Two youths, Johnson and Subin, riding a motorcycle, were hit by a speeding lorry on 13.11.2015 on the Thykkal-Andhakaranazhi coastal road near Chanthakkadavu, Cherthala. The lorry fled the scene, and the victims died shortly after. The police registered a case under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 120B and 302 IPC, with several accused (Nos. 1–5) charged; the trial court convicted all five under these charges (including the murder count). The prosecution largely relied on eyewitnesses PW2, PW3, PW7, PW8, and PW24, who claimed to have seen the accused in or around the lorry and at or near the scene; however, the High Court of Kerala scrutinized these testimonies for reliability, noting heavy contradictions, long delays in statements (notably PW3’s six-day delay), and the witnesses’ distant residence from the scene. The court found the witnesses to be “chance witnesses” whose presence at the scene required meticulous verification. Citing Satbir v. Surat Singh, Harjinder Singh, Acharaparambath Pradeepan, and Sarvesh Narain Shukla, and comparing with Pradeep Kumar v. Haryana and Shahid Khan v. Rajasthan, it held that the evidence could not sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals were allowed, and the convictions and sentences of accused Nos. 1–5 were set aside and they were acquitted, with release ordered forthwith.
Shaji and Pushpalatha, accused in Crime No. 796/2023 of Poochakkal Police Station, Alappuzha, faced a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala. They were charged for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, arising from a scheme to unlawfully transfer ownership of a motor car, KL-32-M-4576, from the husband of the defacto complainant to the second accused after obtaining signatures. The prosecution alleges a common intention to obtain unlawful gain by misrepresenting ownership and subsequently transferring title to the second accused. The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail; however, their counsel stated that they had no instructions in the bail application, and no substantive grounds were proffered. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed, asserting that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover assets and to progress the investigation, and that grant of bail would hamper this process. The court invoked Supreme Court principles on anticipatory and pre-arrest bail, citing Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Sibbia case (1980) 2 SCC 565, and Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar (2012) 4 SCC 379 to emphasize case-specific consideration, the need to avoid rigid guidelines, and that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy. After due consideration, the court held custodial interrogation necessary, found the investigation ongoing, and dismissed the bail application. The order was pronounced by Justice C.S. Dias.
Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122, 116 & 117 of 2024 This judgment from the Kerala High Court deals with three Transfer Petitions (Tr.P(C) Nos. 122, 116 and 117 of 2024) filed by Deepa.S., wife of Suresh P., seeking transfer of three Original Petitions from Family Courts at Pathanamthitta, Kottarakkara and Punalur to the Family Court at Adoor. The petitions involve O.P.(G&W) No.148/2023 of Pathanamthitta, O.P.(HMA) No.147/2023 of Pathanamthitta (formerly numbered 530/2020) and O.P. No.117/2023 at Punalur. The petitioner contends that after the establishment of the Family Court at Adoor, it would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses for these matters to be heard there; Annexure-A2 had earlier transferred two matters to Pathanamthitta, but now Adoor offers greater convenience. The respondent husband argues that the petitioner resides in the Pathanamthitta/Punalur area and the respondent resides in Kottarakkara, and that travelling to Adoor would cause substantial hardship for him. The Court recognises that convenience is a factor in transfer petitions but not an absolute rule. It cites Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006 KHC 1887) to caution against the misuse of leniency toward women. The Court concludes that transferring O.P. Nos.122 and 116 to Adoor would cause serious hardship to the husband, while transferring 117/2023 to Adoor would not be appropriate. Consequently, Tr.P.(C.) Nos.122 and 116/2024 are dismissed; Tr.P.(C.) No.117/2024 is allowed, directing transfer of O.P. No.117/2023 from Punalur to Pathanamthitta to be heard with the other two petitions.”
