowledges its power to impose bail conditions but finds the weekly interrogation condition onerous and potentially unconstitutional, and notes that the passport impounding argument hinges on Passport Act. It distinguishes Suresh Nanda, cites Guddan and Maneka Gandhi to frame the balancing of liberty and legitimate investigation. In the result, the court allows the petition in part and modifies the second condition to read: 'The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when required.'
WP(C).No.14352 OF 2019(T) This is a writ petition filed in the Kerala High Court challenging the State Bank of India’s promotion policy and the 2019-2020 ‘special channel’ for subordinate staff promotions to clerical cadre, including Ext.P3 and Ext.P9 lists, and Ext.P11 extending the channel into 2020-21. The petitioners contend that SBI’s bipartite staff regulations provide two distinct promotion channels: merit channel for matriculates with five years’ service (to be designated as Assistant (ACCTS) and on to higher posts) and a normal/seniority channel for non-matriculates (to be designated as Assistant (cash) and follow a fixed ladder to grades). Ext.P3 introduced a one-time “special channel” for 8+ years’ service subordinate staff to the clerical cadre, creating 390 vacancies filled by written test and interview, with promotion postures to grahak mitra and movement that would bypass the established channels. Petitioners allege this changes service conditions without due notice and breaches staff regulations and the bipartite settlement, encroaching on their rights under the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly sections requiring notice for change (Sec. 9A) and related schedules. The respondent-bank counters that Ext.P3/P11 were consultatively decided, temporary, and non-prejudicial to petitioners; the court ultimately held that the prayers cannot be granted, and the petition was dismissed, noting policy changes may be made by the bank under executive need.
The appeal arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, which awarded Rs. 1,75,407 to the appellant, an auto-rickshaw driver, with 8% interest and proportionate costs. The accident occurred on 14.08.2017 at about 7:15 am on the Pala-Ponkunnam road when the appellant’s auto-rickshaw KL-34-5597 was struck by a Tata Sumo KL-31-3783 driven by the 1st respondent, causing fractures and multiple injuries. The Tribunal ex parte against the 1st and 2nd respondents (driver and owner) and the 3rd respondent insurer contested the quantum. The appellant claimed Rs. 3,20,000, while the Tribunal fixed a notional income of Rs. 10,000 per month and granted compensation across various heads with largely conservative assessments, including Rs. 76,800 for permanent disability. The appellant’s counsel contends that the notional income underestimates earnings for an auto driver and that the percentage of disability should be higher. The High Court re-evaluates several heads, invoking Ramachandrappa and Pranay Sethi to justify a higher notional income (Rs. 12,500 per month) and a disability of 8% (supported by a Disability Certificate), while applying Sarla Verma’s multiplier (16). It recalculates loss of earnings, disability compensation, and other heads, arriving at a higher total. The result is an order allowing the appeal in part and enhancing compensation by Rs. 1,22,700, with 8% interest from the date of petition to realisation, and costs.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4543 OF 2025 Five ABVP-associated petitioners approached the Kerala High Court seeking bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in Cr. No. 472/2025 of Parassala Police Station. The offences alleged include sections 126(2), 351(2), 115(2), 118(1), and 296(b) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with 118(1) being non-bailable. The prosecution contends the offences are serious, though no antecedents are alleged against the petitioners beyond this case, and the accused are students. Counsel for the petitioners argued that they are prepared to comply with stringent conditions and that there are no criminal antecedents; they cited that the maximum punishment is three years and sought bail on this basis. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but acknowledged lack of antecedents. The High Court reiterated the well-established bail principle that bail is the rule and detention is the exception, drawing on Supreme Court decisions such as Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh, among others. On consideration of facts, the court allowed the bail application with specific conditions: interrogation within two weeks, bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, mandatory appearance, no international travel without permission, no commission of similar offences, and cooperation with investigation, while preserving power to cancel bail on violation under Anzar Azeez. Thus, the order balances personal liberty with investigative needs.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4799 OF 2025 This is a bail application filed by Aju Manzoor, the accused in Crime No. 336/2025 of Kundara Police Station, registered under Sections 8(c) and 22(b) of the NDPS Act for possession of 1.30 grams of MDMA. The petition was heard by a single judge of the Kerala High Court on 11 April 2025. The petitioner has been in custody since 11 February 2025 and seeks bail, asserting readiness to comply with any conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting criminal antecedents and involvement in another case with a similar set of allegations. The court noted that the investigation remains incomplete after approximately 60 days of detention and that the contraband constitutes an intermediate quantity, making Section 37 NDPS expectations inapplicable. Relying on established bail jurisprudence, the court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail the exception, a principle repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and reiterated in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. The court thus allowed the bail petition with stringent conditions to safeguard fair trial: bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, restrictions on travel, and an ongoing obligation not to commit a similar offence. The order notes that violation may lead to cancellation of bail, and that Anzar Azeez’s principle applies to this case as well.
The petitioner, Managing Director of NCS Autocars Pvt. Ltd., is the authorized Kia dealer for Pathanamthitta, Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram districts. A customer booked a Kia Sonnet on 29.03.2022 and paid on 21.06.2022, requesting a loaner car. A test-drive vehicle, license KL 01 CQ 3215, was rented to the customer with proper acknowledgement. On 22.08.2022, Vallikunnam Police arrested the car in Crime No. 441/2022 under NDPS Act sections 20B(ii)B and 29 after ganja was seized from another accused; the vehicle was seized and later produced before court for custody. The petitioner contends the car was not involved in the alleged crime; there is no recovery from the car, and it should be released. The petitioner sought relief under Section 60(3) NDPS from the Drugs Disposal Committee, but the Committee did not pass orders. The Government Pleader argued that the committee cannot order release without a report and that the petitioner cannot approach the Magistrate under Section 451 Cr.P.C. in light of Shajahan v. Inspector of Excise. The court notes a lack of direct involvement of the vehicle and references a Division Bench order (W.A. No. 1304/2022) recognizing difficulties in interim custody. Ultimately, the High Court disposed the writ petition by directing the petitioner to file a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C before the jurisdictional court for release, to be considered expeditiously, after which appropriate orders would be passed.
