This High Court of Kerala Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CrL M.C. No. 7626 of 2023) arises from Crime No. 237/2023 of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram, and CP 36/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. The petitioner, Saifudheen, seeks quashing of the ongoing prosecution under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the dispute has been settled amicably with the second respondent, Muhammed Sanoop N., and that the victim has filed an affidavit indicating no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor initially voiced reservations about relying solely on a settlement to quash, but conceded the matter is settled. The court surveys the evolving jurisprudence arising from Supreme Court decisions in Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to determine when private settlements may extinguish criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences. The Laxmi Narayan decision lays down that quashing under 482 CrPC is possible in private, civil‑nature disputes arising out of commercial transactions or family matters when the parties have resolved their entire dispute, with exceptions for heinous or public‑concern offences and certain statutes. The Kerala High Court applies this framework, stressing the private nature of the dispute and the settled position, while also considering antecedents and conduct. Ultimately, it holds that the dispute falls within permissible grounds and allows the Crl.M.C., quashing all further proceedings in CP 36/2023.
Question before the Kerala High Court was whether prosecution for perjury can be maintained against a public servant under Section 340 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. without prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The appeal, filed by K.K. Krishnan, challenged the trial court’s dismissal of a Section 340 Cr.P.C. application in SC No.867/2012, involving a conspiracy to murder the leader of the Revolutionary Marxist Party. The appellant, tenth accused, along with others, faced charges under IPC sections including 120B, 302 r/w 149, and related offences, and the 2nd respondent testified about Ext.P61, a forged observation mahazar. After trial, the appellant contended that a prosecution for perjury under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. could not be initiated without government sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The Kerala High Court held that Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. are complementary: if the court, after a preliminary enquiry, deems it expedient in the interests of justice to proceed under 195(1)(b), no further sanction under Section 197 is necessary for public servants acting in official duty. The decision relies on Iqbal Singh Marwah and related cases, and emphasizes that perjury prosecutions require a deliberate and conscious effort to mislead the court. The court remitted the matter to the trial court to proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law, without expressing a view on merits. The appeal is allowed.
Regin Vinny v. Union of India & Ors. concerns whether the petitioner’s name in Ext.P1 (the judgment in WP(C) 8857/2009) should be masked in the public domain and whether links to the judgment should be deindexed from online portals. The petitioner contends that publication of Ext.P1 online invades his privacy and invokes the evolving concept of the right to be forgotten, arguing that masking his identity would prevent prejudice to his employment prospects, including outside India. The respondents—led by Union of India and the Ministry of Law & Justice and including the Ministry of Telecommunication, the High Court of Kerala, the State of Kerala, Indian Kanoon, Google India Pvt. Ltd., and Google LLC—argue that judgments are public records, and anonymization or masking is not a general right but a case-by-case exception that could undermine the integrity and public accessibility of court proceedings. They rely on privacy jurisprudence, including R. Rajagopal and the public-record nature of court judgments under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, as well as statutory frameworks such as the Digital Personal Protection Act, 2023, and jurisprudence like Vysakh v. Union of India (DB) to contend that privacy cannot override the public interest and the free flow of information. The court ultimately declines to grant masking or deindexing, holding that the right to be forgotten cannot override the public record and that masking is not warranted in this case; the petition is dismissed.
Cont.Case (C) No.2001 of 2019 This Contempt of Court case, filed by petitioners 1–38 in W.P.(C) No.31276 of 2016, alleges willful disobedience of Annexure A1 judgment dated 12.10.2018 and related orders in WP(C) No.31276/2016 and connected matters, concerning pension-related directions under the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) scheme. The petitioners challenge the implementation of the 2014 amendment (G.S.R. 609(E)) to the pension scheme, contending that the directions in the 2018 judgment have not been properly complied with, particularly for higher pension entitlements for employees in exempted establishments. The respondents submit that the entitlement to higher pension must be reconsidered in light of subsequent developments, including the Supreme Court’s detailed judgment dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeals Nos.8143–8144 of 2022 and connected matters (AIR 2022 SC 5634), which upheld the validity of the 2014 notification and laid down directions for implementation and reassessment. The High Court, after hearing, records that the apex judgment requires reconsideration by the EPFO and closes the contempt petition, reserving EPFO’s right to re-evaluate entitlement for higher pension under the 2022 judgment, with further compliance as directed. The bench comprises a Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Sophy Thomas.
