This is a bail application (BA No.4856 of 2025) under BNSS 2023 before the Kerala High Court in Ernakulam, arising from Crime No.1641/2024 of Ponnani Police Station, Malappuram. The petitioner, Sakeer, is accused along with others of offences under Section 20(b)(ii)B and Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, in connection with the alleged possession of 1.88 kilograms of ganja detected on 17.12.2024; he was arrested on 05.02.2025. The petitioner contends for bail on the ground that he has been in custody since 05.02.2025 and is ready to comply with any conditions imposed by the court. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, emphasizing criminal antecedents and involvement in four other cases, including an NDPS case for ganja consumption. The court notes the contraband amount constitutes an intermediate quantity under the NDPS regime, thus not triggering the rigour of Section 37, and observes that investigation is not yet complete. Relying on established bail jurisprudence—summarized from Chidambaram P v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 KHC 6431), Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426), and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260)—the court holds that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. It grants bail with stringent conditions: bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, non-inducement, travel restrictions, and no commission of similar offences; with the caveat that violation may lead to cancellation of bail by the jurisdictional court."
This High Court of Kerala, in a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 1420 of 2015), revisits a Tribunal award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from a 13 January 2007 bus accident involving KSRTC. The appellant, the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.553/2007, sustained serious injuries and claimed compensation; the Tribunal held the KSRTC driver negligent and awarded Rs.4,25,552 across heads such as loss of earning, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and disability at 23%. On appeal, counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in fixing the appellant’s monthly income at Rs.3,500, contending that notional income for a coolie in 2007 should be Rs.6,000 in light of Ramachandrappa and Sasidharan Namboothiri authorities, so as to achieve just compensation. Respondents contended that notional income cannot exceed the petition’s claim. The High Court accepted the notional income of Rs.6,000, applying the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa doctrine and Sasidharan Namboothiri’s rationale, and then incorporated 40% future prospects (Pranay Sethi) and a Sarla Verma multiplier of 18. Consequently, the court recalculated compensation, enhancing pain and suffering to Rs.1,00,000 and loss of amenities to Rs.75,000, with loss of earnings raised to Rs.48,000 and disability to Rs.4,17,312, resulting in a total of Rs.7,83,984. The appeal was allowed in part, directing KSRTC to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within two months for disbursement to the appellant.
This High Court of Kerala bail application concerns Inshad, the sole accused in KAAPA Crime No. 2480/2020 (C.C. 138/2021) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Neyyattinkara. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner violated the direction issued under Section 15(4) r/w 19 KAAPA and engaged in offences punishable under IPC sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 34, in connection with Crime No.2949/2020 of Balaramapuram Police Station. A restriction order under KAAPA, No.41/10(b)/Camp/KAAPA/CP/TC/2020, dated 23.11.2020, required the petitioner to report movements and to stay away from specified areas for one year; the order, communicated on 24.11.2020, was allegedly violated. The petitioner’s counsel contends that Section 15(1) KAAPA empowers only movement-restrictions and reporting, and that a directive to abstain from all anti-social activities is not within the power of KAAPA, making the present charge an abuse of process. The Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioner is a known rowdy with a history of 17 cases and that the restriction order, violated by him, justifies denial of bail to preserve KAAPA’s preventive-objective. The court examines the statutory framework, cites Halliday, Liveridge, and A.K. Gopalan, and concludes that the petition should be dismissed to uphold the Act’s preventive-detention mandate. The bail petition is hence rejected, with a directive to expedite trial.
