This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by Kannan alias Samjith, the sole accused in Crime No.50/2021 of Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur. The charges include offences under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene acts), 323 (hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon), 326 (causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon) and 302 (murder) arising from an incident on 3 January 2021 when the accused had an altercation with his father and attacked him with a wooden stick, resulting in fatal injuries. The accused has been in custody since 05 January 2021; investigation concluded and final report filed on 20 March 2021. The petitioner challenges the legality of his detention, maintaining innocence and alleging false implication, and seeks bail on the ground of long custody. The Public Prosecutor for the State opposes bail, describing the offence as gruesome murder; trial pending; there is a history of other cases including a Section 302 case; contends that release on bail would hinder the investigation, jeopardize witnesses, and allow tampering with evidence. The Court recalls principles from Supreme Court decisions that bail is a discretionary, balancing exercise involving factors such as prima facie case, gravity, punishment, risk of absconding, potential interference with witnesses, and totality of circumstances. It notes the accused has criminal antecedents and the court is not convinced that bail is warranted here. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed.
This Kerala High Court judgment deals with OP(FC) No.89 of 2024, challenging Family Court, Palakkad orders granting and regulating interim custody with interaction provisions between a seven-year-old child and the father. The Original Petition was filed by the respondent father seeking permanent custody; during proceedings, the Family Court granted interim access on Saturdays with the child brought for interaction under supervision, and directed custody exchanges at 1.30 p.m. The Court also ordered arrangements for travel expenses and non-disruption of the child’s routine. In October 2023, an incident occurred leading to a First Information Report (Crime No.1289/2023) and subsequently a request to cancel the earlier orders (I.A. No.5/2023). The Family Court nonetheless imposed safeguards: only the two parents in Court during interaction and the petitioner interacting with the child while the other parent withdraws, with directions to prevent recurrence. The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing they would invite further incidents and that the order should be cancelled. The High Court relied on welfare principles from Yashita Sahu and Rohith Thammana Gowda, emphasising that child welfare is paramount, but found no justification to interfere with the Family Court’s cautious approach and dismissed the petition, while directing that future interactions occur with safeguards against both parents in the same room.
CRL.RC Nos. 269/2018, 273/2018, 275/2018, 276/2018, 277/2018, 278/2018, 279/2018, 281/2018, 282/2018, 287/2018, 290/2018, 291/2018, 292/2018, 296/2018, 298/2018, 300/2018, 301/2018, 303/2018, 307/2018, 308/2018, 309/2018, 311/2018, 315/2018, 317/2018, 319/2018, 323/2018, 327/2018, 328/2018, 330/2018, 336/2018, 342/2018, 346/2018, 348/2018, 349/2018, 350/2018, 351/2018, 353/2018, 356/2018, 357/2018, 358/2018, 359/2018, 361/2018, 362/2018, 363/2018, 374/2018, 375/2018, 376/2018, 383/2018, 386/2018 & 393/2018 This batch of suo motu criminal revision petitions bearing CRL.RC No. 269 of 2018 and connected cases (269/2018, 273/2018, 275/2018, 276/2018, 277/2018, 278/2018, 279/2018, 281/2018, 282/2018, 287/2018, 290/2018, 291/2018, 292/2018, 296/2018, 298/2018, 300/2018, 301/2018, 303/2018, 307/2018, 308/2018, 309/2018, 311/2018, 315/2018, 317/2018, 319/2018, 323/2018, 327/2018, 328/2018, 330/2018, 336/2018, 342/2018, 346/2018, 348/2018, 349/2018, 350/2018, 351/2018, 353/2018, 356/2018, 357/2018, 358/2018, 359/2018, 361/2018, 362/2018, 363/2018, 374/2018, 375/2018, 376/2018, 383/2018, 386/2018 & 393/2018) before Justice P. Somarajan, arose from acquittal orders passed by Judicial Magistrates of First Class, Kollam, in various connected ST cases (2013). The High Court addresses whether Section 258 Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to stop proceedings in summons cases, a power invoked in suo motu revisions against acquittals. Relying on a Division Bench decision cited as 2023 KHC Online 821, the court reiterates the settled position that, where a summons-case is not petty and the prosecution shows it has strived to procure the accused with prohibitive costs exceeding the maximum fines, it may stop proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The court thus holds that the power is applicable to these cases and that stoppage of proceedings is permissible if the stated conditions are met. Consequently, the revisions are dismissed, and the matter is closed, with no interference with the acquittals. The decision underscores the narrow, doctrine-bound scope of Section 258 Cr.P.C. in preventing futile prosecutions where securing attendance would be unreasonably costly.
