Petitioner Hussain Kunju challenges Ext.P7, a communication dated 13.02.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent, rejecting his application for a jewellery business licence in building TP/4/572 of Thazhava Grama Panchayat on the ground that the landlord's rental agreement had expired and that the consent letter from the landlord, as well as a renewed lease, should be produced for licence consideration. The petitioner asserts that he has been the tenant since 2000 under Ext.P1 lease and that his licence was renewed until 2011; after the landlord's objection the renewal did not take effect, though he continued to operate. He relies on Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandum and Another (2016 (3) KLT 247), contending that landlord consent is required only for initial licensing, and for renewal or subsequent applications such consent cannot be insisted upon. The respondent Panchayat submits that, since the licence expired in 2012 and there was no subsequent application, the present request constitutes a fresh licence requiring landlord consent. The Rent Control Court's Ext.P8 judgment shows eviction was dismissed, indicating the petitioner remains a statutory tenant entitled to occupancy unless evicted. The court held that tenancy creates implied consent from the landlord and that the Panchayat cannot insist on formal landlord consent or renewal lease for renewal. Ext.P7 is set aside; the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the licence application, without demanding landlord consent or a renewed lease, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is allowed.
962 of 2018; 18 of 2021; 170 of 2021 These three matrimonial appeals arise from family court proceedings at Alappuzha, challenging talaq, restitution of conjugal rights, and the recovery of gold ornaments in a Muslim marriage contracted in 2006 between Aneesha and Navas. Earlier, the couple had a long series of disputes culminating in a compromise under MC No. 96/2013, wherein Aneesha withdrew her claim for gold items, maintenance was settled at ₹5,000 per month, and criminal cases against Navas and his brother were withdrawn. After this settlement, Aneesha filed O.P. No. 150/2013 for recovery of gold, which was withdrawn as part of the compromise, and she later moved for restitution of conjugal rights, while Navas issued talaq. The Family Court, in O.P. No. 209/2015 (and related matters), ruled that the talaq proceedings did not comply with Muhammedan law and the Division Bench guidelines; it partly allowed the claim for restitution but did not grant full relief. The High Court heard Mat.Appeal Nos. 962/2018, 18/2021, and 170/2021 together and dismissed the appeals, concluding that the compromise did not validate the talaq, that there was no independent evidence to support restitution, and that the lower courts’ findings were legally sound. The judgment emphasizes strict adherence to Muslim law and cautions against reviving settled disputes without proper recall of compromises.
The petitioner, Jessy M. John, is a retired headmistress who challenges the pension fixation finalized after a 2009 pay revision and the subsequent recoveries effected from 21.07.2011. She contends that the Deputy Director of Education (DDE) re-fixed her salary and initiated recovery because her broken periods of service from 15.09.1992 to 19.03.1996 were not counted for weightage, resulting in an erroneous Ext.P2 fixation. She alleges that Exts.P3 (pay fixation) and Ext.P5 (order) were issued without hearing and in contravention of several court judgments (Kadeeja A., Lilly V.A., Havvaumma K.V.), as well as judgments later referred to in her pleadings, including the Supreme Court’s observations on recoveries in State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih and related precedents. She further submits that recoveries already made were illegal. Relying on Sabu Mathew (2017) and its confirmation by a Division Bench in 2019, along with GO(MS) No.401/2019/Fin, she seeks counting of broken service from 1987 and restoration of pension fixation with refunds of recovered amounts, if any. The Government Pleader argues reconsideration is necessary, without granting a direct declaration in her favor. The court ultimately orders a fresh consideration by the 3rd respondent within three months, directing adherence to the contours of GO(MS) 401/2019/Fin and ensuring benefits if the petition is ultimately found in her favor within two months of the resulting order.