MAT.APPEAL NO. 485 OF 2019 This matrimonial appeal arises from a Kerala High Court challenge to a Family Court decree granting a divorce on the ground of cruelty under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The appellant-wife and respondent-husband had a brief marital tie lasting about ten days, culminating in a separation that followed the husband’s claim of mental cruelty. The Family Court had relied on e-mail exchanges and social media posts by the wife as proof of cruelty, allowing the husband to obtain a decree of divorce. The appellant contends that the marriage was illusory, formed under circumstances to escape criminal liability after a prior rape-related complaint, and that the proceedings lacked genuine matrimonial intention. She argues that the prior proceedings and the subsequent settlement show the relationship was not based on a true marriage, and that the Court should not allow a fault-based divorce triggered by emotional communications. The respondent cites emotional abuse in the form of Facebook posts and messages as mental cruelty and argues that both parties were flawed, with the husband’s disinterest also contributing to the marriage’s collapse. The Court applies the doctrine of comparative rectitude to balance fault, concluding that although both parties erred, the wife’s emotional abuse and the husband’s disinterest render him comparatively less blameworthy, thereby affirming the Family Court’s order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no costs, upholding the divorce decree in the husband’s favor.
Mini, the accused in Crime No. 48/2024 of the Mavelikara Excise Range Office, Alappuzha, seeks bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The case concerns possession of one litre of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, with offences under Sections 58 and 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner contends that although the contraband was seized, she was not arrested, and she is ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by conditions. Opposing bail, the Public Prosecutor notes the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The court, after considering the arguments, reiterates the established bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, and Sushila Aggarwal, among others, to emphasize personal liberty and cautious exercise of police power. The judge also references Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala as applicable doctrine. Given the facts—a single litre of IMFL and the petitioner’s gender—the court grants bail with stringent conditions to safeguard fair trial and prevent abuse, subject to compliance with investigation requirements and future conduct.
CRL.A Nos.1208 & 1338 OF 2004 These two connected criminal appeals challenge a common judgment of 8 July 2004 by the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc) II, Thodupuzha, which convicted several accused under multiple IPC sections (143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 307 r/w 34) for forming an unlawful assembly and assaulting workers during a timber-loading dispute between unions CITU and INTUC at Kattappana on 20 January 1998. The trials were clubbed, and some co-accused were acquitted. The Kerala High Court, hearing on 4 April 2023, examines whether the evidence of injured witnesses (PWs 1–3 and PW9) and medical corroboration suffices to uphold the verdict beyond reasonable doubt, while considering dock identification and the propriety of clubbing two cases. The judge sustains the grievous injuries to PW2 but modifies the conviction/sentence for several appellants: accused Nos. 3 and 5 are confirmed in their conviction for 307 and 326 respectively; accusations against others under 307 and 326 are set aside and acquittals recorded for those charges. Convictions under 143, 147, 148, and 324 are confirmed for certain accused, with sentences to run till rising of the court; fines are imposed, and a substantial portion of the fine is directed to PW2 as compensation under Cr.P.C. The court also discusses private defence, sustained credibility of witnesses, and notes that clubbing two cases did not prejudice the accused. The appeal for accused No. 1 regarding substantive sentence abates, and the heirs must deposit a portion of the fine. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4573 OF 2025 The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, dealt with Bail Application No. 4573 of 2025 filed by three accused in Crime No. 373/2025 of Paravur Police Station under sections 126(1), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 324(5) and 110 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The prosecution contends that on the night of 03.03.2025, around 10 p.m., the first accused restrained the defacto complainant and struck him with a stone; the second and third accused allegedly assaulted him, with an alleged attempt to commit culpable homicide and the loss of Rs.16,000 from the complainant’s pocket. The petitioners submit the incident did not occur as alleged; the complainant, who had consumed alcohol, attacked them, and in the ensuing melee the complainant sustained injuries. They are ready to comply with stringent bail conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, though a wound certificate was produced, and stated there are no criminal antecedents for the petitioners though the complainant has other cases. After hearing, the court found the wound certificate indicating alcohol and noted no criminal antecedents for petitioners while acknowledging the complainant’s antecedents. Relying on established bail jurisprudence, the court granted bail with strict conditions, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, among others, emphasizing bail as the rule and personal liberty as fundamental. The order outlines conditions, including appearance before the Investigating Officer (IO) within two weeks, bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, non-evade of investigation, no flight from jurisdiction, and potential cancellation for violations, among others, limiting the scope to this bail application.