This writ appeal (WA No.2319/2019) arises from the termination of a NABARD-funded road contract in which the appellant, a contractor, challenged the withholding of payments and the final settlement amounts after the contract was terminated and a replacement contractor was engaged. The Kerala Public Works Department had quantified certain sums due to the appellant under the 7th, part, 8th and final bills, with NABARD already having recovered Rs.58,23,726 and the affidavit before the court acknowledging an outstanding Rs.13,09,411 under the 8th and final bill, plus a quantified damages amount of Rs.2,42,688.77. The PWD manual (2012 revision) 2116.2.1 provides a framework for realisation of loss on contract termination, including recovery of up to 30% of the cost of remaining works from the defaulting contractor, through various channels, to offset potential losses. The State urged reliance on Amber Builders (2020) and argued for withholdings based on breach. The appellant contended that writ relief is available to intervene against arbitrary state action, and that the court should not permit withholding amounts beyond the quantified loss. The court ultimately directed release of admitted amounts under part/7th/8th/final bills, excluding damages and loss, and ordered release of security deposits, with the appellant free to pursue further civil remedies for any remaining claims. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.
LA.APP. Nos. 73/2017; 217/2017; 51/2018 (connected cases); CO No. 48/2018 in LAA 217/2017 This High Court of Kerala decision arises from appeals under the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of the Thankalam Kozhippilly New Bye Pass Road across NH 49 in Kothamangalam taluk. Lands in Sy. Nos. 1021/6-A-3pt, 1021/6A-3pt and 1022/2-3 in Kothamangalam were acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer categorized the land as Category VIII wetland and awarded Rs 74,000 per acre; other categories IV and V carried higher values. The reference court increased the value for Category VIII to Rs 2,47,100 per acre, treating it in parity with dry land categories IV and V. The State challenged this, arguing that wetland land cannot be equated with dry land for compensation, noting that the Paddy Land and Wetland Act came into force only from 12 August 2008 and that pre-2008 wetland usage was not rigorously treated. The claimants contended that the land was converted with coconut trees, and injurious affection for the remaining land ought to be compensated. The court relied on Kader v State of Kerala to hold that injurious affection forms part of excess compensation and attracts interest. The result: the State’s appeals were dismissed; cross objections were allowed to the extent that injurious affection was enhanced to 50 of market value for the remaining land and carried interest, with costs to the cross objectors. The judgment clarifies treatment of wetland land for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and related statutes.
FAO No.26 of 2022 concerns a decree-holder’s challenge to an order setting aside a sale under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. The compromise decree had charged the plaint schedule property for Rs 54,15,228 with 10% interest, and the sale of the decree-scheduled property was proclaimed for 04.03.2020. The property sold comprised 39.68 acres and included a large multi-storey residential complex with 165 apartments. The judgment debtors (respondents) argued that the execution petition and proclamation wrongly described the property; they alleged the decree-holder did not have absolute saleable interest in the entire property, as parts of the land and the apartment complex belonged to or were developed by others, with third-party rights and mortgagees (e.g., Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation) not disclosed. They asserted that the marketing of the entire property for a relatively small upset price and the lack of notices to purchasers affected by the apartments violated mandatory requirements, constituting material irregularity and justifying setting aside. The trial court held there was a material irregularity and set aside the sale. The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where a sale is tainted by material irregularity or violation of mandatory provisions, Order XXI Rule 90(3) may not apply, and upheld the trial court’s order. The court emphasized protecting third-party rights and the integrity of the sale process, and dismissed the appeal with directions to proceed in accordance with law.
