BAIL APPL. NO. 4312 OF 2025 Vishnu Raj K., the petitioner in Bail Application No. 4312 of 2025, sought bail in Crime No.176/2025 of Koduvally Police Station under NDPS Act sections 22(b) and 20(b)(ii)(A). The prosecution alleges possession of 14.770 grams of methamphetamine and 1.440 grams of ganja in a flat where the petitioner resides. The accused has been in custody since 28.02.2025. The counsel for the petitioner submitted readiness to comply with stringent conditions, highlighting that the quantity is an intermediate one and there are no criminal antecedents. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but stated there are no antecedents, and argued that although the quantity is intermediate, the applicable provisions still require careful consideration. The Court noted that the rigor under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted given the intermediate quantity and absence of antecedents, and proceeded to apply the well-settled bail principle: bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Relying on Supreme Court dicta in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Kerala High Court decisions in Jalaluddin Khan and Manish Sisodia, the Court held that bail could be granted with stringent conditions. The order imposes: (i) bond Rs 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties; (ii) appearance before the IO as required; (iii) restriction on leaving India; (iv) prohibition on committing a similar offence; (v) bail cancellable on violation. The petition is thus allowed, subject to the stated conditions.
This writ petition (WP(C) 4969/2021) filed before the Kerala High Court by retired employees of Terumo Penpol Private Limited challenges Ext.P1 clause 5 of GSR 609(E) (Gazette dated 22/08/2014) and seeks to retain them in the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (EPS 1995) and entitlement to benefits under the Pension Scheme without reference to the EPF Amendment Scheme, 2014. The petitioners claim pensionable salary should be computed on actual earnings as contemplated by Paragraph 11(3) of the EPF Pension Scheme, to be calculated on a 12-month average, and seek pension along with arrears on that basis. They argue the 2014 amendment impairs accrued rights under EPS 1995. The respondents include Union of India, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, the EPFO Regional Office, and Terumo Penpol Private Limited. The court notes a controlling Supreme Court decision in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) and states that the petition will be considered in accordance with that ruling. The judgment disposes of the petition by directing the competent respondents to re-consider the petitioners’ claims in light of the Supreme Court dictum within six months from receipt of the judgment copy. The Appendix includes Exhibit P1 (notification) and Exhibit P2 (a High Court judgment).
National Insurance Company Ltd. appeals against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri award in OP(MV) No. 628/2012 for the death of Mohammed in a road accident on 15 February 2012. The Tribunal awarded compensation under several heads, including Loss of Dependency, Loss of Love and Affection, Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses and Loss of Consortium, which the NIC contends is excessive. The respondents (claimants) contend the Tribunal’s award was just and fair but some adjustments are warranted, notably regarding consortium and the precise quantum. The High Court examines the evidence that Mohammed, aged 52, ran a wood furniture manufacturing business and was notional income earning. It relies on Ramachandrappa to frame the baseline notional income but ultimately approves a higher figure (Rs.10,000) based on evidence. It also notes that future prospects should be limited to 10% in line with Sarla Verma and that Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate should be capped at Rs.15,000 each in light of Pranay Sethi. It addresses Love and Affection head, finding it improper to grant Rs.1,00,000 in aggregate in light of Satinder Kaur. The Court thus modifies the award, enhancing Loss of Dependency to Rs.11,61,600 (with 10% future prospects and personal expenses deduction), increasing Loss of Consortium to Rs.2,80,000, and reducing Funeral Expenses to Rs.15,000 and Loss of Estate to Rs.15,000, with 8% interest and proportionate costs on enhanced amounts. The appeal is allowed in part.