The appellant Nijil Peter challenged a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in MACA No.271/2016 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from a 10.11.2011 accident. The Tribunal held negligence by the driver of the offending goods autorickshaw and awarded Rs.7,47,100 in total compensation, directing the insurer to pay. Aggrieved, the appellant contends the quantum was inordinately low due to incorrect notional income. He claimed to be a tile worker earning Rs.12,500 per month, but the Tribunal fixed Rs.4,000; he relies on the Ramachandrappa principle to fix the notional income higher at Rs.8,000. The insurer counters that the Tribunal’s figure is reasonable. The court notes the injuries (severe open wound with femur fracture, deformity of the right leg, 40% permanent disability, and 44 days inpatient treatment) and applies the frameworks established in Pranay Sethi (future prospects) and Sarla Verma (multiplier 18) given the claimant’s age of 19 at the time of the accident. Notional income is re-fixed at Rs.8,000, resulting loss of earning Rs.96,000; compensation heads for pain, nourishment, and amenities are enhanced; bystander and marriage-prospect expenses are added. The appeal is allowed in part, with the total revised compensation at Rs.15,07,180 to be deposited by the insurer within two months, and disbursed to the petitioner on deposit according to rules.
This is a Kerala High Court writ appeal (WA No.2598 of 2017) arising from a tenant-landlord dispute where the respondent Beena Thiruvenkitam, the owner of a building, filed a writ petition challenging the bank’s occupancy after expiry of the lease. The first appellant, Central Bank of India (and its officers), had been the tenant of the premises leased from Beena. The lease expired on 31 December 2016 and Beena informed the bank of non-renewal. The writ petition sought mandamus to surrender possession and to consider a representation (Exhibit P-14) in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge directed the bank to surrender vacant possession within four months, prompting this appeal. The court examined whether a writ of mandamus could compel eviction of a tenant in a building governed by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, particularly under sections 11(1) and 11(2)(a), and whether Article 226 powers could override the Act. It held that eviction jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the Rent Control Court and that a court under Article 226 cannot bypass the Act to compel eviction. The court emphasized that a void order cannot create rights and that consent or undertaking cannot vest jurisdiction where the statute does not allow it. The appeal was allowed: the impugned judgment was set aside and the writ petition dismissed, with a note that the landlord may pursue eviction through the statutory forum. The decision also cautioned against relying on undertakings not properly recorded in court and left open the possibility of future proceedings in accordance with the Act.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal from Kerala High Court (MACA No. 462 of 2014) arising out of a lower tribunal's award under the Motor Vehicles Act for injuries sustained in a 9 January 2010 scooter-autorickshaw collision. The appellants are the legal heirs of Sivankutty V.P., who sought enhanced compensation after his death and contended that the Insurance Company and the vehicle owner were jointly liable. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the negligence of the autorickshaw driver and that the insurer was liable to pay; it awarded Rs. 5,36,814 with interest and costs, and apportioned 5% contributory negligence to the appellant. The High Court, however, allowed the appeal, set aside the 5% contributory negligence finding, and held that the accident occurred due to the driver’s negligence alone, with joint liability of the insurer. It undertook a reassessment of quantum, accepting Rs. 7,500 as monthly income (using Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq as benchmarks), and a 20% disability, despite the original Tribunal’s certificate not being examined. The Court re-calculated loss of earnings, added Rs. 25,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 25,000 for loss of amenities, and awarded an additional Rs. 2,14,700. Directions were given for deposit within three months, plus 5% of the original award as a further deposit to cover denial of contributory negligence.