The petitioner, Aparna Sasi Menon, owner of 68.78 ares of land in Pullut Village, seeks to exclude her property from the Data Bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The Data Bank, intended to contain cultivable paddy land and wetland within the jurisdiction of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), was formed to regulate reclamation and conversion. The petitioner filed Form-5 under Rule 4(4D) to remove the land, but the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejected Ext. P6 via Ext. P7 dated 05.01.2023, based on a report of 03.01.2023 by the Agricultural Officer (LLMC Convenor) following a site inspection. The LLMC minutes (Ext. P2) note features such as 60 coconut trees, water chals, and that the land was converted before 2008, and conclude that excluding the land would adversely affect nearby paddy cultivation. The petitioner contends the order is illegal for lack of personal inspection, and that the land, though described as paddy land in revenue records, was converted before 2008 and should be assessed under the Act’s framework; she asserts that denial would violate Article 300A and her property rights. Respondents argue the LLMC report supports retaining the land in the Data Bank to protect paddy cultivation. The court surveys Kerala Act 2008 provisions and several precedents (Salim C.K., Lalu P.S., Joy K.K., Arthasasthra Ventures) to hold that data-bank inclusion hinges on the land’s status as of 2008 and its fitness for paddy cultivation, and that the RDO’s order was illegal and unsustainable. Ext. P7 is set aside; the RDO is to reconsider the Form-5 application afresh with proper evidence within two months.
WP(C) Nos. 34872/2022, 34906/2022, 34908/2022 These parallel writ petitions, filed by Remadevi, President of Thiruvananthapuram Vanitha Sahakarana Sangam Ltd., challenge contempt proceedings initiated by the Kerala Lok Ayukta in CCC Nos. 9/2021, 10/2021 and 8/2021. The dispute arises from non-release of a fixed deposit of Rs. 5,00,000 allegedly due and payable by the petitioner in her capacity as head of the cooperative society. The petitioner contends the society faced financial distress, and she had given undertakings to repay the amount; she argues the alleged noncompliance was not wilful but due to extraneous reasons, and thus cannot attract civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. She also argues the Lok Ayukta has no adjudicatory power to entertain contempt petitions and that the undertaking was made on behalf of the society, not personally, so personal liability cannot be fixed. The Lok Ayukta’s reliance on a show-cause notice and Rule 9(ii)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act is highlighted, with reliance on precedents that limit Lok Ayukta’s powers and emphasize that contempt requires an executable order. The High Court, while acknowledging these principles, deemed the petitions premature, directing the petitioner to explain the show-cause notices and permitting her to raise tenable grounds in defence. The petitions were ultimately dismissed, with the court noting the Lok Ayukta’s investigatory role rather than an independent adjudicatory power and that the contempt framework requires an executable order for enforcement.
Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022; W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 This consolidated Kerala High Court judgment (dated 22 December 2022) concerns Customs Appeal Nos. 9–15/2022 and W.P.(C) Nos. 9058/2022 & 27835/2021 arising from Bangalore CESTAT Final Order No. 20057–20065/2022 and related SEZ orders. The importer Ashwin Gold Pvt. Ltd. (AGPL) and its Managing Director Sanjay Subrao Nikam challenge confiscation and penalties arising from alleged movement of gold between Cochin SEZ (CSEZ) and the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), including 4 kg of gold lying at Nedumbassery Air Cargo Complex. The Revenue contends that SEZ Act provisions (Sections 21–22) and the SEZ Rules regulate and allocate jurisdiction, while the Customs Act, 1962 governs seizure/forfeiture in DTA. The court undertakes a jurisdictional analysis, distinguishing arguments about exclusive SEZ jurisdiction, and ultimately holds that Customs Act jurisdiction applies to the DTA seizures while noting the nuanced interplay with SEZ regime. It sets aside the CESTAT order on several points, remitting the matters to CESTAT for fresh consideration, and directs release of 4 kg of gold on proper duties and regulatory compliances (including lodging a Bill of Entry). The writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the Customs appeals, with remand to CESTAT for afresh adjudication on merits and procedural grounds.