The petitioner, Jaleel, challenges a blanket debit freeze imposed by a bank on his account in connection with an ongoing police investigation. The Kerala High Court, citing its earlier decision in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024(1) KLT 826), reiterates that a blanket, indefinite freeze without a defined time or amount is deleterious to the account holder and to the banking system, and that the authorities must avoid overbroad restrictions that impede livelihood and everyday transactions. The court notes that in the present case the requisitions lacked any specific amount, seeking a full freeze of all funds in the account, which would unduly hamper the petitioner’s ability to operate financially. Nevertheless, recognizing the bank’s practical incapacity to process accounts without precise instructions, the court adopts a measured approach aimed at protecting both the investigation and the rights of the account holder. Relying on the Dr. Sajeer framework, the court disposes of the writ petition with a structured set of directions intended to calibrate the freeze while ensuring operational banking activity for the petitioner. The directions compel the Bank to seek a defined amount to be frozen, limit the freeze to that amount if specified, provide a two-month window for information, and offer an eight-month provisional alternative with a right to revisit the matter thereafter, thereby balancing investigative needs with fundamental rights.
This Rent Control Revision challenges an eviction order under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The tenant (Kovukkal Sajeev Kumar) is the revision petitioner, challenging a judgment that upheld eviction for bona fide need in a shop occupied by him, to provide parking and exit for a newly constructed commercial complex by the landlord, Thayyilakkal Abdul Latheef. The Rent Control Court (Munsiff, Thalassery) had granted eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) after evidence including Exts. A1–A7 and RWs 1–2, culminating in an order to surrender possession and deposit arrears. The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Addl. District Judge-II, Thalassery) partly allowed the appeal: eviction under 11(2)(b) was set aside, but eviction under 11(3) was upheld, with possession to be delivered within a month. The revision before this High Court, under Section 20, contests the bona fide nature of the landlord’s need, especially regarding the second proviso to Section 11(3), and whether the authorities properly weighed the landlord’s need against the tenant’s livelihood and other available accommodation. The judgment surveys an array of precedents on bona fide need, including Adil Jamshed Frenchman, Deena Nath, Shiv Sarup Gupta, and Rukmini Amma Saradamma, and emphasizes that revisional power is limited to legality, regularity, and propriety, not reappraisal of evidence. Eventually, the High Court dismisses the revision but grants three months’ time for surrender with conditions.
The petitioner, Fasla Rahman K, files WP(C) No. 3342 of 2025 before the Kerala High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct IDFC First Bank Limited to lift the debit freeze imposed on her bank accounts. The petitioner asserts that her accounts (a Savings Bank account bearing number 99980113793207 and a linked UTR number FDRLR 52024091433339224) were frozen by the bank under a police requisition from the Station House Officer, Kashmir Zone, Srinagar. The petitioner contends the freeze amount is arbitrary and hampers her ability to operate her funds. The court notes Ext. P4 indicating a disputed amount of Rs. 1,064 and records arguments from the petitioner and the bank’s counsel. Relying on prior Kerala and Indian jurisprudence, including Dr. Sajeer v. RBI and Nazeer K.T. v. Federal Bank Ltd, the court examines the legality and scope of banking freezes linked to police seizure orders and the necessity of timely reporting to the magistrate under Section 102 CrPC (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The judgment foregrounds a principled approach: freeze should be confined to the amount specified, and police/the bank must communicate compliance status within set timeframes. The court ultimately issues interim directions ensuring petitioners can transact beyond the freeze extent while the police verify reporting obligations and the banks follow orders.
CRL.M.C. No. 1210 of 2025 This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.M.C. No. 1210 of 2025) filed in the Kerala High Court by Sinan Musthafa, the accused in Crime No. 544/2024 (Edacherry Police Station, Kozhikode). The petitioner seeks to quash the entire proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the de facto complainant. The court directed recording of the de facto complainant’s statement (via video) to verify genuineness of the settlement; the de facto complainant sworn an affidavit stating that the disputes have been amicably settled, there is no surviving grievance, and that they intend to marry. The court noted the relationship and that the incidents occurred from a misunderstanding, with the complainant asserting no grievance against the petitioner. The court observed that the settlement is genuine and bonafide, and that the accused had antecedents which the Public Prosecutor highlighted, but those do not negate the possibility of quashing. Relying on Narinder Singh, Madan Mohan Abbot, and Gian Singh (with Kulwinder Singh as background), the court held that continuing proceedings would be futile and could amount to abuse of process. It further noted that sections 115(2), 332(c), and 351(2) IPC are compoundable, supporting the compromise. Consequently, the court allowed the Crl.M.C. and quashed the FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No. 544/2024.”
