Jinan K. T., the petitioner, seeks to quash CC No. 08/2018 of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, under charges including Sections 465, 468, 471, 477A IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(2) read with Section 13(2) PC Act 1988. The prosecution alleges that while functioning as Special Village Officer, Inchamudi, Kurumbilavu, Thrissur, he misappropriated Rs. 2,332 by collecting Rs. 2,384 as land tax but remitting only Rs. 52 to the treasury and forging a recipient, thereby falsifying accounts. The petitioner challenges the investigation on grounds that the Vigilance Manual is non-statutory and its directives are directory; contends the FIR and annexures do not disclose the alleged offences; questions the validity of sanction under Section 19 PC Act; and notes that charges have already been framed. The High Court discusses that Vigilance Manual is not a statute and adherence to its guidelines cannot ground interference; cites Neeharika Infrastructure and earlier decisions that the FIR should not be judged on merit at the stage of quashing; and that an interim stay of investigation is unwarranted. Ultimately, the court finds no grounds to exercise its 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction, dismisses the CrL.M.C., and directs the trial court to expedite disposal of CC 08/2018 within three months, with leave to seek extension if required.
Tr.P.(C.) Nos.903 of 2023 & 146 of 2024 This is a pair of Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 903 of 2023 and 146 of 2024 filed in the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, by the parties to a matrimonial dispute seeking transfer of proceedings between Family Courts. Tr.P.(C.) No.903/2023, moved by the wife, seeks transfer of O.P.225/2023 from the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, to the Family Court at Pala, on the ground of convenience since she resides within Pala’s jurisdiction and to consolidate with OP 516/2023 (gold ornaments) pending at Pala. Tr.P.(C.) No.146/2024, moved by the husband, seeks transfer of O.P.516/2023 from Pala to Irinjalakuda, citing his employment abroad and the involvement of his Power of Attorney (POA) holder, who is aging and ailing, in the proceedings. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the wife’s convenience is a relevant factor in determining the proper forum for matrimonial matters, and relied on the Supreme Court’s catena of decisions including N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (AIR 2022 SC 4318) to support this proposition. However, it rejected the husband’s argument that the POA’s inconvenience justifies transferring the matter, stating the POA’s issue is not a valid ground and can be managed by dispensing with his physical presence when necessary. Consequently, Tr.P.C.903/2023 was allowed, transferring OP225/2023 to Pala; Tr.P.C.146/2024 was dismissed. The records are to be transmitted to the transferee court forthwith.
This is a Suo Motu petition before the Kerala High Court concerning the periodical status report of the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) in relation to alleged malpractices, misconduct, and irregularities within temples governed by the TDB. The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, submitted a report detailing 243 vigilance inspections conducted on the basis of complaints, surprise checks, and inquiries; 20 grave irregularities are highlighted in a tabular form. An affidavit dated 28.02.2025 sworn by the Board Secretary records that the Vigilance reports are prepared under the President’s direct control and that most reports after the 09/07/2024 order were placed before the Board, with the Board acting as the disciplinary authority up to the level of Junior Superintendent; higher authorities are empowered to act in other cases. The Board undertook steps to place reports before the Board within a month and to react promptly on immediate cases. The judgment cites multiple statutory provisions and precedents to emphasize the Board’s duty to supervise, protect temple properties, and ensure proper administration, while acknowledging delays due to the Mandala-Makaravilakku festival. Ultimately, the SSCR is disposed of with modified directions, extending timelines and mandating periodic reporting and action taken reports to be filed with the Devaswom Bench (DBA).