WP(C).No.25594 OF 2018(Y) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the appointment of an Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences, Mahatma Gandhi University, following Ext.P2 notification. The Selection Committee ranked the fourth respondent first and the petitioner second after interviews; the post remained vacant for over two and a half years due to a stay granted by this Court. The petitioner contends that the fourth respondent does not meet the prescribed qualifications—the Ph.D. is not in the same subject as the Master’s degree, questions regarding recognition by the university, and alleged deficiencies in publications and API scoring. Over time, the petition expanded to allege lack of post-doctoral fellowship, erroneous treatment of post-doctoral marks, and absence of an equivalency certificate for degrees obtained outside Kerala. The university responds that both candidates fulfilled the UGC Regulations, 2010 (Clause 4.3 and related provisions), with the Ph.D. in cultural studies treated as a valid allied discipline and that eight publications (with four in UGC journals) plus other credentials satisfied the eligibility criteria; the candidate’s equivalency issues were deemed non-dispositive for both candidates given the circumstances. The court cautions that pleadings must align with the original petition under Rule 155 and reiterates that a selection committee is an administrative body; in the absence of mala fides, the court should not substitute its own merit judgments. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed and the fourth respondent’s appointment stands.
Raziya, the petitioner before the Kerala High Court, obtained a loan from the Kerala State Co‑operative Bank and defaulted. The bank initiated proceedings under the Kerala Co‑operative Societies Act, 1969, prompting Raziya to approach the High Court seeking relief from coercive measures and an opportunity to settle the debt. Counsel for Raziya submitted that she should be allowed to clear the liability in installments and that she had complied with conditions set in interim orders. The respondent bank maintained that after adjusting credits from interim payments, the outstanding sum stood at Rs 31,76,425 as on 03-04-2023, and that instalment facilities should be provided to gradually liquidate the liability. The court considered these submissions and, balancing debt recovery with the debtor’s ability to pay, directed a repayment plan on specific terms: the entire outstanding amount plus bank charges to be repaid in twenty equated monthly installments, the first installment due by 30-04-2023 and each subsequent payment due on the last working day of the ensuing month, with a default clause permitting dispute resolution under law and with coercive proceedings to be kept in abeyance to facilitate repayment. The petition was disposed of accordingly. The appendix contains numerous exhibits including notices of demand and awards under ARC numbers. The order reflects the court’s preference for phased settlement over immediate coercion while ensuring eventual recovery. The directive aims to preserve the debtor’s capacity to repay while safeguarding the bank’s security.
The Poovar Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. approached the Kerala High Court with a writ petition challenging non-payment of compensation for a vehicle requisitioned by the District Disaster Management Authority during the Covid-19 outbreak and later used for election counting duties. The vehicle was requisitioned from 15 October 2020 to 31 October 2020, and again from 3 November 2020 to 11 December 2020; it was handed to the Deputy Collector (Election) for counting from 25 November 2020 to 11 December 2020 and remained in custody for roughly 55 days. The petitioner contended that, under Section 66(2) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, owners are entitled to compensation, not merely fuel charges. Respondents claimed fuel costs were reimbursed and argued no Election Commission order obliging compensation existed for election requisitions; they also noted an arbitration remedy under the Act. The court highlighted that Section 66(2) contemplates compensation to be determined by the Central or State Government based on local hire rates, with an arbitrator option, and cited a Kerala High Court decision (Mutholy Service Co-operative Bank) to support compensation for a specific period. The petition was disposed of with directions to compute compensation for the listed periods within two months and to consider municipal/panchayat act payments for another period within two months.
RPFC 286/2021; RPFC 64/2022 These revisions arise from an order of the Family Court, Tirur, dated 15.09.2021 in MC No.32/2018, directing maintenance of Rs. 4,500 per month to the respondent, who is the revision petitioner in RPFC 64/2022. The revision petitioner in RPFC 286/2021 contends that the family court erred in treating the revision petitioner as unable to maintain himself and in awarding maintenance to the respondent. The father, who is the revision petitioner in RPFC 64/2022, contends that Rs. 4,500 is on the lower side and should be enhanced, arguing that he deserted the petitioner years ago and is supporting a second family; he also asserts income of around Rs. 15,000 per month and health ailments, implying a genuine need for funds. The respondent in RPFC 286/2021 asserts that the petitioner deserted him 15 years back and is living with a second wife and child; Exts. P1–P10 and RW1–RW4 evidence show ailments and limited income, while the respondent notes the petitioner’s claimed assets are not sufficiently demonstrated. The court below found the petitioner unable to maintain himself, but noted that the respondent has a monthly income and a second family. It relied on Rajnesh v. Neha and another to consider the need for considering all sources of income. The Kerala High Court ultimately dismissed both revisions, upholding the Family Court’s maintenance order at Rs. 4,500 and declining to enhance it.