The Kerala High Court heard Rent Control Revision No. 3 of 2021, challenging concurrent eviction orders under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlord, N. Moideen Koya, sought eviction of tenants from the petition schedule building on arrears of rent, bonafide need for his son’s business, and material alterations allegedly made by tenants without permission. The Rent Control Court found arrears in rent, established bonafide need, and proved material alterations; eviction was ordered subject to Section 11(2)(c). The Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed these findings. The tenants challenged in RCA No.42 of 2018, and during pendency, the first petitioner died; her legal heirs were brought on record. The High Court, after hearing counsel for revision petitioners and respondents, found no illegality in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision. The court endorsed the landlord-centric approach to material alterations, relying on Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand, Gurbachan Singh v. Shivalak Rubber Industries, and Francis v. Davis to hold that value and utility of the building are to be judged from the landlord’s point of view. It held that the alterations by the tenants were permanent and without landlord’s consent, justifying eviction under 11(4)(ii). It also observed the need was bonafide and confirmed eviction under 11(2)(b) and 11(2)(c) proviso, granting six months’ time to vacate with undertakings.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4566 OF 2025; 4663 OF 2025 These connected bail applications arise in Crime No.172/2025 registered with Pandikad Police Station, Malappuram, seeking bail for accused Nos. 5–14 in BA No.4566/2025 and 12–14 in BA No.4663/2025. The High Court of Kerala, before Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, is asked to grant bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) along with reference to offences under Sections 126(2), 118, 109, 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3, 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleges that on 21.03.2025 the 1st accused and associates restrained the defacto complainant and others, assaulted them with an iron rod, with the 2nd accused attempting to strike the complainant’s head, and the 1st accused aiming and firing an air gun at the complainant. The petitioners argue that the serious allegations are primarily against the 1st and 2nd accused; the petitioners are willing to abide by stringent conditions and have been in custody since 22–26.03.2025. The court acknowledges the gravity of the charges but emphasizes the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Relying on Chidambaram, Jalaluddin Khan, and Manish Sisodia, the court holds that bail can be granted if statutory conditions are satisfied. It accordingly allows the applications, directing bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, reporting to IO, no travel abroad, no further offences, and cooperation with the investigation. The order invokes Anzar Azeez’s principle as applicable and reserves its observations to deciding the bail petition. This is a grant of bail, with conditions, and a caution that violation permits cancellation of bail.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 2482/2008) challenges the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam’s award of Rs. 8,34,000 for a fatal accident involving a Kinetic Honda Scooter, which occurred on 12.07.2005. The petitioners, Femina P.G. and others (including a minor, Parvathy C.R.), contended that the tribunal’s compensation was low compared to the claim of Rs. 25,00,000 and urged substantial enhancement. The respondents included the insurer, with two other respondents deleted. The core dispute focused on the correct computation of compensation: the multiplier to be used (age-based, per Sarla Verma), the amount of dependency loss (income of the deceased Rs.10,000/month, with a 40% addition per Pranay Sethi for non-permanent employment), and various heads of damages (funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium). The appellants argued for adopting a higher multiplier (15) and increasing dependency and other heads as per the cited precedents, while the insurer relied on statutory precedents including Satinder Kaur to limit certain heads of damages. The High Court allowed the appeal, enhancing the total to Rs. 20,81,000 and directing deposit with two-month discharge, with release on deposit.
The petitioners, led by M/S Key Systems (a BSNL franchisee), challenged BSNL’s termination of their franchise rights under a policy regime governing territory allocations. The first petitioner is a partnership firm operating BSNL franchises in two territories (Vyttila, Ernakulam, and Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta). The second petitioner, as managing partner, contends that a reconstitution of the firm occurred on 30.06.2021, and that he is no longer a partner of the firm; a related entity (Mega Trading Corporation) and another company in which he is a director are claimed to be operating as BSNL franchisees in another territory. BSNL, relying on its 2018 CM Sales and Distribution Policy, Ext.P5, contends that a franchisee is normally restricted to three territories, and that one person or entity running multiple forms constitutes multiple franchisee applications, justifying Ext.P11 terminating the petitioners’ franchise in two territories. The petition focuses on Ext.P14 (Franchise Agreement) requiring prior BSNL approval for changes in the franchisee structure (Clause 27.1) and argues Ext.P7/Ext.P11 do not withstand scrutiny given the reconstitution and interpretation. The court discerns that the policy framework permits BSNL to regulate territory allocations to prevent monopolization and upholds BSNL’s action, while offering a limited remedy. The outcome balances policy aims with the petitioners’ business arrangements within a public sector framework.