This suo motu DBP was initiated on a complaint from devotees of Thiruvallam Sree Parasurama Swamy Temple, alleging unauthorised committees and the erection of flex boards and banners inside the temple premises. The petition targets the formation of associations such as arts and sports clubs to conduct activities within the temple rather than a Temple Advisory Committee, contending that such practices undermine the board’s statutory governance. The court notes that there is currently no Temple Advisory Committee in Thiruvallam temple and that the Administrative Officer is overseeing temple activities. It relies on the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (Sections 3, 15A, 31, 31A) and on existing judicial dicta from Satheesh v. Travancore Devaswom Board; Sunilkumar C. v. Travancore Devaswom Board; Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala; and Rajalekshmi P. v. State of Kerala to constrain the operation of unauthorised bodies and to emphasize the Board’s duty to ensure rites, facilities and governance in accordance with the statute and temple usage. The court directs steps to constitute a Temple Advisory Committee, frames timelines, and mandates the Board to manage temple affairs in the interim, with police assistance if needed. The writ petition is disposed of on these terms.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC by Beenamma Job, the 2nd accused in CC No. 3279/2016, challenging the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated in the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (NI Act Cases), Ernakulam. The petitioner, mother of the 1st accused, contends that she cannot be prosecuted for the cheque issued by the 1st accused, as liability under Sec. 138 attaches to the drawer of the cheque. The complainant alleged the three accused conducted business in the name of BSE Big Bazar and that the 1st accused issued the cheque; the cheque later bounced for insufficient funds. The petitioner argues that permitting proceedings against her would amount to abuse of process and relies on judicial pronouncements that only the drawer can be prosecuted, including Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi, Aparna A. Shah v. M/s Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd, and other authorities. The court examined the ingredients of Sec. 138, the law on drawer liability, and the consistency of those principles across High Courts and Supreme Court decisions (Fine Tubes, Devendra Pundir, Gita Berry, Bandeep Kaur). It concluded that the drawer alone can be liable, and since the petitioner is not the drawer, the proceedings against her are quashed. The court allowed the petition and quashed proceedings against the petitioner in the stated CC, while leaving other co-accused to stand.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Sec. 482 CrPC filed by seven petitioners challenging the proceedings in CP No.38 of 2023 arising from Crime No.1108/2022 of Kalamasserry Police Station, Ernakulam. The petitioners and respondents faced offences under IPC Ss. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 read with 149 IPC. The prosecution case alleges formation of an unlawful assembly and the infliction of injuries on the victims. The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution; affidavits of the victims support the settlement. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, but conceded that the matter is settled. The court examined the matter in light of precedents in State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh, which hold that the power under S.482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences can be exercised when disputes are private and resolved, with exceptions for heinous offences or offences under special statutes. The High Court concluded the dispute is private, the settlement is genuine, and quashing is permissible. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
This writ petition is filed by S. Saseendran Pillai, a proprietor of a metal crusher unit at Kalluvathukkal (Kollam district) with a quarry at Pallickal near Thiruvananthapuram, seeking police protection to ensure smooth functioning of the quarry and crusher, and protection against alleged obstruction by others (respondents 3-6). The petitioner asserts all necessary permissions— Panchayat license, mining and geology permissions, environmental clearance, explosive license, and consent to operate—are in place and that the rocks quarried are transported to the crusher for construction purposes including highway widening. He contends that respondents 3 to 6 are obstructing transportation and access, and that despite complaints to the police, protection has not been afforded. The 5th respondent counters that the Panchayat license is invalid (challenged in a separate W.P.(C).No.7579/2021) and that constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules are under challenge; it is alleged that the license was obtained under questionable circumstances and that there is significant public protest and alleged excess quarrying. The court notes pendency in related proceedings, but ultimately directs respondents to provide adequate protection to the petitioner’s quarry and crusher, and clarifies this is without prejudice to outstanding contentions in related petitions, including W.P.(C).No.7579/2021.
WA Nos. 406 of 2023 & 459 of 2023 Two intra-court appeals (WA Nos. 406 and 459 of 2023) arise from W.P.(C) Nos. 5881 of 2020 and 575 of 2021, challenging a recruitment process for Operator Grade-III trainees (Electrician, Fitter, Machinist, Welder) conducted by The Transformers and Electricals Kerala Limited (2nd respondent) through an Employment Exchange. Petitioners Amal Rajappan, Joby P.T., and Sandeep Santhosh contend violation of Article 16 of the Constitution due to lack of wide publication and reliance on the Government order Ext. R2(c) dated 28/02/1992. They allege that 2171 names were sent by the Employment Exchange and that petitioners—who had previously held temporary posts—were not included, while some aspirants outside the guaranteed seniority were selected; details of the selected candidates were not disclosed, and impleading the successful candidates was not pursued. Respondents counter that Ext. R2(c) was followed, that the 2171-name list was prepared by seniority, and that petitioners had an opportunity via interim orders to participate. The Single Judge dismissed the petitions. The Division Bench emphasizes that, to respect Article 16, wide publication is required beyond mere sponsorship from the Employment Exchange; reliance on precedents (Excise Malkapatanam; State of Bihar; Arun Kumar Nayak) is noted, and Anupal Singh (2020) 2 SCC 173 is invoked to affirm that participation can bar challenges. The appeals are disposed of with the Single Judge’s order upheld, costs imposed, and directions for future wide publication by public instrumentalities.