This Kerala High Court criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC challenges the conviction of Satheesh Kumar for possession of 10 litres of arrack under the Abkari Act, 1077. The trial court convicted him on the basis of seizure Ext.P1 and samples linked to a chemical analysis, but the appellant contends that the prosecution failed to establish a robust chain of custody: the seizure mahazar lacked seal impressions, no forwarding note was produced, and it is unclear when the sample was produced before the court or who held it in custody. Ext.P9 shows the chemical analysis, yet crucial gaps remain in tracing the sample from seizure to laboratory, raising serious doubts about tampering of samples. The defence relies on Moothedath Sivadasan and Another v. State of Kerala (2021 KHC 3232) to argue that the absence of a seal on the seizure document creates a fatal lacuna, and on Vijay Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2019 SC 3569) to stress that proof must cover every link in the chain. The High Court agrees that chain of custody is essential and that the evidence fails to establish it; consequently the conviction cannot stand. The appeal is allowed and the appellant acquitted under Section 386(b) CrPC; any deposited fine shall be refunded. The judgment underscores the necessity of robust linkage from seizure to laboratory analysis for conviction under the Abkari Act.
MFAR Hotels and Resorts Private Ltd. challenged an ITAT order that disallowed a revenue deduction for renovation and refurbishment of the International Convention Centre (ICC) within the Le Meridien hotel for AY 2011-12. The appeals (ITA Nos. 17 & 14/2019) concern whether Rs. 7,13,89,107 spent on renovation constitutes revenue expenditure under Section 37 or capital expenditure under Section 31. The Assessing Officer treated it as capital expenditure, while the CIT(A) allowed it as revenue expenditure. The ITAT upheld the AO’s capital expenditure view. In a common judgment, the Kerala High Court, composed of a Division Bench (S.V. Bhatti, J. and Basant Balaji, J.), held that the Tribunal’s conclusions did not faithfully apply binding precedents on the revenue-vs-capital distinction. The court canvassed the enduring-benefit doctrine, current repairs versus replacement, and the tests laid down in several precedents (notably Saravana Spinning Mills, Lakshmiji Sugar Mills, Travancore Cochin Chemicals, Ballimal Naval Kishore), and concluded that the expenditure could fall within revenue expenditure under Section 37, not bringing into existence a new asset. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of law and binding precedents. The cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous, and the appeals were allowed to the extent indicated, with remand.
The Kerala High Court hears this criminal appeal (CRL.A No.2940 of 2008) by Manoj, challenging a conviction for an offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act based on possession of two litres of arrack detected on 17 December 2005 at Ottappalam. The trial court sentenced the appellant to one year’s simple imprisonment and a Rs. 1 lakh fine after finding him guilty. The appellate court scrutinizes key evidentiary aspects: (i) delay in producing seizure properties and the sample, (ii) whether the arrest/detection was performed by an officer empowered under the Abkari Act, and (iii) whether the chain of custody from the place of seizure to the Chemical Examiner’s laboratory was properly established. Relying on Ravi v. State of Kerala and Sasidharan v. State of Kerala, the court stresses that seizure properties should be reported forthwith and, if production is delayed, there must be a satisfactory explanation; inadequate testimony from the property clerk and Excise Guard undermines the possibility that the sample remained tamper-proof. It also observes that mere lab analysis without a proven linkage to the seized sample is insufficient. Citing Sathi, Krishnadas, and Vijay Pandey, the court emphasizes that the sample’s integrity and proper sampling procedures are indispensable. The absence of such link evidence and the reliance on an officer not empowered under older notifications ultimately leads to reasonable doubt. The appeal is allowed, and the accused is acquitted, setting him at liberty.