WP(C).No.14173/2019(V) & Conn. Case; WP(C).No.14162/2019(U) & Conn. Case; WP(C).No.9965/2018 This batch of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court concerns gratuity payments to employees of the IDUKKI District Co-operative Bank Ltd and related parties, including LIC personnel, who allege non-payment or shortfall under bye-laws and the master policy. Heard on 25 March 2021, the petitions involve seven named petitioners in WP(C) No. 14173/2019(V) and connected matters, as well as additional petitioners in WP(C) No. 9965/2018 and WP(C) No. 14162/2019(U). The petitioners are represented by George Mathew, M.D. Sasikumaran, Sunil Kumar A.G, Dipu James and Banu Thilak (with K. V. George appearing in some matters), while respondents include the State of Kerala, the Registrar and Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the IDUKKI District Co-operative Bank, its Part-Time Administrator and LIC. The court recognizes that all petitions pertain to gratuity and that the controlling directions come from a Full Bench judgment of this court in Chandrasekharan Nair G. & Others v. Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. & Others (2017 (4) KLT 276). Following that authority, the court allows the writ petitions and directs payment of gratuity in accordance with those directions, to be implemented by the relevant authorities. The exhibits include by-laws, service regulations and LIC’s Master Policy to support entitlement.
This MACA arises from a motor-accident claim petition (OP(MV) 916/2007) filed by USHA and her children and mother for the death of Suresh, a marble and granite tile worker, in a road collision on 02.07.2007. The car (KL-05 P 2768) allegedly driven by the second respondent hit the motorcycle; the car was owned by the first respondent and insured by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, held the insurer liable and awarded Rs 5,92,500 with 8% interest and costs. The appellants challenged the quantum, contending the Tribunal erred in fixing a meagre monthly income of Rs 4,000 for the deceased, who was skilled; Exts A10-A12 show he carried out tile-work at properties. Citing Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, the court should fix Rs 6,000 to Rs 7,000 per month, and apply 25% future prospects; after deductions for four dependents, loss of dependency increased to Rs 13,23,000. The court then recalculated several heads: funeral (Rs 10,000 more), loss of estate (Rs 12,500 more), loss of consortium (Rs 1,60,000), and offsetting love and affection against consortium for Rs 1,20,000. The judgment ultimately allowed the appeal and granted an additional Rs 9,25,500, directing the insurer to deposit within three months with interest and costs. It reflects upward adjustment trends in MACT awards and clarifies computation of damages for 2007-era cases.
CRL.MC No. 3142 of 2021 before the Kerala High Court arises from CC 1063/2018 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, in Crime No. 848/2018 of Ochira Police Station. The petition, filed by accused Visakh @ Sheik and Vishnu under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, seeks to quash the criminal proceedings. The challan in CC 1063/2018 contains offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, and 427 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution’s case is that the petitioners, out of prior enmity, blocked the motorbike of the 3rd and 4th respondents, with the 1st petitioner assaulting the 2nd respondent and pulling the churidar of the 3rd respondent, thereby committing the stated offences. Annexure A is the final report; Annexures B and C are affidavits from the de facto complainant and his wife stating that the dispute has been settled and further prosecution is unnecessary. The Public Prosecutor agrees that there is no public interest and that continuing the proceeding would be a waste of time. The court relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 (2012 KHC 4530), which holds that in cases with civil flavour and private disputes settled between parties, the High Court may quash, considering ends of justice and abuse of process. On these facts, the High Court quashes CC 1063/2018 and allows the Crl.M.C.
