Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: [2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92 - 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 102]
Nominal IndexCitations: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92 - 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 102Rajesh R & Ors. v. Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Kochi & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92Mangala v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 93Dr Subramanian Swamy v. V.N. Narayanan & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 94Denny Varghese & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 95Dr...
Nominal Index
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92 - 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
Rajesh R & Ors. v. Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Kochi & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
Mangala v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
Dr Subramanian Swamy v. V.N. Narayanan & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
Denny Varghese & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
Dr Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. v. The Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
Manual v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
P.P. Thobiyas & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
Sivasankaran v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
Suseela v. Thiruvanathapuram Corporation & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
Mini & Ors. v. Assistant Executive Engineer & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
Suo motu case 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
Judgments This Week
1. Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Curb Operation Of Unauthorised Street Vendors In Kochi
Case Title: Rajesh R & Ors. v. Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Kochi & Ors. and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
The Court issued a comprehensive list of directions to ensure strict implementation of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 within the limits of Kochi Corporation and to ensure that only authorised vendors carry on street vending activities therein. Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar issued the directions in a batch of petitions pending before the Court since 2019 concerning the issue of regulation of street vending activities within the limits of the Kochi Municipal Corporation
Case Title: Mangala v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
The Court recently held that mere permission to work from home is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court within whose jurisdiction the employee is working. Justice Sunil Thomas answered the question of jurisdiction for legal claims of remote employees and ruled that merely because they are permitted to work from home and the employer was aware that the employee was within a different jurisdiction was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
3. Kerala High Court Quashes Consumer Forum Proceedings Against Subramanian Swamy
Case Title: Dr Subramanian Swamy v. V.N. Narayanan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
The Court allowed the petition moved by BJP Rajya Sabha MP and former Union Minister Dr Subramanian Swamy to quash the non-bailable warrant issued by the Thrissur Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (CDRF) against him citing that he had not received any notice of these proceedings. The Court has also quashed the Execution Proceedings pending as against Swamy after accepting his submission that he has neither received any notice of the proceedings nor engaged any lawyer to represent him there.
Case Title: Denny Varghese & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
The Court refused to interfere with the State government's proposal to alter the examination pattern for State Board exam students this academic year as opposed to the last one. In the proposed examination pattern, 70% of the questions will be from the focus area and the rest 30% from the non-focus area. In addition, there will be 50% choice questions for focus area and non-focus area. Justice Amit Rawal opined that such a question pattern and evaluation can identify the most eligible from the rest.
Case Title: Dr Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. v. The Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
The Court has dismissed an appeal against a single judge order upholding the re-appointment of Dr Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University. The issue has been gaining momentum in Kerala since this is the first time in the history of the State that a Vice-Chancellor was reappointed. Moreover, it is reported that he was reappointed into office hours after his send-off ceremony as the outgoing VC.
Case Title: Manual v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
In a noteworthy decision, the Court has ruled that the admin of a WhatsApp group cannot be held vicariously liable if a member of the group posts objectionable content in the group. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that this was so because vicarious liability in criminal law can only be fastened when a statute prescribes so.
Case Title: P.P. Thobiyas & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
The Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable against the Kerala Football Association since it was a private organisation and was not discharging public functions. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan held so in a petition challenging a circular issued by the Association mandating a deposit of Rs. 25,000/- with tax as eligibility criteria to participate in the State Championship League.
Case Title: K. Sivasankaran v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
The Court ruled that what is expected from the competent authority while ordering an inquiry under Section 65(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 on the basis of information gathered either on his own or received from other sources is that there shall be an independent and active application of mind as to whether there shall be an inquiry or not. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha reiterated that the only requirement of law in the matter of ordering an inquiry under Section 65(1) is that the competent authority has to come to a conclusion on an active application of mind.
Case Title: Suseela v. Thiruvanathapuram Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
The Court has ruled that an Interim Development Order (IDO) issued under Section 63 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 will prevail over the previous Master Plan of a city even if a new Master Plan has not been sanctioned yet. Justice T.R. Ravi ruled that although Section 36 says that the older Master Plan shall continue to be in operation until the new one is sanctioned, when an IDO has been issued, that shall take over the old Master Plan.
10. Claiming Adverse Possession After Encroachment Into Public Road Not Admissible: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mini & Ors. v. Assistant Executive Engineer & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
The Court has ruled that a petitioner claiming the right of adverse possession after encroaching into a public road cannot be treated as a usual plea of adverse possession. Holding so, Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking title over property by adverse possession when the petitioners had failed to present a prima facie case in their favour.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
The Court extended the life of all interim orders passed by the High Court and all courts and tribunals falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court for another month taking into consideration the fluctuation in the Test Positivity Rate in the State. A Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P. Chaly extended the validity of its previous order extending all interim orders till 21 February amid the Covid-19 surge in the State.
Other Developments:
12. Kerala High Court To Resume Physical Hearing From Monday, February 28
The Court has issued a notice communicating its decision to resume physical sitting from Monday, February 28, 2022. This comes days after it issued a notice announcing that virtual hearing of cases shall continue till mid-March amid the steady hike of Covid-19 cases in the State. However, it was clarified that physical sitting will resume once the Test Positivity Rate in the State drops below 10%.
Case Title: Arun Raj P v. State of Kerala & Ors
The Court lashed out at an advocate clerk for filing a second Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging violation of the order issued by Chairperson of State Disaster Management Authority imposing restrictions on political gatherings in the State. Calling it a 'cheap publicity stunt', a Division Bench of Justice Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran pulled up the petitioner and warned him of dire consequences if this was repeated in future.
Case Title: Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.
The Court stayed the demand notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax asking the State Co-operative Bank to pay the outstanding amount for the financial year 2019-20 in a plea moved by the said Bank. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas issued the interim order considering that the matter relating to the collection of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on interests by the Co-operative Banks is sub-judice before the Court.
The Court impleaded two more parties to the suo motu matter where devotees were allegedly made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar allowed the impleading applications filed by an NGO and Akhila Kerala Thantri Mandalam and directed them to file their affidavits by the next posting date.
Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police
The Court lashed out at the State government for its incapability to prevent unauthorised flag masts being erected at different parts of the State by political parties, despite its specific and repeated orders against the same. Justice Devan Ramachandran reiterated that every flag post put up without the requisite permission is illegal and that influential people should not be allowed to get away with it.
17. Kerala High Court Reserves Order In Dileep's Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court reserved orders in the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Kauser Edappagath extensively heard all the parties in detail over a period of three days before reserving verdict in the case. The case made headlines once again in 2022 when film director Balachandrakumar made shocking disclosures against the actor bringing out new allegations against him.
The Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) has addressed a letter to the Registrar General complaining about the prevailing entry restrictions to the virtual hearings happening at the Chief Justice's court. It has been mentioned in the letter that the Association has been receiving several complaints from advocates, frequently encountering difficulties entering the Virtual Court proceedings of Court 1. This is the Court of Chief Justice S Manikumar, where he presides with Justice Shaji P Chaly.
19. Kerala Police Notice To Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai Evokes Protest By Lawyers
The Executive Committee of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association conducted a protest meeting against the notice issued by the Crime Branch to Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai at the portico of the Court. This comes after the Crime Branch issued a notice under Section 160 CrPC (requiring attendance of witness) to the senior advocate notifying him to be prepared to give a statement in a crime related to witness tampering in the 2017 actor sexual assault case.