This writ petition (WP(C) No.14889/2020) filed by M.A.AMEER, an A‑Class PWD contractor, challenges Ext.P8 and seeks immediate rectification and payment of ₹23,38,367, as recommended by the Executive Engineer, alleging mis-deduction in the final bills for the project “Improvement of Adoor Mandakol Road.” The work initially called for a 20 mm premixed open grade chipping carpet but was later modified to Bituminous Macadam and Bituminous Concrete with Government sanction (Ext.P2). The final bill was settled in 27.09.2017, with ₹5 crore deposited and ₹4,80,86,314 paid; ₹19,13,686 was refunded to the District Collector. Audits flagged a possible deficit due to a mistake: ₹22,35,692 alleged to have been recovered as differential cost of materials the petitioner supplied, plus a few ancillary deductions (₹1,77,548 for empty drums and ₹5,950). Ext.P5 flagged the error; Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 detail attempts to verify the discrepancy, and Ext.P8 (issued 02.07.2020) denied reimbursement on grounds that the project dates were long past. The petitioner contends the deduction was unlawful, and the Government’s action violates contractual terms (Ext.P4, Clause 28) and basic equity. The Government Pleader argued closure of the project and lack of funds, and that the claim is stale. The Court held that delay/laches cannot defeat a just claim and partly allowed the petition, directing release of ₹23,38,367 within two months, while setting aside Ext.P8.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act challenging an MACT award in O.P.(MV) No.539/2005 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The appellants are the parents of the deceased Aji, seeking enhanced compensation against the driver of the bus, the bus owner, and the insurer. The Tribunal had held 60% contributory negligence on the part of the bus driver and 40% on the motorcycle rider, and awarded Rs.1,09,950 in compensation. The appellants argued that Ext. A6 police charge and PW1’s testimony pointed to negligence by the bus driver and that the Tribunal erred in its apportionment. The Insurance Company defended the Tribunal’s reasoning, invoking composite negligence but could not establish fault on the motorcycle rider. The High Court set aside the 40% rider negligence, finding the evidence lacking against the rider and consistent with negligence by the bus driver. It recalculated the compensation using modern principles: monthly income fixed at Rs.5,000 (Ramachandrappa), multiplier 17 (Sarla Verma) for a 30-year-old deceased with future prospects (Pranay Sethi), and heads like loss of consortial relief, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, while excluding pain and suffering and love & affection per Satinder Kaur. The resulting total is Rs.8,25,500 with 8% interest; the insurer is directed to deposit the amount in equal shares to the appellants within two months.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal from Kerala High Court (MACA No. 2063 of 2011) arising out of an award under the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur (OP(MV) No. 715/2009). The appellant, Muhammedkutty, sustained serious injuries on 11.10.2008 as a pillion rider when the auto rickshaw driven rashly by respondent 2 collided with his motorcycle, resulting in inpatient treatment for 20 days. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 34,501 (rounded to Rs. 34,500) as compensation, with respondents 1 and 2 ex parte and the insurer contending the policy but challenging the amount and liability. The appellant contends the quantum is not just and reasonable, particularly for notional income, permanent disability, medical expenses, and future prospects. The High Court, noting a Division Bench determination fixing 15% permanent disability and relying on National/SC Kerala jurisprudence, re-evaluates the head of compensation. It refixes notional income at Rs. 6,500 per month in light of decisions in Ramachandrappa, Syed Sadiq, and Soman, and awards 25% future prospects for a 45-year-old. The court permits compensation for permanent disability and increases the total award significantly, emphasizing the principle of just compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The result is an enhanced amount of Rs. 2,48,851 with interest at 9% p.a. on the enhanced portion, to be deposited by the insurer within two months from certified copy of the judgment.
This Kerala High Court writ petition challenges the ceiling-based computation of pension under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioners, 19 retired employees of the Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co-Operative Society Ltd (EPF subscribers), seek pensionary benefits computed on their actual pay, exceeding the statutory ceiling of Rs. 5,000 or Rs. 6,500, as applicable. They contend that the Pension Scheme, 1995 permits or requires admixture of actual pay for pension calculation and that confining pension to a ceiling is unconstitutional and violative of proportionality. They pray for mandamus to direct Respondents 2–6 to permit pensionary benefits computed on actual pay, to refund excess contributions with interest and to complete necessary steps within a time frame. The respondents’ counsel asserts that the question is settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022 SCC Online SC 1521) and that the petition should be reconsidered accordingly. The High Court disposes of the petition by directing the competent respondents to reconsider the claims in light of the Sunil Kumar B decision within three months from receipt of the judgment. The judgment emphasizes adherence to the Supreme Court ruling and adopts a process-directed remedy rather than granting immediate relief to the petitioners.