WP(C).No.8589 OF 2018 (W) along with WP(C).No.15552/2011 and WP(C).No.7171/2018 Rival proceedings arise from three writ petitions (WP(C).8589/2018; WP(C).15552/2011; WP(C).7171/2018)) filed by Smt. Annie Joseph and Smt. Rachel Abraham challenging an order of rejection issued by the Government in 2011, which held that Rachel Abraham’s appointment as Headmistress of St. Thomas Higher Secondary School, Niranam, was improper because Annie Joseph’s seniority had been overlooked. The school is admitted to be a minority educational institution, which under recent Supreme Court and Kerala decisions may appoint its own Head without strict adherence to seniority, provided its selection process is fair, transparent, and merit-based. The Court evaluated whether the Manager followed such a process in 2007, including a Selection Committee’s minutes showing Rachel Abraham scoring higher marks than Annie Joseph. The Government’s Order of Rejection is found to be untenable, as the Manager’s process, though controversial for reliance on bye-laws not necessarily approved by the Educational Agency, was merit-based and fair according to the Minutes. The Court ultimately allowed two petitions (15552/2011 and 7171/2018) and set aside the 2011 Government Order, directing the DEO to grant approval to Rachel Abraham from 01.05.2007 and to provide consequential service and pensionary benefits. WP(8589/2018) is dismissed. The decision underscores merit-based selection within minority institutions while avoiding remand where appropriate.
This appeal under FAO (RO) No.102 of 2016 challenges a remand order in a before trial suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The appellant (defendant in OS 51/2005) had earlier secured a Land Tribunal finding of fixity of tenure, which the trial court had required to be reconciled with Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 exemptions. The District Court, on appeal, remanded the matter to the trial court to resolve whether the plaint schedule property was a plantation at the time of original lease and whether its extent exceeded 30 acres, making it exempt from the Act’s Chapter II provisions under Section 3(1)(viii). The appellant contends that the relevant exemption depends on the date of lease execution, that the lease (dated 1910–1912) clearly linked the land to rubber, teak and plantation activities, and that the burden to prove non-exemption lies on plaintiffs; relying on Full Bench authority Dr. Jerome Fernandez and NK Rajendra Mohan, they argue that the land was a plantation at inception and thus exempt. The respondents contend the Land Tribunal order is non-speaking and improper; they argue that evidence does not establish a plantation at inception and that remand was warranted to determine fixity, under Section 3(1)(viii) and related provisions. The High Court ultimately allows the FAO, sets aside the remand, and restores the trial court’s judgment, holding the remand was improper and that the appellant’s case for exemption was not established.
This is a bail application (B.A.No.4313 of 2025) under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita arising from Crime No.28/2025 registered at the Chittur Excise Range, Palakkad, under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioners, Radakrishnan (53) and Sivarajan (55), are respectively an employee of the toddy shop No.59 and the licensee. Excise officials collected samples of toddy; the analyst report indicated the presence of Benadryl, leading to the accusation that the accused committed the offence. The petitioners contend that the allegations are untrue and, even if accepted, custodial interrogation is unnecessary because the case can be proved by oral and documentary evidence; they are willing to comply with court-imposed conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, labeling the offence as serious. The High Court noted the offence carries a maximum imprisonment of five years; it found no necessity for custodial interrogation since investigation could proceed through the evidence already available and potential further inquiry. Relying on established bail jurisprudence and recent Supreme Court/High Court authorities, the court held that bail is the norm and imprisonment the exception, and granted bail with conditions: appearance before IO within two weeks, bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, cooperation with investigation, travel restrictions, and non-commission of similar offences. The order emphasizes that it is a bail-specific decision, applying the Anzar Azeez doctrine and related authorities.