Abdul Kalam, owner of 1.85 acres in Chithara Village, challenged an order of the II Additional District Court, Kollam, under O.P.(Electricity) No. 389 of 2006, awarding compensation for 400 kV transmission lines drawn by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. The original petition sought enhanced compensation for trees felled and diminution in land value caused by the transmission lines. The trial court had fixed a final compensation of Rs. 9,48,424, after deducting earlier payments, basing its assessment on yields and prices of trees and landscape values as proved by Exts. A13–A15, Ext.A14 and Ext.A15 depositions, and on Ext.A13 sale deed and Advocate Commissioner reports for land value. The petitioner argues that the court erred in valuing the trees and land, failed to provide reasons for deviating from expert depositions under Section 32(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, and adopted a land value and a multiplier (8) contrary to established Supreme Court standards (as per Sk. Imambi v. Collector). It also contends the locality’s sale deed shows much higher land values (Rs.40,000 per cent) than the court’s Rs.6,000 per cent. The respondent argues no interference is warranted. The Kerala High Court allows the revision petition, sets aside the impugned order, and remands for fresh determination of just compensation, directing disposal within four months, after considering all relevant factors and evidence.
This Division Bench of the Kerala High Court hears a suo motu Devaswom Board Petition (DBP No.113 of 2023) arising from a complaint alleging the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB) accepted certificates issued by Thantris for the post of Part-Time Santhi. The petitioner, Sreehari Narayanaru, challenged the order 11.10.2023 of the KDRB, and the court noted that maintainability would be decided on the judicial side. It was linked to WP(C)No.37006 of 2023, which ended in a dismissal, and to WP(C)No.1256 of 2024 concerning similar issues about the qualifications and the use of Thantri certificates. Despite service, the petitioner did not appear on 23.01.2024. The court invoked established principles from Indian constitutional writ practice, including Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing that pleadings with particulars and evidence are essential in writ petitions and that reliefs beyond pleadings should not be granted. The court ultimately held that the DBP was not maintainable and dismissed it, directing communication of the order to the complainant. WP(C)No.1256 of 2024 was withdrawn with liberty to file anew, without prejudice.
In WP(C) No. 6360 of 2024 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, the petitioners, Dijosh and Soumya, owners of 0.0607 hectares in Survey No. 410/9 at Kottapady, Meppadi, Wayanad, challenge Ext. P8, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting their Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, seeking removal of their land from the Data Bank. The RDO rejected the Form 5 on the grounds that it was unclear whether the property was converted before 2008, relying on KSRSEC reports, with satellite data indicating paddy fields in 1967 and vegetation in later years; the office also noted cardamom cultivation and ongoing land utilisation proceedings. The petition contends that the land is not paddy land or wetland, is surrounded by buildings, and is not suitable for cultivation; it argues the KSRSEC interpretation and reliance on 2011 data are improper, and that there is no proper assessment under the Act, 2008 or the 1967 Land Utilisation Order. The Court recalls prior judgments including Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO, Adani Infrastructure, Bharathan Ramanathan, and Devanand, to emphasize independent assessment by the RDO and that pendency of other proceedings cannot bar Form 5. It holds Ext. P8 vitiated, sets it aside, and directs the RDO to reconsider Form 5 with a fresh KSRSEC report at the petitioners’ expense, within two months, after the petitioners obtain KSRSEC guidance.