This writ appeal arises from WP(C) No.15171 of 2021 filed by Dr Abdul Vahab A. and Dr Arun Raj R. challenging actions around the election to the Senate of KUHS, specifically Exhibit P6 (with date 22.05.2021) issued by KUHS and Exhibit P8 (draft electoral roll for private pharmacy colleges under KUHS) which allegedly included petitioners and their institutions in the wrong constituency. The petitioners, who teach in CPAS-managed institutions, argued that CPAS is a government-controlled self-financing body and that its colleges should be categorized as Government Colleges rather than private self-financing institutions; they sought quashing of the disputed entries and sought mandamus to have respondents 4–7 consider Exhibits P9 and P10 (representations dated 18.07.2021 and 17.07.2021) and, provisionally, to include petitioners in the electoral roll for Government Colleges. The writ court admitted the petition, directed notices, and ordered the 7th respondent to consider P9 and P10 within four weeks. The appeal contends that interim relief directing consideration of representations should not replace an order not to finalise the electoral roll, and that provisional inclusion in Government Colleges’ roll should have been granted. The Kerala High Court dismissed the WA, holding that interim relief cannot amount to final relief and refusing to interfere with the interim order, emphasizing the settled principle that final relief should not be granted at an interim stage in such matters.
The petitioner, the sole accused in S.C.No.94/2020 of the Additional District & Sessions Court-I, Pathanamthitta, files this Criminal Misc. Case under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash further proceedings arising from Crime No.871/2019 and the related charges under IPC sections 450 and 376(2)(n), as well as provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (section 6 read with 5(j)(ii)(l) and section 4 read with 3(a)(iii)) and section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST PoA Act, 1989. The prosecution attributes sexual acts with a minor (the defacto complainant), who later became his wife, and a daughter was born out of their wedlock. The 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) and the petitioner subsequently married on 04.08.2020 and are living together as spouses with a child. Annexures include the marriage certificate and a notarized affidavit showing no grievance. The court notes that the 2nd respondent now asserts no grievance against the petitioner. Relying on precedents such as Freddy @ Antony Francis and Another v. State of Kerala, Mohammed Rasal v. State of Kerala, Unni.A. v. State of Kerala, and Denu P. Thampi v. Ms. X, the court observes that where the parties have married and are living together, continuing the prosecution would cause grave hardship and is a fit case for exercise of its extraordinary power under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. The court ultimately quashes the proceedings, holding that the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed and that further proceedings in SC No.94/2020 should be quashed. The order emphasizes that quashing is appropriate where the parties have already formed a peaceful marital life and there is no substantial grievance remaining. The result is a quashing of the criminal proceedings, thereby conserving judicial time and preventing a fruitless trial.