These revision petitions under Section 125 CrPC arise from maintenance proceedings in MC 76/2015 before the Family Court, Malappuram. The respondents, wife Noushida and their minor son Rayyan Rasheed, sought maintenance against Abdul Rasheed alias Kunjani, alleging cruelty, misappropriation of ornaments, and inability of the petitioner to maintain them despite his income from photography and other businesses. The Family Court directed maintenance of Rs. 4,000 for the wife and Rs. 2,000 for the child per month from the date of petition, and consolidated four related proceedings, including custody disputes. The petitioner contested, arguing separation without sufficient cause and asserting no obligation to maintain; he claimed insufficient or indeterminate income. The Kerala High Court, in a common order with RPFC No. 56 of 2020, examined jurisprudence emphasizing maintenance as social justice, designed to prevent destitution, and protected dependents’ rights irrespective of divorce status. The court fixed a notional monthly income of Rs. 25,000 for the petitioner and held there was no illegality in the Family Court’s approach, though it limited the wife’s maintenance from the date of application to 24.06.2020 due to changed circumstances (divorce and remarriage). The order directs arrears in three installments and preserves the child’s maintenance.
Mat.Appeal No.983 of 2015 This matrimonial appeal arises from an ex parte decree passed in O.P.No.173 of 2008 by the Family Court, Thrissur, on 23.01.2010. Appellants (mother‑in‑law, brother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law of the wife) challenged two IAs (4937/2014 and 4936/2014) seeking to condone a delay of 1729 days and to set aside the ex parte decree. The Family Court dismissed the applications on 20.06.2015. Respondents 1–3 (wife and children) contested, and 4th respondent was later deleted from the party array (order 09.08.2019). The appellants argued non‑participation occurred due to age, illness, absence abroad, and reliance on the 4th respondent to defend; they urged that delay should be viewed with liberal, justice‑oriented approach, citing precedents on condonation of delay. The respondents contended that the long delay was inordinate and unjustified, causing prejudice, and that no sufficient explanation was offered. The High Court, applying decisions on liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” (Katiji, Esha Bhattacharjee) and subsequent Kerala decisions, held that the delay could not be condoned given the long spell of inaction and lack of evidence. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Family Court’s order. The matter ends with dismissal of the appeal and no order as to costs.
MACA NO. 14/2017; MACA NO. 530/2017; MACA NO. 557/2017; MACA NO. 4108/2016 This is a consolidated Motor Accidents Claims Appeal decision rendered by the Kerala High Court on 23 March 2023 by Judge Devan Ramachandran. The four MACA petitions arise from a common accident involving Jabir V.P. and Muhammed Fabil (deceased) in April 2015, and challenge the common Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in OP(MV) Nos. 1417/2015 and 1458/2015. The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,00,000 to the deceased’s legal heirs and Rs.16,73,423 to Jabir V.P., with insurance companies contesting the quantum as excessive. The court admitted the appeals, disposed of them on undisputed record, and proceeded to revise the awards. It held that the Tribunal misapplied income principles: notional income for an 18-year-old should be guided by Ramachandrappa to Rs.10,000 per month, with 40% future prospects and a 1/2 deduction for personal expenses per Sarala Verma. It rejected several heads (Loss of Love & Affection, Pain & Suffering, Loss of Brotherly Affection) except a limited Loss of Consortium award under Pranay Sethi. For the injured claimant (minor) it endorsed 40% future prospects, corrected income to Rs.10,000 per month, and allowed additional damages including Loss of Estate and Marriage prospects where applicable. The court issued specific enhanced awards, reduced interest from 9% to 8%, and directed deposits within two months. The decisions reflect principled recalibration of compensation heads with jurisprudence on notional income, future prospects, and deductions to ensure just compensation.