CRL.RC Nos. 269/2018, 273/2018, 275/2018, 276/2018, 277/2018, 278/2018, 279/2018, 281/2018, 282/2018, 287/2018, 290/2018, 291/2018, 292/2018, 296/2018, 298/2018, 300/2018, 301/2018, 303/2018, 307/2018, 308/2018, 309/2018, 311/2018, 315/2018, 317/2018, 319/2018, 323/2018, 327/2018, 328/2018, 330/2018, 336/2018, 342/2018, 346/2018, 348/2018, 349/2018, 350/2018, 351/2018, 353/2018, 356/2018, 357/2018, 358/2018, 359/2018, 361/2018, 362/2018, 363/2018, 374/2018, 375/2018, 376/2018, 383/2018, 386/2018 & 393/2018 This batch of suo motu criminal revision petitions arises from acquittals recorded by various Judicial Magistrate of First Class courts in Kollam district, Kerala. Proceedings were initiated in the High Court by the State challenging those acquittals. Justice P. Somarajan delivered the common order on 7 June 2024 disposing of CRL.RC Nos. 269/2018 and connected matters (273/2018, 275/2018, 276/2018, 277/2018, 278/2018, 279/2018, 281/2018, 282/2018, 287/2018, 290/2018, 291/2018, 292/2018, 296/2018, 298/2018, 300/2018, 301/2018, 303/2018, 307/2018, 308/2018, 309/2018, 311/2018, 315/2018, 317/2018, 319/2018, 323/2018, 327/2018, 328/2018, 330/2018, 336/2018, 342/2018, 346/2018, 348/2018, 349/2018, 350/2018, 351/2018, 353/2018, 356/2018, 357/2018, 358/2018, 359/2018, 361/2018, 362/2018, 363/2018, 374/2018, 375/2018, 376/2018, 383/2018, 386/2018 & 393/2018). The core question was the scope of power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. to stop proceedings in summons-case prosecutions and the conditions under which such stoppage may be ordered, especially after the principal witnesses have testified. The court references the Division Bench decision in State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC Online 821) to illustrate the settled legal position and reproduces the text of Section 258 for clarity. It reiterates that stoppage is permissible only when the prosecution demonstrates unavailability of the accused after reasonable efforts and that the costs of procuring the accused would exceed the maximum prescribed fine. In the present batch, the High Court held that the magistrate’s stoppage orders deserve no interference, and the revisions were dismissed/closed. The order ultimately closes the revisions, upholding the magistrate’s approach and endorsing the persuasive authority of the 2023 decision.
This High Court of Kerala judgment arises from OP(KAT) No. 499/2023, challenging the Kerala PSC's rejection of Shibin K. Kutty's application for the post of Statistical Assistant Grade II/Statistical Investigator II in the Department of Economics and Statistics. Shibin, a Police Constable in the Kerala Armed Police, applied after the notification No.039/2020; he participated in the examination on 04.06.2022. The PSC directed him to upload documents along with a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in the prescribed format. He applied for an NOC on 25.10.2022, which was rejected on 31.10.2022. Despite being included in the main list for certificate verification on 17.12.2022 and submitting all documents except the NOC, he faced repeated directions to produce the Form of Receipt/NOC. He argued that Annex A6 notification only requires the Service Certificate, and that Amendment Rules, 2021 should apply to benefit him even though enacted after the last date fixed for receipt of applications. The Tribunal dismissed the OA, ruling that Amendment Rules 2021 could not aid the petitioner since they came into force after the last date. The Full Bench decision in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Reshmi K.R. & Others (2019 (5) KHC 875) is cited to emphasize compliance with instructions. The Court affirmed that production of Form of Receipt/NOC is mandatory under the PSC notification and that the Service Certificate cannot substitute the required NOC. The petition is dismissed.
Cr.Appeal No.1011 of 2011 This is a criminal appeal by the accused challenging a conviction for murder and related offences under IPC. The trial court convicted the two appellants for offences under sections 341, 304 Part I and 201 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that on the night of 28-08-2004 into 29-08-2004, within the house of the deceased, the two accused restrained and stabbed the victim, causing fatal injuries. The trial relied on circumstantial evidence, as there was no direct eyewitness to the act. The High Court examines the circumstantial chain, including the recovery of the MO1 knife under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the inquest (Ext.P2) and autopsy (Ext.P4) findings, and the post-arrest statement (Ext.P19). The court notes that the prosecution's three circumstances—last seen together, the subsequent conduct of the accused, and the MO1 recovery—could not by themselves establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the last-seen together link is weakened by witnesses recanting earlier statements; the prosecution's inference from MO1 is insufficient to connect both appellants to the homicide. Relying on Malleshappa, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Hanumant Nargundkar, and Munikrishna, the High Court finds that the chain is not complete and there is reasonable doubt. Consequently, conviction is set aside and the appellants are acquitted.