This is a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by two accused, Kunjumon (alias Antony) and Joyal, in Crime No.93/2024 of the Kuthiathodu Police Station, Alappuzha. The petition seeks anticipatory bail in relation to offences under Sections 324 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC, arising from an incident on 29 January 2024, when the accused allegedly trespassed into a hatchery and assaulted the defacto complainant, causing grievous injuries to the head and forearm. The prosecution relies on the injured’s medical records (Accident Register-Cum-Wound Certificate) and asserts the injuries substantiate the gravitas of the charges. The petitioners’ counsel contends innocence, false implication, and points to a prior counter-complaint; they argue that custodial interrogation is unnecessary and no recovery is contemplated, asserting that the 307 offence may not be attracted due to provocation. The State opposes bail, arguing that custodial interrogation is essential to progress the investigation. The matter had previously been before the Sessions Court, which dismissed a related recovery application ( Annexure A3). Relying on principal Supreme Court decisions like Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, Sibbia, and Jai Prakash Singh, the High Court underscores that anticipatory bail must be exercised with care and on case-specific facts, not by rigid formulas. Ultimately, after careful consideration of the record, the court finds no exceptional grounds to grant pre-arrest bail and dismisses the application. The order is by Justice C.S. Dias on 11 March 2024.
Kumaran Namboothiri, a retired Shanti under the Travancore Devaswom Board and devotee, filed this petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus for (i) printing works to be brought in-house at the Devaswom Board Press; (ii) audit of the Board Press by the Kerala State Audit Department; and (iii) enquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer into irregularities allegedly committed by the 9th respondent in appointments, procurement and outsourcing related to the Press. The writ petition cites Ext.P6 (dated 20.10.2023) and asserts mismanagement in the Press under Respondent 9, now Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Harippad Group. The court frames relevant statutory provisions: Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950; Section 15A (duties of the Board) and Section 16 (supervision over officers and employees); the Board’s fiduciary-like role in managing Devaswoms; and the act’s broader supervisory obligations. Precedents are cited to underline the Board’s trusteeship and the protection of temple properties, including Ram Mohan Das v. Travancore Devaswom Board, M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara, A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board, and Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair, reinforcing the duty to prevent misappropriation and to safeguard religious properties. The judgment also invokes Suo motu v. State of Kerala (2022) and the parens patriae doctrine, asserting the Court’s guardian role over deities and properties. It directs the Board to decide Ext.P6 after obtaining remarks from the 5th and 8th respondents within three months, furnish copies to the petitioner and 9th respondent, and allow written submissions, emphasizing that the order shall be a reasoned order in line with Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner.
The petitioner, Sajeev S., is the proprietor of M/s. S.V. Traders and claims absolute ownership of 12.14 acres with a residential building in Resurvey No.143/5, Block 35, Alayamon, Kollam district. For business, he availed a cash credit facility from the 6th respondent bank and mortgage security over the said property. Due to Covid-19, the petitioner defaulted in regular payments, following which he was sanctioned fresh loans (Funded Interest Term Loan and Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line) also secured by the property. The 2nd respondent, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), issued a Gazette notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, declaring its intention to acquire the land for building, maintaining, and operating National Highway-744 on a specified stretch. Pursuant to Sections 3A(3) and 3D(1), the land was declared for acquisition and, under Section 3D(2), vested absolutely in the Central Government free from encumbrances. The petitioner’s property is listed as item 85 in Ext.P1. During the proceedings, the 3rd respondent issued a SARFAESI notice under Section 13(2) with a possession notice under Section 13(4) to recover dues, despite the land having vested with the Government. The petitioner seeks to quash Exts. P5 and P7 and restrain further SARFAESI action, arguing the acquisition invalidates the bank’s right to proceed. The court noted that SARFAESI jurisdiction is limited and, despite reliance on Harbanslal Sahnia and Radha Krishna Industries, declined to interfere, concluding that alternative remedies exist and dismissing the petition.