WP(C) Nos.28461/2018 & con.cases (consolidated) The batch of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court concerns the regularisation/termination of provisional empanelled KSRTC employees who were or had been/regularised under a Bipartite Settlement (2008) and various Government orders (2011, 2013) and subsequent KSRTC actions. The key backdrop is the 2008 Bipartite Settlement approved by government GO and the Government’s 2011 order setting ten years of service and, later, 2013 clarification incorporating a 120-days-per-year duty requirement. The KSRTC had terminated several employees allegedly for not meeting the 120-days criterion by 21-12-2011, despite many petitioners having obtained regularisation through earlier court judgments. The petitioners contended that many of those regularisations stood valid; they argued that a Supreme Court intervention in 2017 (Civil Appeals No. 4435–4438/2017) permitted imposition of new conditions and that the High Court’s earlier interpretation (Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2013 (2) KLT 258) could not defeat vested rights. The High Court, while acknowledging the Supreme Court’s binding holdings, held that the impugned orders must be set aside to afford due process. It directed KSRTC to hear petitioners, verify documents, determine who had ten years’ service and 120 days’ duty up to 21.12.2011, and regularise those meeting the twin criteria within specified timelines, with pensionary benefits where applicable. The judgment binds all petitioners via the Supreme Court’s overriding directive.
The Kerala High Court, in Crl.M.C. No. 2967 of 2023, heard on 02.06.2023, exercises its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings arising from CC 435/2022 (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Peermade) against accused Nos. 1–6 for offences including sections 143, 147, 294(b), 323, 324, and 341 in conjunction with 149 IPC. The prosecution alleged they formed an unlawful assembly on 29.05.2022 at about 1:30 p.m. and assaulted victims, causing injuries. The petition contends that the disputes between the parties have been settled amicably, supported by Annexures A2 and A3 affidavits from respondents 2 and 3, and that the parties no longer wish to pursue the prosecution. The investigating officer was directed to verify the genuineness of the settlement and the absence of criminal antecedents. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing a case based solely on a settlement, but conceded no other impediments to termination. The court relied on leading Supreme Court decisions (e.g., State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan; Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; Parbatbhai Aahir; etc.) that permit quashing non‑compoundable offences in private, civilized settlements while excluding heinous or public-interest–or special-statute offences. Having weighed the gravity of offences, injuries, and the amicable settlement, the court held that quashing would not undermine society and would serve ends of justice. The petition is allowed; Annexure-A1 Final Report and further proceedings in CC 435/2022 are quashed.
RadhaKrishnan, the petitioner in Bail Application No. 4286 of 2025, is the accused in Crime No. 153/2025 of Vengara Police Station, Malappuram. The offences alleged are under Section 288 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, with BNSS provisions invoked in 2023. The prosecution contends that the accused conducted quarrying without a license; however, the petitioner contends that no explosive substance was seized, and he was not present at the time of the search. He is the owner of the property, and his implication as an accused is disputed. The Public Prosecutor reports no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the absence of seizure and the petitioner’s non-presence at the time of search, together with lack of antecedents, justify bail under the basic bail principle that liberty is preferred and jail is the exception. The Public Prosecutor counters with the seriousness of the allegation, yet concedes no antecedents. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents—Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, and others—the court finds bail appropriate with stringent conditions. The order emphasizes that bail is granted to protect the right to a fair trial while allowing ongoing investigation under supervision.
The petitioner, K. Gopi, a self-described social worker with concern for coastal and environmental protection, filed WP(C) No. 4483 of 2020 seeking a directive against illegal constructions attributed to the third respondent Krishna Beach Resorts at Palliyamoola beach, Kannur. He asserts that the development occurs within the No-Development Zone and CRZ-III in the approved CZMP, and within 200 meters from the High Tide Line (HTL) without required clearances. The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent has commenced construction of a beach resort, with several rooms finished and portions occupied, without Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance or Environmental Clearance. He relies on the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 (as amended by the 2011 regime) and the Kerala CZMP approved in 1996, contending the project violates regulatory norms and harms coastal ecology; he has also made representations to KCZMA and the Union of India that remained unanswered. In response, KCZMA disputes the petitioner’s locus standi and argues that the petition is bad for non-joinder of essential parties; it states that the development predates CRZ rules and that the area’s CRZ classification (CRZ-III under CZMP 1996, with 2011 regime applying later) raises questions of fact. The respondents argue that disputed factual questions cannot be resolved in a writ petition. The court dismisses the petition, holding the questions are factual and that the petitioner lacks locus standi, leaving contentions open.