The common issue across four connected writ petitions before the Kerala High Court concerns the auction of Kuthaka rights in Sabarimala Devaswom during the Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season (1199 ME, 2023-24). The petitions challenge the e-tender process initiated by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) for Kuthaka items, based on an e-tender notification dated 24.08.2023. The central grievance is about eligibility criteria in Ext. P2 (general conditions) that demanded three years of IT returns and GST registration; these conditions were relaxed in Ext. P3 (21.09.2023), allowing certain bidders who allegedly did not meet the original criteria to participate. The petitioners contend that such relaxations were unfair and selectively benefited certain bidders (respondents 5-8) who were declared as successful bidders for various items, while a defaulter (8th respondent) had also been accommodated. They seek mandamus to re-tender all listed Kuthaka items and to quash Ext. P3’s paragraph (1) order. The respondents counter that the relaxation was necessary to achieve a timely auction during the festival season and to ensure the Devaswom’s revenue, and that post-notice verification will ensure compliance with eligibility norms. The court ultimately disposed the petitions with directions for a joint verification of the highest bids for specified items and, based on the outcome, to proceed with re-tendering where eligibility is not satisfied, while allowing successful bidders who meet criteria to be confirmed.”
Jose V. Cherry filed W.P.(C) No.6528 of 2023 before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the respondents to permit remittance of tax deducted at source (TDS) under Section 194-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the name of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, or to devise a mechanism to receive TDS from the vendor/court through the web portal and to register a sale deed issued by the Sub Court. The petitioner, plaintiff/decree holder in OS No.95/2012 of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, sought enforcement of a decree for specific performance against the 7th respondent, the judgment debtor. The 6th respondent directed the petitioner to deposit TDS equal to 1% of the value (Rs.55,000) in the name of the 7th respondent, whose PAN details were unavailable, and the petitioner could not deposit due to lack of PAN and because the e-treasury portal does not accommodate TDS from a court’s sale. The IT Department contended that TDS under 194-IA is mandatory and that PAN details are necessary; where PAN is unavailable, higher TDS of 20% may apply. The court examined whether the legal fiction under Section 201 could apply to a sale effected by a civil court in execution of a decree. Relying on J.K. Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, and East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, the court distinguished the applicability of the fiction from normal sales and held that the fiction cannot be extended to court-ordered transfers. The petition was disposed of with directions directing execution of the sale deed and registration without insisting on deduction proof of TDS, with tax consequences to be pursued against the appropriate transferor after registration.
This is a First Appeal from Order (FAO No. 92 of 2018) before the High Court of Kerala, arising from an interim injunction in OS No. 33/2017 of the Additional District Court, Ernakulam. The appellant, M/S Saina Video Vision, claims copyright rights in 32 Malayalam cinematograph films and seeks protection against the defendants who allegedly acquired internet and related rights via Ext.A2 from the original producer (the first defendant) and later transferred them to the third defendant. The trial court vacated an ex parte ad interim injunction and, after hearing, dismissed the injunction application primarily relying on a Madras High Court decision in Raj Video Vision v. K. Mohanakannan (1998 KHC 2341), which the Kerala court notes did not consider the implications of Section 17 on ownership. The appellant contends that Ext.A2, coupled with Ext.A1, conveys ownership to the assignee for valuable consideration and that Section 17 determines the first owner of copyright, allowing rights arising after the assignment to vest in the assignee unless there's a contrary agreement. The respondents argue that Ext.A2 did not contemplate internet rights and rely on Raj Video Vision and the second proviso to Section 18 as basis to limit rights. The Kerala High Court holds that a complete transfer can cover post-assignment rights under Section 17, distinguishes Raj Video Vision, and sets aside the trial court’s order. It makes the injunction absolute and directs expeditious disposal of the suit within six months.