Sheeba Dileep, the petitioner, claims to be an innocent purchaser of a property mortgaged by the 3rd respondent and his father to the 2nd respondent bank. The purchase took place in 2017, before she learned of the mortgage. Coercive steps by the bank to sell the property prompted her to move I.A No.1581/2023 in S.A No.237/2023 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam, which was dismissed. Aggrieved, she challenged the order under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed her application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal dated 05.01.2024, holding that the delay details were missing and no substantial grounds were shown. The petitioner contends that condonation is essential to preserve her rights under Section 18, as a denial would render the remedy nugatory. She relies on Supreme Court precedents that ordinarily a litigant does not gain by filing late, but delay may be condoned to decide the matter on merits. The Standing Counsel counters that the matter is barred by res judicata since SA 51/2019 was dismissed by the Tribunal and the present SA 237/2003 has the same cause of action. The High Court dismissed the challenge, agreeing that the Appellate Tribunal’s reasons for not condoning delay are valid, and upheld the dismissal of the OP (DRT) 72/2024.
The petitioner, Asokan K S, seeks to correct the revenue classification of his land—0.0202 hectares in Sy No. 1111/4P at Ayyanthol, Thrissur—from Nilam (wetland) to dry land, claiming it has been dry land for about four decades. He contends the land is pucca dry land and has historically not been used for paddy cultivation; Ext.P1 fixes a fair value, Ext.P2 contains the Monitoring Committee’s data-bank entries, and Ext.P3 is the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting Form 5 without a speaking order or proper consideration of the reports. The petitioner argues that the impugned order bypassed independent assessment, relied solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report, and failed to apply due process under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. The court notes that Ext.P3 is not a speaking order and that Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2023 (4) KLT 270) requires the RDO to conduct independent assessment rather than merely rely on LLMC’s decision to retain land in the Data Bank. It also cites Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO (2023 (5) KLT 432) for the principle that the dominant consideration is whether the land can support paddy cultivation. The court ultimately sets aside Ext.P3 and directs the RDO to reconsider Form 5 within three months, with the option for the petitioner to obtain KSREC reports and have the Form 5 decision revisited accordingly, ensuring compliance with due process.
The petitioner, E.G. Jibulal, proprietor of Coinco Plast, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus to recover outstanding payments for supplying 250 ml plastic containers for Neypayasam distribution at the Chettikulangara Bhagavathi Temple, a temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board. Invoices Exts.P1 (10.01.2022) and P2 (03.03.2022) show a total due of Rs. 2,71,311/-, with Exts.P3 to P5 (dated 27.04.2022 and 07.03.2022) reflecting representations for payment. The petitioner argues that non-payment constitutes breach of contract and seeks directions to the Board and related authorities to settle the dues and decide on representations. The respondents counter that contractual disputes involving a private law contractual relationship with a state instrumentality fall outside writ jurisdiction; maintenance in Article 226 should follow civil remedies. The High Court surveys authorities including State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics, NHAI v. Ganga Enterprises, Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kalathil, Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh, Gunwant Kaur, ABL International, Whirlpool, Joshi Technologies, M.K. Jose, SITCO, and Sitco Associates, concluding that where the contract is non-statutory and governed purely by contract, writs are ordinarily not maintainable. The petition is dismissed on maintainability grounds, without expressing on factual contentions or merits.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P2, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting the applicant’s Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, seeking removal of a land parcel from the Data Bank. The petitioner, Ranjith, is in possession of 4.05 acres in Sy.No.208/6-1-3 (Kavannur Village, Ernad Taluk, Malappuram) and contends that the land does not fall within the definition of paddy land or wetland under the Act. Ext.P2 relies on the Agricultural Officer’s report and LLMC recommendations to refuse removal, noting the land lies at a level lower than the road and that any conversion could affect water flow and ecology. The petitioner argues Ext.P2 is vitiated by non‑application of mind, and that the RDO should independently assess the land’s status as on 12.08.2008, requiring KSRSEC input, rather than merely accepting LLMC findings. The court cites several precedents (Arthasasthra Ventures; Muraleedharan Nair; Aparna Sasi Menon; Jessy Abraham) to emphasize that the RDO must determine whether the land was paddy land on the date of the Act and whether removal would adversely affect paddy cultivation or wetlands. The court sets aside Ext.P2 and directs the RDO to reconsider Form 5 after obtaining a KSRSEC report at the petitioner’s expense within two months, with the petitioner also applying for a KSRSEC report within two weeks and producing copies of the writ petition and judgment before the RDO.