W.A. Nos. 718 & 673/2022; W.P.(C).No.19531/2022 Two writ appeals (W.A. Nos. 718 of 2022 and 673 of 2022) along with W.P.(C).No. 19531 of 2022 challenge the legality of the selection process for a member of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC). The court considers the staged shortlisting that trimmed an initial pool of 95 applicants down to a final shortlist of five for interview. The petitioners/appellants contend the process was marred by illegality, particularly: (i) the age-based ceiling imposed at a late stage (61 years as on 23.12.2021) and (ii) the insistence on production of ACR/VC (Annual Confidential Report/Vigilance Clearance) as a shortlisting criterion, which had not been strictly required earlier in the process. They argue the ACR/VC requirement had been dispensed with earlier in the process and its sudden reintroduction, without a reasonable opportunity to produce records, was arbitrary and illegal. The State and KSERC defend the criteria as rational for managing a large field of candidates, noting the progression from 95 to 28 candidates. The court, while accepting the initial trimming to 28, holds that applying ACR/VC at a later stage and re-imposing it after it had been dispensed with constitutes illegality. It directs the Selection Committee to either re-interview all 28 candidates or re-shortlist on the basis of ACR/VC with a reasonable opportunity to produce missing records, and to proceed from the 28-person list.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2163 OF 2007 Vasudevan Kochuputhenparambil challenges his conviction under the Abkari Act, arguing serious defects in the prosecution evidence. On 8 February 2003, police intercepted him with two litres of arrack near a stationary shop in Karuvatta; the contraband was seized, and he was arrested. The prosecution relied on seizure mahazar, sample bottles, and a chemical analysis to establish possession and sale under Abkari Act sections 8(1) and 8(2). The trial court convicted him; the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The High Court, in revision, examines defects raised by the petitioner: (i) absence of specimen impression of the seal in Ext. P1 seizure mahazar, (ii) absence of a forwarding note, (iii) two sample bottles but only one reached the chemical examiner, (iv) lack of examination of the custodian about the second bottle, and (v) unexplained delay of over two years in filing the final report, contrary to Section 50 Abkari Act. The court also notes references to binding precedents such as Moothedath Sivadasan, Bhaskaran, Kumaran P, and Chandran on chain of custody, seal integrity, forwarding notes, and delay prejudicing the prosecution. After considering defects and delay, the High Court allows the revision petition and acquits the petitioner under Cr.P.C. 235(1), with bail canceled and liberty granted; the substantive sentence, being tied to the petitioner’s death in 2012, abates, while the Rs. 1 lakh fine, if any assets exist, may be realized.
The petitioners, a husband and wife, challenge the Basic Tax Register entry that describes their land of 3 acres 67 cents in Survey No. 372/3, Valakom, as Nilam (paddy land). Ext.P1, P3, P4 and earlier deeds describe the property as Purayidam, with Ext.P19 (1958) and Ext.P20 (1978) indicating Purayidam prior to the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and the 2008 Paddy Land/Wetland Act, respectively. The land has not been used for paddy cultivation for decades, with trees aged 62–80 years, and earlier official opinions (Ext.P7/P13) showing it was converted land before the KLU regime, though the Data Bank did not include it. The petition sought reassessment under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and correction of the Basic Tax Register, arguing that the land should be treated as Purayidam and not Nilam; the LLMC’s inspection suggested the land was not in Data Bank and could be changed, and the Tahsildar pointed to Section 27A of the 2008 Act for unnotified lands. The court held that Section 6A cannot alter land nature; post-2018 amendments require pursuing Section 27A for changing the land’s nature, and that data-bank-related corrections must follow these provisions. Since the petition predates or does not satisfy the amended procedures, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit, with the court relying on authorities like LLMC Mariyumma and Thomas George to support the principle that entries can be corrected only under proper statutory avenues.
Crl.M.C. No. 1049 of 2015 This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 1049 of 2015) before aSingle Judge of the Kerala High Court, arising from Crime No. 779/2009 of the Thrissur East police station and the final report in C.C. No. 192/2014. The petitioners, Bridal Kuries Private Ltd and four listed individuals, are accused of offences under Section 294A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The complainant, M/s Dhanasree Service Society represented by its Secretary, alleges that the scheme named Bridal Manikyam was a prize chit with prize distributions, including cars, motorcycles and jewellery. The petitioners contend the allegations are baseless, there was no actual prize distribution, and the proceedings are an abuse of process; they claim the activity is not a conventional chit and that no subscriber has complained. The State’s counsel maintains that witnesses describe prize distributions and that the scheme falls within the Act’s prohibition, designed to protect public interest. The court analyzes the Act, especially Section 2(e) defining prize chit, and holds that the petition falls within the Act’s prohibitions. It also notes that the decision in T. Hamsa Haji cannot be applied to these facts and dismisses the Cr.M.C. as devoid of merit.