WP(C) Nos.29171/2013, 3018/2014, 26873/2013 Petitions by three corporate entities challenge Kerala State’s demand of permit fees for transit of methyl alcohol (methanol) through Kochi port. Petitioners paid Rs.5,000 per vehicle under protest, contending methanol is not liquor and not within the Abkari Act; the levy is therefore unauthorized. The court cites the Division Bench decision in State of Kerala v. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. (2018) and Bombay Oil Mills Industries (P) Ltd. (supra) to buttress the position that methanol/transit does not fall within Abkari Act’s purview and that levying transit fees lacks statutory basis. It also discusses the Union-regulated regime for denatured spirits, Transit Rules, and the potential implications of Entry 33(a) of List-III and Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. While the State relied on certain Supreme Court discussions to justify transit fees, the Kerala High Court ultimately held that the Abkari Act does not cover methyl alcohol and that the corresponding permit-fee regime is illegal. The court directed refund of the deposited permit fees (or adjustment in other transactions) and directed a decision on refunds within two months. The judgment reinforces the view that legitimate transit without illegal levies should prevail over unauthorized State-imposed fees.
Athira Mohanan filed O.P.(FC) No.149 of 2023 in the Kerala High Court challenging the Family Court, Thodupuzha’s order dated 12 January 2023 allowing I.A. No.1 of 2022 in O.P.(HMA) No.184/2022 to be conducted through electronic video linkage for counselling. The respondent sought to attend counselling via video call due to his employment in Malaysia, while the petitioner insisted on in-person counselling as essential for effective reconciliation. The petitioner relied on Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh to argue that video conferencing in matrimonial proceedings is permissible only with mutual consent, and that personal interaction between spouses is necessary for genuine reconciliation. The court discussed the scheme of the 1984 Act, particularly Section 11, the constitutional Article 227, and Rule 6(2) of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, which permits electronic linkage after reconciliation and with written consent if a party cannot attend in person. It held that video counselling can be permitted when it subserves justice and after considering the facts, and that modern platforms (Google Meet/Zoom) are preferred over WhatsApp. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed with observations, upholding the Family Court’s course and endorsing the use of video conferencing under appropriate conditions to facilitate reconciliation.
W.A. NO.830 OF 2017 & 533 OF 2020 This writ appeal challenges a government policy decision denying an extension of retirement age from 58 to 60 years for managerial personnel in a public sector undertaking, Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. The Board of Directors recommended raising the retirement age in 2014, but the Government rejected the proposal, maintaining 58 years for managers while workmen under the same establishment retire at 60. The petitioners (including the appellant, Pasc al Byl on K.I., and 3rd-party appellants in related proceedings) argued that the disparity between workmen and managerial staff is discriminatory and inconsistent with what is applied in other PSUs; they urged parity with employees who enjoy the 60-year retirement age. The Government defended the decision as a conscious policy choice not to extend retirement age for managerial cadre and emphasized that workmen and managerial staff are governed by different standing orders within distinct employee categories. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions, and on appeal the Division Bench upheld that decision. Relying on precedents such as K. Nagaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala Land Development Corporation Employees Union’s case, the court held that policy decisions on retirement age fall within the ambit of executive prerogative and are generally not amenable to judicial interference under Article 226, unless perverse. The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Petitioner, a former clerk and Branch Manager at Ettumanoor, was suspended in 2003 on allegations of misappropriation and defalcation of bank funds. A memo of 80 charges was issued, but the petitioner alleged she was not supplied with copies of documents on which charges were framed and was denied the opportunity to defend with the complete record. An enquiry was conducted, allegedly ex parte, after the petitioner sought a change of venue for safety concerns. The Enquiry Officer found most charges established but some were not, and the Chairman of the Disciplinary Sub-Committee dismissed the petitioner. The Industrial Tribunal upheld the enquiry outcome. The petitioner challenged Ext. P9, arguing that she was never afforded a fair opportunity and that the Disciplinary Sub-Committee acted beyond its authority, with the President of the Committee as Chair; she also contends that the committee’s powers to issue the charge memo and to impose punishment were ultra vires. The High Court held that the Disciplinary Sub-Committee lacked the power to issue the charge memo and that a Chairman cannot unilaterally impose punishment, given Rule 198 and Rules 182/2A/2B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Citing Kodenchery and leading Supreme Court judgments, the court set aside Ext. P9, refused de novo proceedings or reinstatement, and noted back wages may be payable but pension/salaries cannot be disbursed during ongoing criminal cases.