This anticipatory bail petition concerns the sole accused in Crime No. 715/2023 of Kuttiyadi Police Station, Kozhikode, charged under IPC sections 376AB, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Sections 5 and 6. The applicant, who is the stepfather of a nine-year-old victim, contends that the case stems from a domestic dispute with the victim’s mother (his second wife) and that the allegations are manufactured to victimize him after his divorce. He points to Annexure-C (a tripartite agreement dated 10.10.2023) and Annexure-D (dated 16.10.2023) reportedly reflecting a settlement of money and gold; he asserts the alleged incident that is the basis of the FIR is false and prompted by financial demands. The mother of the victim claims the offence occurred on 06.10.2023 and was disclosed on 16.10.2023. The Public Prosecutor counters that the offence includes 376AB, triggering the bar in 438(4) CrPC. The court notes the victim’s FIR statement and statements suggesting possible manipulation due to financial disputes but relies on the decision in xxxx v. State of Kerala & Others to hold that in absence of prima facie materials the bar may not apply. Consequently, the court grants anticipatory bail on conditions including surrender on 15.01.2024, bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties, regular appearances, and restrictions on travel and contact, with bail cancellation on violation.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1528 OF 2024 This Kerala High Court bail application concerns accused Athul and Rahul in Crime No.120/2024 of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur, charged under IPC sections 323, 324, 307, and 506 read with 34. They moved under Section 439 CrPC on 6 March 2024 seeking bail; the accused were arrested on 16 February 2024. The prosecution alleges that on 12 February 2024, in furtherance of their common intent to murder the defacto complainant, the first accused inflicted a cut injury on the forehead and stabbed the neck with a knife handle; the second accused allegedly struck the back of the head and the first accused struck the nose with his hand. The defense claims total innocence and denial of involvement, contending that the 307 IPC charge is not made out as the defacto complainant sustained no grievous injuries; they have been in custody since 16 February and the investigation is practically complete with recoveries made. The Public Prosecutor submits that the offences are heinous and ongoing investigation; release on bail would hamper the inquiry. The court examined the materials and acknowledged the injuries but noted ongoing investigation. Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence on bail (Prasanta Kumar Sarkar and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar), the court concluded that, on the facts and the stage of investigation, the petitioners are not entitled to bail, and the application is dismissed, with the accused continuing in custody.
This Regular First Appeal before the Kerala High Court arises from the trial court’s dismissal of a suit filed for the return of advance sale consideration under Ext.A1 dated 11.11.2013. The plaintiff, Ahammedkutty Bran, paid Rs.12.5 lakhs as advance towards sale of 25 cents of land with a residential building, with the balance due by 11.05.2014. The defendants (Rosamma’s heirs) defended that the funds were raised for Rosamma’s mother’s treatment and asserted breach by the plaintiff due to non-payment of the balance; Rosamma subsequently entered into an agreement to sell with a third party, Rajan, but that deal did not proceed. A counterclaim for Rs.13 lakhs damages was also raised. The Trial Court dismissed both the suit and counterclaim for limitation. The High Court examined two reliefs: a personal money decree under Article 54 Limitation Act and a charged decree under Section 55(6)(b) Transfer of Property Act. It held the first relief barred by limitation, but the charged decree claim was within time under Article 62. Interpreting Section 55(6)(b), the Court clarified that “accept delivery” means acceptance of performance, not mere delivery, and that where both parties are at fault, the buyer may obtain a charge for the amount paid. The appeal was allowed; the trial court’s decree was set aside, and a realisation decree for Rs.12,50,000 with 6% interest per annum from the date of suit to realization was granted, charged on the plaint schedule property, with no costs.
CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018, 612/2018, 613/2018, 617/2018, 618/2018, 620/2018, 621/2018, 623/2018, 624/2018, 626/2018, 630/2018, 639/2018, 643/2018, 648/2018, 649/2018, 654/2018, 659/2018, 660/2018, 663/2018, 665/2018, 669/2018, 675/2018, 679/2018, 680/2018, 683/2018, 684/2018, 685/2018, 687/2018, 688/2018, 691/2018, 692/2018, 693/2018, 694/2018, 695/2018, 696/2018, 698/2018, 702/2018, 703/2018, 704/2018, 708/2018, 709/2018, 711/2018, 712/2018, 713/2018, 716/2018, 719/2018, 721/2018, 722/2018, 723/2018 This batch of suo motu criminal revisions relates to orders of acquittal or discharge by Judicial Magistrates of First Class Kollam, challenged in CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 and a large set of connected cases before the Kerala High Court, chaired by Justice P. Somarajan. Suo motu proceedings were initiated pursuant to a resolution of the Administrative Committee dated 18.09.17. The core issue is the court’s power under Section 258 Cr.P.C., which permits stoppage of proceedings in summons cases instituted otherwise than on a complaint if, after reasonable steps to locate the accused, the costs of securing attendance would exceed the maximum fine. The judgment lays out the statutory framework and reproduces the Section 258 text, clarifying the conditions for stoppage after witnesses have testified. It cites a Division Bench decision in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821) to illustrate the controlling doctrine. Applying this settled law to the consolidated matters, the High Court holds that stoppage of proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. is within the trial court’s jurisdiction and that interference is unwarranted. Consequently, the revisions are dismissed and the Magistrates’ stoppage orders stand. The decision is rendered by a single judge, Justice P. Somarajan, ending with the dismissal of the relief sought.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P4 (dated 22.06.2023) of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting a Form 5 application to remove land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. The petitioner Sasidharan N claims ownership of 32.14 acres in Re.Sy. No. 227/7, Oachira, Karunagappally Taluk, arguing the land is not paddy or wet land and was converted 30–35 years ago into garden/residential use. Ext.P1 photographs, Ext.P2 sale deed (1990), and Ext.P5 KSREC report allegedly show prior conversion, while the land’s status as of 12.08.2008 is argued to be inaccurately considered. The LLMC had recommended non-removal, but the petitioner contends the Ext.P4 order is non-speaking and merely parrots the LLMC’s view without independently assessing impact on paddy cultivation or wetlands. The court cites Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer to stress that the RDO must independently evaluate the land’s status and its effect on paddy cultivation, not merely rely on LLMC conclusions. Ext.P4 is set aside, with directions to reconsider Form 5 within three months, obtain KSREC report if requested, and finalize orders within three months after KSREC submission; a certified copy of the judgment should be produced before the 3rd respondent for compliance.
This writ petition challenges the declaration of the Chairperson post of Piravom Municipality after the 31.01.2024 election. Two candidates, petitioner Julie Sabu and Jincy Raju (the 5th respondent), contested the post. Both secured 13 votes; one LDF councillor’s vote was invalid, leaving a tie. Rule 8(7)(a) of the Kerala Municipality (Election of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson) Rules, 1995 prescribes that with two candidates, the one with more valid votes is elected; if votes are equal, lots are drawn and the person whose name is drawn first is elected. Ext.P2 records that the petitioner’s name was drawn first. However, the Returning Officer invoked Rule 8(7)(c), applicable when there are more than two candidates, and declared the 5th respondent elected. The petitioner contends there is no dispute over the election and that the Election Commission became functus officio after declaration, so Ext.P2 should be quashed and the petitioner declared elected under Rule 8(7)(a). Respondents contend maintainability issues under Article 243ZG(b) and Section 12(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act; they argue remedy lies in the District Court and that there was an error by the Returning Officer. The High Court ultimately allows the petition, quashes Ext.P2 to the extent of declaring the 5th respondent elected, and declares the petitioner elected under Rule 8(7)(a), directing the appropriate authorities to do the needful forthwith.