Ajith A. Moopen, the petitioner, challenges Ext.P6, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer rejecting his Form 5 application for removal of land from the Data Bank. The petitioner holds 44.42 Ares (109.76 Cents) of land in Thrikkakara North Village, Ernakulam, in joint ownership with his mother and sister, and contends the land is classified as Nilam and was converted before 2008 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act 2008); thus, it should not remain in the Data Bank. He argues that the land was irreversibly converted and not cultivable at the time of Act 2008, and that Ext.P3 should have been decided in light of Ext.P5 (KSRSEC) and the precedents in Adani Infrastructures and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2014) and Lalu v. State of Kerala (2020). The High Court had previously directed the RDO to obtain KSRSEC’s report and decide Ext.P3 accordingly, citing Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022) and Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO (2023). The KSRSEC report (Ext.P5) suggested reclamation and cultivation earlier, but the RDO still refused removal, relying on the Agricultural Officer’s view. The petitioner contends the order is non-speaking and a misreading of Ext.P5, requiring independent assessment under Rule 4(4E) and 4(4F). The Court ultimately sets aside Ext.P6 and remands for fresh consideration within two months, using Ext.P5 and Rule 4(4F).
CRL.A Nos. 304 of 2017; 490 of 2017; 665 of 2017 This is a consolidated Kerala High Court judgment arising from SC No.388 of 2012, wherein three connected criminal appeals—CRL.A. No. 304 of 2017 (Shafeeq, third accused), CRL.A. No. 490 of 2017 (Vijith, second accused), and CRL.A. No. 665 of 2017 (Niyas @ Riyas, first accused)—were heard together. The prosecution alleged that on the night of 09.12.2010, the accused, in furtherance of a common intention to murder Baiju, trespassed into his courtyard, detained the victim, and the first accused stabbed him in the abdomen, after which all fled in a Tata Sumo. The fourth accused was acquitted at trial, while the Sessions Court convicted the first three accused under sections 302 and 341 read with 34 IPC, sentencing the first to life imprisonment and others to shorter terms. The High Court examined evidence from eye-witnesses PW1–PW3, including the victim’s siblings, and forensic material (Exts. P7, P34; MO1). It held that the murder was proven and that the first accused caused the fatal injury; however, it found insufficient evidence to prove that the second and third accused shared a common intention with the first. The appeals were partially allowed: the conviction of the second and third accused was set aside and they were acquitted, while the first accused’s conviction and sentence were sustained. The court also discussed the role of motive, scene of occurrence, identification of the accused, and the relevance of common intention under Section 34 IPC.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC heard by single judge, challenging proceedings in Crime No.763/2023 of Neeleswar Police Station. The petitioners (accused 1–12) faced offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506 and 308 read with Section 149 IPC. The petitioners contend that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and do not wish to pursue the prosecution; affidavits from victims in support of the settlement are filed. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement but concedes the matter is settled. Referring to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) (5) SCC 688) and the related line of jurisprudence including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the court reiterates the settled legal position: powers under S.482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences can be exercised when the dispute is private and the entire matter has been settled, with caution that serious/heinous offences or offences under special statutes cannot be quashed merely on settlement. Balancing private interest with public interest, the court finds the dispute private and the settlement genuine. Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed and all further proceedings in Crime No.763/2023 are quashed. The order notes the possibility of examining participation of S.307 IPC at an appropriate stage, if warranted, but ultimately quashes the proceedings.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case challenges the order/charge in CC No.13/2015 arising from Crime No.1697/2014 of Ettumanoor Police Station, where the petitioner, a schoolteacher, is charged under section 324 IPC for allegedly beating a child in the classroom on 19.11.2014. The petitioner argues that even if the allegations are assumed true, no offence is made out, citing Kerala High Court precedents that authorize reasonable discipline by teachers and parents and that corporal punishment can fall outside criminal liability if not intended to injure or cause serious harm. The petitioner relies on Nirmala v. State of Kerala (2020) 1 KLT 136, Abdul Vahid v. State of Kerala (2005) KLJ 579, and Jaya v. State of Kerala (2022) 1 KHC 678 to contend that reasonable punishment, given in the course of maintaining discipline, does not automatically amount to a criminal offence. The Public Prosecutor counters by noting that the child sustained serious injuries and that the determination of offences is a matter of evidence, not suitable for premature judicial interference. The court examines precedents addressing the boundary between disciplinary acts and criminal liability, ultimately holding that the material does not establish any offence, and accordingly quashes the impugned final report and all further proceedings against the petitioner.