Edgar Caridad Pinto, the petitioner, challenges Ext.P3, a restoration permission granted by the 1st respondent under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010, for a building situated in a Regulated Zone. He argues that the order contemplates retrofitting the roof with aluminum sheets and “metal truss work,” which would violate the Act and distort the historic fabric of a Jewish heritage structure. Pinto contends that the roof replacement with non-traditional materials would not only contravene statutory prescriptions but also clash with this Court’s declarations in Director General, Archaeological Survey of India v. Moideenkutty Haji (2014) (1) KHC 405. He prays Ext.P3 be set aside to the extent that allows such changes and seeks restoration in its original, historically appropriate form. The Government Pleader counters that Ext.P3 reflects repairs to preserve the building’s integrity without altering its essence, and that opposing it would be unfounded since delayed repair could lead to collapse. The respondents emphasize urgency to protect the structure. The Court, while acknowledging the need for protection, finds that Ext.P3 does not authorize aluminum roofing; it grants only limited relief directing officers to ensure repairs strictly in terms of Ext.P3, with any deviation to be addressed by reparatory orders.
This writ petition was filed by 83 retired/retiring employees of Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited challenging the pension-related amendments and implementation under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 as amended by the 2014 Amendment. The petitioners contend that, following the Supreme Court’s decision on the 2014 Amendments and the related Scheme, they submitted Joint Option Forms before the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO). In 2020, the 4th respondent forwarded the joint option to the 3rd respondent; relying on Ext.P3, the 3rd respondent permitted contribution on the actual salary from March 2020 up to retirement. The petitioners have contributed 8.33% of their monthly salary to the pension fund up to retirement, and they argue that contributions on actual salary before March 2020 should have been allowed, with continued remittance on actual salary after March 2020. They seek mandamus to process the joint options expeditiously as per the Sunil Kumar B decision, not to charge interest on arrears, and to retain them in Scheme 1995 while granting pension benefits computed on the average monthly pay (including piece-rate pay) during the contributory period, with pensionary benefits calculated accordingly. The High Court disposed with a direction to the respondents to consider the joint option in light of Sunil Kumar B, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by accused 2 to 4 in Crime No.142/2024 of Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur, seeking pre-arrest bail. The offences alleged are under Sections 341, 323, 326, 308 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case alleges that on 13.02.2024, in furtherance of their common intention and due to previous animosity, the accused assaulted the defacto complainant (President of the temple committee) and another office-bearer (Secretary), causing injuries to the defacto complainant, including a nasal bone fracture, with one accused allegedly striking the complainant with an iron rod. The petition argues total innocence, false implication, and that there is a counter case; it contends that Annexure A1 FIR does not attract these offences and that injuries shown in Annexures A2–A3 are not exclusive to the petitioners. The respondent State contends that the medical and accident records establish injuries and, in the case of the first petitioner/second accused, a specific overt act is alleged. The Court relies on established bail jurisprudence: Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, Sibbia, Jai Prakash Singh, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), to emphasise the discretionary, fact-intensive nature of bail and the use of cautions and conditions. Ultimately, the Court denies pre-arrest bail for the first accused while granting pre-arrest bail to accused 2 and 3 with conditions.
This Contempt Appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.10.2023 in Contempt Case (C) No. 2610 of 2022, directing the respondent to appear before the Court to read out charges. The appellant, the 2nd respondent in the contempt case, challenges the maintainability of an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, arguing that the impugned order is a decision in contempt proceedings and that Section 19(1) creates a right of appeal from orders punishing contempt. The controversy stems from a writ petition, W.P.(C) No.14653 of 2022, in which the High Court had allowed the petition directing the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam to consider Exts. P4 to P7 on the basis of Clause 6.1.1(g) of Ext. P2 (29.06.2019) and issue appropriate orders within two months, after hearing the petitioners. The proceedings involved subsequent developments: Annexure R1(b) Government Order dated 04.04.2023 deleted the bunching benefit; Annexure R1(d) order dated 04.07.2023 rejected Exts.P4 to P7; the Deputy Director’s affidavit alleged compliance with the A1 judgment, though the court directed further action via R1(d). The Division Bench ultimately held the appeal maintainable, set aside the impugned order, and closed the contempt case, while preserving the respondents’ rights to challenge certain orders in appropriate proceedings. The judgment traverses a complex course of statutory interpretation and precedent on when contempt-related orders are appealable and how compliance with prior judgments interacts with contempt proceedings.