Devi S. Menon, a devotee of Sangameswara Swami at Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple, Irinjalakuda, filed this Article 226 petition seeking mandamus and certiorari to compel the State and the Sree Kooodalmanikyam Devaswom to consider Ext. P2 (03.03.2015) and Ext. P3 (17.10.2016) representations within a timeframe fixed by the court, after hearing her, and to quash Ext. P5 (05.12.2017) directing her to remove encroachments from 5 cents of Devaswom land in Survey No. 658/1 and 658/2 and vacate possession. The petitioner had earlier instituted O.S. No. 547 of 2008 before the Munsiff Irinjalakuda challenging the Devaswom proceedings; that suit was withdrawn. The court considered that Ext. P5 notes the Devaswom's claim to the land and the necessity to protect temple property. It discussed the Koodalmanikyam Devaswom Act, 2005, especially Section 11 which prohibits alienation of Devaswom immovable property unless sanctioned by the Commissioner, as well as sub-sections 3–7, and the governance framework under Sections 3 and 14. It held that the deity is a perpetual minor, and the Managing Committee and an Administrator act as trustees, with parens patriae jurisdiction to safeguard assets. The court concluded that mandamus cannot command compliance with Exts. P2/P3 where doing so would contravene law, and that the petition fails; the interim orders and encroachment proceedings stand, with no costs.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a partition suit (O.S. No.114 of 2010) filed by Geetha Viswambharan and Nakulan K. P. against Asokan K. P. and others seeking partition of two schedules of ancestral properties left by Parameswaran and Bhavani. The trial court decreed partial partition in favour of the plaintiff, deciding that plaint A schedule was partitionable while plaint B schedule was not, and that the counter-claim by the 2nd defendant for partition of A schedule and ownership of B schedule could not be sustained. The Sub Court’s 2015 decree affirmed these findings. The appeal before the Kerala High Court questioned the validity of Ext. B5, a will dated 20.12.2008, allegedly bequeathing Bhavani’s entire B schedule property to the 2nd defendant and, by implication, a share in plaint A schedule; the appellants argued that the will was not properly executed, with clouded testator capacity, improper attestation, and suspicious circumstances, violating Sections 63 and 68 of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act. The High Court, after thorough examination of the evidence, held the will to be invalid for non-compliance with the attestation and suspicious circumstances, and reversed the lower decrees. It directed partition of both schedules, granting each party an equal one-third share, and permitted final decree proceedings without costs.
This is a Kerala High Court MACA appeal arising from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in respect of the death of a police officer in Kozhikode. The claimants/dependants alleged that, on 28.04.2018, the deceased, while riding a motorcycle, was struck by a bus driven rashly. The tribunal awarded Rs. 63,75,400 along with interest and costs in favor of the respondents. The insurer-appellant contested, contending that the tribunal should have adopted the split multiplier method since the deceased was over 46 with about ten years of service left as a government servant, and that 30% future prospects should be added to the gross income for tax deduction purposes at 20%. It further argued that the tax deduction should be calculated differently, and that the overall quantum was excessive. The respondents relied on Ext. A5 salary proof (PW1) showing the deceased earned Rs. 4,98,000 per annum and urged that the tribunal correctly applied the Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi framework to determine net income, apply a multiplier, and award compensation. The High Court held that there was no pleading or evidence requiring a split multiplier and that the tribunal’s computation complied with settled law. It dismissed the appeal, upholding the tribunal’s award and endorsing deprecation of routine meritless appeals under New Insurance v. Kiran Singh.
Baby Joseph, a forest contractor, challenged WP(C) No.16522 of 2021, alleging that 3rd and 4th respondents proceeded to finalize tenders in violation of Ext. P2, which prescribes tender conditions including clause 3(c) that if the quoted PAC differs from the estimate by more than 25%, the bid must be rejected. The petitioner had quoted 25% below PAC, and claimed that relaxing clause 3(c) and awarding the contract to the 5th respondent breaches the tender terms. He sought mandamus to reject tenders by respondents 5–7, to direct award to him as per Ext. P2, and to declare clause 3(c) mandatory and non-relaxable. He relied on Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Devkishan Computed Pvt. Ltd. and Others, Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Others, and Ramesan v. Asokan to support the enforceability of strict tender conditions. The respondents argued Ext. P1 states tenders follow existing rules and future government conditions; Ext. P2 reserves the right to reject any tender; Ext. P7 provides guidelines for quotes below 25% of the estimate, permitting evaluation on merits. The court emphasized the limited nature of judicial review in tender matters and held that Ext. P7 guidelines override the asserted mandatory nature of clause 3(c). Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with no interference in the government’s contractual decision.