Aggrieved by a conviction dated 15 September 2008 under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act by the Additional Sessions Judge Adhoc-III, Palakkad, Ramani challenges the judgment in SC No. 221/2008 on grounds of evidentiary irregularities. The prosecution case rested on seizure of five litres of illicit arrack from the Kayiliyad desom, Chalavara Village, Ottappalam taluk, and on a chemical analysis report of the sample. The trial court examined five witnesses and admitted Exs. P1–P8 and MO1. On appeal, Ramani contends that the chemical analysis and the chain of custody were not proven: the Forwarding Note Ext.P9 is silent about the exact person who forwarded the sample, and Ext.P5 shows an unexplained gap; no court official who handled the sample was examined; the sample’s despatch was not verifiably tamper-proof. The State relies on precedent emphasizing strict statutory compliance, chain of custody, and co-relation between seized material and laboratory analysis. However, the High Court concludes that the prosecution failed to establish the tamper-proof chain, including who delivered the sample to the laboratory, the date of receipt, and whether the samples remained untainted. It also notes delays in analysis. On these grounds, Ramani is acquitted; the appeal is allowed and the accused is set at liberty.
This is a Writ Petition (Civil) filed in the Kerala High Court by K. Tony Thomas challenging an order of the Vythiri Grama Panchayath that declined his request to change the occupancy of an existing house in Wayanad from residential (A1) to homestay (A2). The petition contends that the applicant’s dwelling, built in 1968, lies in a safe zone as per the DDMA zonation map and that a mere change of occupancy does not entail construction. The District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) had earlier defined areas within 500 metres of the high-hazard red zone as “landslide prone,” and two orders (2019) extended that buffer; the petitioner argues this expansion is not scientifically tenable and not approved by the State Authority, thereby rendering the extents and prohibitions beyond the statutory framework. The respondents claim the landslide-prone area includes the 500-metre buffer, that allowing occupancy changes could enable misuse, and point to the existence of several establishments within the buffer. The Kerala State Disaster Management Authority contends that the 500-metre expansion was not approved by the State Authority and should be harmonized with the State Plan. The court holds Ext.P2 illegal and arbitrary, sets it aside, and directs the Secretary of the 1st respondent to reconsider the application within 30 days in light of these observations. The decision refers to the previous decision in Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala as per incurium and distinguishes its reasoning.
RP Nos.784 of 2023 & RP No.785 of 2023 This judgment disposes of two related review petitions filed under Article 226 challenging the judgment dated 25 May 2022 in WP(C) Nos.10754/2019 and 25917/2021, respectively. The petitioners, Poabs Enterprises Private Limited and Poabs Granite Products Private Limited, sought to recall the Division Bench’s order that had dismissed their writ petitions restraining mining and quarrying activities on lands allotted under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules (LA Pattaya lands) and on lands connected to leases granted for quarrying. The writ petitions challenged stop memos issued by the Tahsildar/Municipal authorities and actions by the District Collector, Ernakulam/Kollam, which had halted quarrying despite permissions allegedly granted by the Geologist and Revenue/Mining authorities. The Supreme Court’s order of 14 March 2023 in Special Leave to Appeal No.12978/2022 permitted filing reviews within two weeks and stated that those reviews would not be dismissed merely for delay, if legitimate grounds exist. On 25 August 2023, the Kerala High Court, after considering Annexures A3 (11.11.2015) and A4 (08.03.2019) and arguments around the Mines and Minerals Act, Kerala Land Assignment Rules, and Minor Mineral Concession Rules, concluded that the review petitions should be dismissed. The court held that review is not a rehearing of merits and cannot be used to revisit issues already decided, adhering to established principles of Order XLVII CPC and related jurisprudence. The final outcome is the dismissal of both review petitions, leaving the original judgment intact.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges coercive recovery actions by the 1st respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act after the loan account of the 1st petitioner was renewed and ultimately classified as non-performing. The petitioners contend that the Bank ignored this Court’s COVID-19 related orders in W.P.(C) No.11316 of 2021, which directed that steps for recovery should not be taken during the prohibited period from 19 May 2021 to 21 February 2022. They seek copies of loan documents and statements of account, and argue that substantial withdrawals were made from their loan account by the Bank, suggesting lack of transparency and casting doubt on the tally of dues. The Bank counters that default exists and recovery actions, including a possession notice dated 19 December 2021 under Section 13(4) and an Advocate Commissioner’s notice dated 30 January 2023, were pursued in the ordinary course. The petition also references a pending civil suit (O.S. No. 291 of 2022) and cites Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. U.O.I. to illustrate that Civil Court jurisdiction can be invoked in SARFAESI matters for limited purposes. The High Court ultimately directs that the petitioners may submit a settlement proposal within three weeks, and that copies of accounts may be supplied, with the Bank to consider such representations in accordance with law, thereby disposing of the petition.