P.V. Thomas, a retired CRPF Inspector, filed WP(C) No.32952 of 2017 challenging the denial of a notional promotion to the rank of Assistant Commandant on the ground that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was not convened in time. He joined service in 1966 and rose to Inspector in 1992; promotion to Assistant Commandant requires completion of the Senior Inspectors’ Cadre Course (SICC), in which he secured 75% marks (B grade). After retirement on 31.05.2001, he learned that his juniors who attended the course were promoted, prompting Ext.P13 communications denying his claim and a representation to the first respondent. The petitioner argues the authorities were obliged to convene the DPC within the statutory schedule; a delay in DPC should not be to the petitioner’s prejudice, especially since the model calendar (1997) prescribed that DPC be held in the first week of April/May, though none was held in 2000 and the DPC occurred only in August 2001. He relies on a Division Bench decision in OP CAT 24/2019 (N. Rajan and Ors v. Union of India & Ors.) to contend that notional promotion is warranted when retentive delays occur. The respondents assert belated filing (16 years post-retirement) and contend the petitioner’s Low Medical Category—SHAPE-2—made him ineligible for promotion, with medical review due only after retirement. The court ultimately dismisses the petition, noting belatedness and the petitioner’s LMC status, and holds that notional promotion cannot be entertained in these circumstances.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P2, a rejection memo dated 05.01.2024 issued by the Sub Registrar, rejecting Ext.P1, a family gift deed dated 03.01.2024 whereby the petitioners purportedly transferred an undivided share of land (8.67 ares) in Edakunni Village to the 3rd petitioner. The petitioners contend that they complied with the conditions for transfer, including mutation in the mother’s name and payment of land tax (as shown by Exts.P3 and P4), and that the grounds for refusal are misconceived. They rely on controlling precedents to argue that production of a Record of Rights (RoR) certificate is not mandatory under the Registration Act and Rules, and that registration officials cannot withhold registration solely on non-production of RoR, as established in Synudheen v. State of Kerala and Jacob P.C. v. Village Officer. They also challenge the requirement of patta to prove jenmom rights (jenmom) as a precondition, citing Eshaque v. Sub Registrar and other authorities that the Registrar cannot adjudicate title or compel such documents; mutation under Transfer of Registry Rules does not affect ownership. The petition seeks a direction to register Ext.P1. The court ultimately allows the petition, sets aside Ext.P2, and directs the 1st respondent to register Ext.P1 based on Exts.P3 and P4, with the petitioners indemnified against future claims.
This writ petition, filed by Nisthar C, seeks to stall possession and sale of his residential property by Calicut Co-operative Urban Bank under the SARFAESI framework. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus to stay the proceedings under Ext. P4 and to grant a facility to repay the outstanding loan in fifteen monthly instalments, thereby regularising the loan account. He argues that a breathing space would enable him to repay in instalments and avert hardship caused by sale of his home. The matter traces back to an earlier order in WP(C) No.14063 of 2022, where the Court permitted repayment in instalments and directed an initial payment of ₹3 lakh by 22 Feb 2024; the petitioner has paid only ₹50,000. The respondent bank contends that the petitioner has failed to adhere to the instalment schedule and that no writ lies against SARFAESI proceedings; the court repeatedly emphasises the settled law that statutory remedy under SARFAESI is efficacious. The court references United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and other authorities and, after considering the arguments, dismisses the petition, granting liberty to approach the bank for any arrangement or One Time Settlement. It records that the petitioner’s past non-compliance and the statutory framework justify non-interference.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges Ext. P4 issued by the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (SCPCR) and Ext. P5, directing the school authorities to file an action taken report under Rule 45 of the Kerala State Rules (2012). The Kadambur Higher Secondary School, an aided institution in Edakkad, Kannur, with about 5,000 students, runs a large bus fleet and provides facilities such as toilets, computer labs with over 100 computers, electricity and medical facilities, and collects small charges for bus maintenance and other services. Petitioners contend that these charges are for additional facilities and not prohibited; they argue that the RTE Act, 2009 does not ban such charges where they do not block free education. They challenge Ext. P4 on grounds of excesses beyond the powers of SCPCR under the 2005 Act, including assertions about the majority rule for decisions and alleged mala fides. Respondents counter that the RTE Act bars any fee that prevents a child from obtaining elementary education and that KER/KE Act impose managerial duties with remittance to Treasury; they rely on established precedents and statutory provisions to justify SCPCR’s order. The Court ultimately upholds Ext. P4, dismisses the petition, and affirms that the charges for transportation and facilities cannot be sustained under law, while noting the valid scope of two-member benched action under Rule 18(6) of the State Rules.