This writ petition challenges the State Election Commission’s order (Exhibit P7) in IA No.26/2021 in OP No.14/2021, concerning disqualification under Section 3(1)(a) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999. Sindhu Anilkumaar, elected as an independent candidate from Ward No.1 of Pavaratti Grama Panchayat with INC support and later aligning with the UDF, faced allegations of defection for voting contrary to INC directions and contesting for the Panchayat President with LDF backing. The 2nd respondent, Vimala Sethumadhavan, filed OP No.14/2021 before the State Election Commission alleging disqualification under the defection act. Exhibit P7 records the Commission’s view that the disqualification question is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence, and that it could not be adjudicated as a mere preliminary issue. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection to maintainability, citing Santhosh George v. P.S.Mathai and Another; the respondent argued that the matter falls under a different statutory framework (Kerala Local Authorities Act and related Rules) and requires evidence. The court ultimately agrees with the EC that maintainability as a preliminary issue need not be decided first, and relies on Unni K.G. and Abdul Gafoor cases to affirm the Commission’s jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no relief to the petitioner.
Sabarmathy Jayasankar, a public-spirited resident of Karunagappally, filed WP(C) No. 15424 of 2014 (S) seeking a writ of declaration that respondents 6 to 8 have encroached upon Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited’s land and should be evicted, alleging that KMML had acquired around 42 acres for a railway line and spent funds to bring coal and other materials. He claimed encroachments by the 6th to 8th respondents, including a hospital, a private college, and other structures on KMML land, and criticized the Special Tahsildar (LA) for allegedly favoring encroachers. The petitioner relied on RTI replies showing limited action and pointed to PLP 114/2013, where Legal Services authorities had considered the matter and closed the petition. KMML and authorities contended there were no encroachments and that past actions by KMML and the LA office had vindicated their position. The High Court, after examining the background and quotes PIL jurisprudence including the relaxations in locus standi and the need for bona fides, held that the petition did not satisfy the requirements of Public Interest Litigation and that there was no substantial public interest shown. The Court dismissed the petition, noting the Covid-19 context and refraining from imposing costs. The decision underscores cautious, principled application of PIL to avoid misuse and protect public resources.
W.A. No. 614 of 2022 (and connected matters) These writ appeals arise out of a dispute involving default on a loan by a writ petitioner and alleged misappropriation of fixed deposits in a cooperative bank in Alappuzha district, Kerala. The appellant Bank contends that its financial crisis stems from misappropriation committed by ex- office-bearers and bank employees, with deposits totaling around Rs. 117.15 crore against loan liabilities of approximately Rs. 35 crore, including misappropriated deposits of about Rs. 34 crore. The petitioner depositors sought a direction to adjust matured fixed deposits (FDs) of respondents R-8 and R-9 against the petitioner’s loan liability, so that only the balance would be payable. The learned Single Judge largely accepted this approach, directing that matured FD amounts could be adjusted against loan liabilities, with remaining liability to be borne by the writ petitioner. The Bank argued that such inter se adjustments are banking transactions, not appropriate for public-law remedy under Article 226, and that the dispute is subject to statutory remedies under the Kerala Co‑operative Societies Act (Sec. 69 ARC) and potentially a revival scheme. The Full Bench decision cited (Shanmukha Sundaram Pillai v. Meenachil Rubber Marketing & Processing Co‑op. Society) holds that the Registrar has no power to compel release of matured FDs under Sec. 66A in individual cases. On these and other grounds, the Division Bench set aside the impugned order and interdicted the directions, noting the risk to the bank’s viability and the availability of statutory remedies. The matter is left open for pursuing ARC or other legal avenues under law. The appeals thus stand disposed: WA614 disposed with impugned order set aside; other WAs (943/2021, 958/2021, 1030/2021, 1037/2021) are dismissed.