This is a writ petition (W.P.(C) No.24614/2021) filed by MBBS graduates challenging the revision of seat distribution for NEET PG 2021 admissions in Kerala. The petition contends that Ext.P1 Prospectus increased the reservation for SEBC from 9% to 27%, introduced a 10% EWS horizontal quota and a 5% Physically Disabled (PD) horizontal quota, along with a 10% in-service horizontal quota, culminating in a total of 62% reserved seats and only 38% available to General candidates. The petition relies on Supreme Court precedents on reservation in PG and super-specialty education, arguing that such reservations should not dilute merit and must comply with constitutional limits. The respondents defend Ext.P1, arguing that horizontal reservations cut across vertical quotas and thus should not be counted against the 50% ceiling, and that Article 15(5) allows special provisions for advancement of SEBC/SC/ST, including in educational admissions. The court canvasses key precedents: Nagaraj (50% ceiling for vertical reservations), S.V. Joshi (data to exceed 50%), Nagaraj-related principles, and later cases distinguishing horizontal reservations (PWD, in-service, EWS). The judgment concludes that horizontal reservations are not bound by the 50% ceiling and that Ext.P1 is not inherently unconstitutional; however, ultimately the writ petition is dismissed on the merits as the petition lacks merit. The decision carries the judge’s final order: petition dismissed.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed under MACA No. 1176 of 2012 challenging the order/judgment in O.P.(M.V) No. 1074/2007 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, arising from a road accident on 25 January 2007 that caused the death of Rajeev (aged 27). The appellants are members of Rajeev’s family seeking compensation for loss of dependency and related heads of damages. The Tribunal held the driver of the lorry negligent and liable the insurer to pay Rs. 8,35,000 with 8% interest. The core dispute concerns quantum, specifically the deceased’s monthly income and future prospects. The Tribunal computed a low monthly income of Rs.5,000, though Ext.A20 indicated Rs.17,500, which was not proved satisfactorily. The Kerala High Court, after examining evidence from the same employer as in related petitions, held that Rs.9,000 per month should be adopted for the deceased, given his employment in the same firm. It added 40% for future prospects following Pranay Sethi. It also adjusted heads for funeral, loss of estate, and loss of consortium, removing duplicative amounts for love and affection per Satwinder Kaur, and adopting Rs.40,000 per beneficiary for loss of consortium (per Magma General Insurance). The appeal was allowed, ordering an enhanced total of Rs.12,97,800 as additional compensation, to be deposited by the insurer within three months, along with the Tribunal’s interest and proportionate costs. The decision reinforces modern teleology of quantum in MACT beyond fixed salaries.
CRL.M.C.Nos.5308 & 5315 of 2023 These two Criminal Misc. Cases arise from Crime No. 180/2004 registered at Perumbadappu Police Station, Malappuram, alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 308, 332, 435, 427 and 153 read with 149 IPC. The Additional District & Sessions Court-III, Manjeri, took cognizance as S.C. No. 163/2010; several accused were acquitted, while others were split up and refiled as S.C. No. 699/2019 and S.C. No. 1329/2021. Petitioners in both M.C.s seek to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arguing that with the acquittal of most co-accused, the substratum of the prosecution case has collapsed. The matter was argued by petitioners’ counsel K.B. Arunkumar and Pooja K.S. and the Public Prosecutor MP Prasanth. The court relied on Sahadevan & another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police to accept the proposition that where the entire prosecution case is unreliable and cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, no purpose is served in continuing the trial and the jurisdiction under 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. The judge found the substratum of the prosecution case to be dislodged and accordingly quashed all further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. Nos. 1329/2021 and 699/2019, allowing both Crl.M.Cs.
This is a criminal appeal (CRL.A No. 842 of 2006) by the accused No.2 in SC No.758 of 2006, challenging a 03.04.2006 judgment of conviction and sentence by the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, North Paravur. The prosecution alleges that on 24.11.1997, at about 8:00 p.m., the appellant and accused No.1, in furtherance of a common intention, restrained PWs 1, 2 and 16 by blocking the car with an autorickshaw, and assaulted them with a broken soda bottle, intending to kill. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 341, 323 and 307 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fines and other terms. On appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the injured and occurrence witnesses is contradictory, with omissions and contradictions too numerous to sustain a conviction; no overt act has been attributed to the appellant to attract Section 307 IPC, and the alleged intention to kill was not established. The Senior Public Prosecutor contended that the ingredients of the offenses were established beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court clarified that the overt act against the appellant did not demonstrate a malevolent intention to kill, and that the evidence mainly showed the acts of accused No.1. The court upheld conviction under 341 and 323 r/w 34 IPC but set aside the 307 conviction.