The Kerala High Court hears a writ petition challenging Exts.P7–P9, which rejected Form 5 applications to remove land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Petitioners, three contiguous landowners in Re-Sy.No.280/3-2, 280/3-3 and 280/3 in Kunnathunadu Village (15 Ares, 10 Ares, 19.30 Ares respectively), contend their land is not paddy land or wetlands and was wrongly included in the Data Bank. They allege Exts.P7–P9 suffer from non-application of mind and violate the Act and binding precedents, arguing the RDO should have called for a KSRSEC report and independently assessed the land’s status as on 12.08.2008. Respondents, including the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), the Agriculture Officer & LLMC Convenor, the Tahsildar (LR), and the Village Officer, defend the orders, noting the Agricultural Officer’s report that the properties were converted prior to 2008 and thus come within the Act’s ambit. The Court cites Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO to emphasize that removal of land from the Data Bank requires independent assessment and consideration of paddy suitability as of 2008. It sets aside the impugned orders and directs the RDO to reconsider the Form 5 applications with KSRSEC input within two months, at petitioners’ cost, and to obtain KSRSEC reports after two weeks, while providing for production of copies and related steps for compliance.
WA Nos.1498/2022, 1808/2022, 1807/2022 and W.P.(C) Nos.4646/2022, 6955/2023, 19871/2022, 20313/2022, 26745/2022, 32204/2022, 36142/2022 The batch of writ appeals and writ petitions before the Kerala High Court arises from challenges to the Staff Selection Commission’s recruitment process for Police/Armed Forces posts across CAPFs, NIA, SSF and Assam Rifles, initiated by the 2018 notification for thousands of vacancies. The petitions focus on Kerala’s share of the national recruitment and on the Court-directed implementation of an extensive three-stage selection process (CBT, PST/PET, DME) with several rounds of litigation over medical and fitness rejections. A key backdrop is the court’s 7 April 2021 order staying completion of the list and directing a readjustment to preserve fairness, including setting apart a substantial number of posts (243 and odd posts) to accommodate earlier litigants. The appellants (Union of India and others) argued that such interim carve-outs were impracticable and inconsistent with recruitment rules, risking derailment of a concluded process. The court, while acknowledging the need for fair consideration, modified the earlier broad directive (paragraph 25.4) and approved a targeted plan to finalize 73–83 additional candidates from the replacement pool within eight weeks, with the balance unfilled vacancies carried forward to future rounds. The decision balances the court’s obligation to ensure fairness with practical constraints and the SSC’s discretionary powers under recruitment rules.
The Caritas Ayurvedic Hospital Trust, Thellakom, established in 1998, runs an Ayurvedic hospital and argues that the building housing the hospital is used principally for charitable purposes under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The Trust contends that the building was constructed with trust funds to carry out charitable objectives, including relief of the poor and free medical relief, and that the exemption from building tax should follow from its charitable use. The State and other respondents rejected the exemption, and assessed a one-time building tax of ₹13,42,800. The appellant challenged this in WP(C) 32676/2022; the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 15/01/2024. On appeal, the court traces jurisprudence from S.H. Medical Centre Hospital v. State of Kerala (2014) and St. Alphonsa Hospital (2015) which followed the broader view of charitable use; Lisie Medical Institutions v. State of Kerala (2017) questioned that approach. A three-judge bench in Lisie (2023) held that exemption hinges on the building being principally used for charitable purposes and clarified that Explanation 1 to Section 3(1) confines charitable purposes to relief of the poor and free medical relief, with potential wider facets not exempted automatically. The Court notes that the hospital currently charges substantial fees for treatment and has not demonstrated free medical relief, thus not meeting the dominant-use test. The writ appeal is dismissed, upholding the denial of exemption.