CRP Nos. 562/2018 & 667/2019 These Civil Revision Petitions arise from an order of the Additional District Judge, North Paravur in O.P. (Electricity) No.170 of 2012, assessing compensation for loss caused by the 400 kV transmission lines drawn across land belonging to Santhosh and affecting the property of the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. The petitioners challenge the award for trees cut, the diminution in land value, and the yield based losses attributed to coconut palms and areca palms. The court below fixed the value of yields by calculating the number of coconuts and areca nuts produced annually, deducting immature fruits and expenses, and applying a multiplier of 8; it also fixed the compensation for other trees at a fixed sum. For diminution in land value, Ext.A2 sale deed and Exts.C1 and C1(f) commission reports guided a valuation of Rs. 1,00,000 per cent, with 25% of the land value awarded for the affected area and 100% for land under the tower. The court relied on KSEB v. Livisha (2007) 6 SCC 792 to justify the approach and held that government guidelines do not bind the court. The High Court dismissed both revisions, affirming the method and ordering payment within three months with 8% interest, and noting that any deposited amounts should be released.
The Crl.A. No.505 of 2017 concerns the appeal filed by Jimesh, the 1st accused, challenging his murder conviction in SC No.445 of 2014 from the Additional Sessions Court, Pala. The deceased, Jisha, who was in a live‑in relationship with him, died after sustained head injuries on 6 March 2014 at her family house. The prosecution alleged that Jimesh, suspecting an illicit relationship, armed himself with a square iron pipe (MO1) and repeatedly struck the deceased around 10:30 pm, causing fatal head injuries; the second accused (his mother) faced allegations but was acquitted. Twenty‑one witnesses testified and MO1 was recovered; the autopsy (PW7) confirmed death from head injury due to repeated blows. The trial court convicted Jimesh under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine. On appeal, the Kerala High Court examined whether the case falls within the Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (no premeditation, sudden fight, heat of passion, no cruel conduct). The defence contended the death occurred during a quarrel with a neighbor (PW4) and that the appellant suffered injuries, with no reliable evidence of his culpability. The High Court upheld the prosecution’s core finding of homicide but held that the four ingredients of Exception 4 were satisfied, reversing the 302 conviction to 304 IPC, and treating the already‑completed imprisonment as sufficient. The appeal was allowed in part, and the second accused was acquitted. The Registry was directed to communicate the judgment forthwith to the prison.
CRL.MC Nos. 3629/2017 and 3870/2017 These connected Criminal Miscellaneous Cases arise from an order taking cognizance in CMP No. 38/2016 before the JFCM, Kalady. The petitioners challenge the cognizance on the ground that the Magistrate did not consider the police refer report (Annexure-A10) while taking cognizance on a private complaint (Annexure-A11). The 1st respondent, Sofy Poulouse Kannapilly, alleges false allegations of police action against her sons and others. The core dispute concerns the interplay between a police charge-sheet (refer report) and a private complaint, and whether cognizance can be taken without considering the refer report in a case where a police case exists. The High Court references established principles from Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran and Kader v. State of Kerala to emphasize that the Magistrate must evaluate both the refer report under Section 173(2) CrPC and the final police report when cognizance is based on a private complaint, otherwise the cognizance order may be unsustainable. The Court quashes the order of cognizance, directing the Kalady JFCM to reconsider the Annexure-A11 complaint in light of the refer report and statements (Annexures A12) and the police refer report (Annexure A10), while applying the cited precedents to ensure protection of the accused and avoidance of frivolous proceedings.
WP(C) Nos. 9611 of 2021 and 14386 of 2021 Two writ petitions—WP(C) 9611 of 2021 and WP(C) 14386 of 2021—by One Earth One Life challenge assignment of forest lands under FRA 2005 in Kerala, contending that lands are being allotted to forest dwellers not in actual possession as on 13 December 2005, and in some cases within Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary and Attappady. The petition asserts that large numbers of records of rights are being issued on the basis of incomplete demarcation and without verifying actual possession, contrary to this Court’s 2015 decision in One Earth One Life v State of Kerala (WP 35501/2009), which held that forest land can be assigned only in respect of land actually possessed by forest dwellers and that settlements must be grounded on the land they possess. Interim orders in 2021 restrained grant of ROTs pending boundary survey and joint verification under Rule 12A. The respondents counter that FRA claims have been settled, joint verifications have been conducted, and hundreds of ROTs issued to eligible Tribals; they emphasize ongoing demarcation, GPS recording, and adherence to FRA and Rules. The court ultimately directs strict compliance with the 2015 judgment, joint verification, and boundary demarcation before any further ROTs are issued, restraining assignments to ineligible claimants.
CRP Nos.184, 230 & 236 of 2018 These Civil Revision Petitions arise from enhanced compensation awarded to landowners for trees felled and land diminution due to 400 kV transmission lines laid by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. in Kozhikode district as part of the Mysore–Kozhikode corridor. The respondents filed original petitions for compensation for value of trees and land diminution; although an initial enhanced compensation was granted, the petitioners were dissatisfied and the petitions were remanded for fresh consideration. On remand, the Additional District Judge enhanced compensation under three heads: trees cut; diminution in land value; and the grand total. The court’s reasoning reflected assessment of locational factors such as soil type, proximity to roads, and access, as well as the impact of the 400 kV line and the manner of drawing it across the petition schedule properties. It relied on the court’s own prior decisions and the Petronet v. Thresiamma precedent to calibrate deductions for crop yield (rubber deduction reduced from 60% to 40%; pepper, arecanut and coconut deductions around 43.75%), and approved an annuity-based treatment for non-yielding trees (50%). The Corporation contended lack of legal evidence for land value fixation and argued Exts. A11/A12 were not similar to the petition properties, while respondents argued the enhancement was reasonable after considering all relevant factors. The High Court found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the revisions, directing payment of the enhanced sums within three months.
The petitioner, Thiruvambady Devaswom represented by its Secretary, filed WP(C) No. 27333 of 2019 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent, the Principal Chief Conservator (Chief Wildlife Warden), Kerala Forests (Wildlife), to release the tusks of the deceased elephant Thiruvambady Unnikrishnan and to issue a certificate of ownership under Section 42 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The elephant died on 01.04.2017; postmortem was conducted on 02.04.2017 at the Kodanad Elephant Cremation Ground, after which the tusks were kept in safe custody by the Forest Department. Ext.P5, filed on 04.04.2017, claimed ownership; Ext.P6 indicated security concerns for not releasing the tusks. The petitioner argues that Sections 40 to 42, and the Declaration of Wildlife Stock Rules, 2003, govern declaration, inventory and ownership of captive-tusk articles, and that the 1st respondent failed to conduct a proper enquiry under Section 41 and the Rules before denying relief. The 1st respondent admits the elephant’s ownership in Ext.P1 and notes that the tusks are in custody to prevent illegal ivory trade. The court cites Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI to reiterate that courts cannot compel action contrary to law and must follow statutory provisions. Ultimately, the court directs the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Act and Rules within three months, with notice and hearing for the petitioner, and disposes of the petition with liberty to press other contentions.
