1. Mere Chance For Occupation Of Premises Via Licence Not Sufficient To Make One Necessary/ Proper Party In Appeal Between Licensor & Licensee: Kerala HCCase Title: Big Movers v. Reeni George & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 27The Court ruled that a mere possibility of an individual occupying the premises through a licence is not adequate to make them a necessary party or a...
Case Title: Big Movers v. Reeni George & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
The Court ruled that a mere possibility of an individual occupying the premises through a licence is not adequate to make them a necessary party or a proper party in an appeal pending between the licensor and the licensee. Observing so, Justice A. Badharudeen rejected the application filed by the petitioner to get impleaded as an additional respondent in the appeal.
Case Title: Shyju P.K. v. Nadeera & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
The Court while allowing an appeal ruled that a party's defence can be struck off for non-compliance of an order for payment of pendente lite maintenance only as a last resort and if it is found that the default is deliberate and willful. A Division Bench of Justice A. Mohamed Mustaque and Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked so while adjudicating upon an appeal filed by a man against the Family Court's order striking off his defence for failing to pay maintenance pendente lite.
Case Title: Mahesh Lal N.Y v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
The Court has ruled that the consent of an accused is not necessary to acquire their voice sample for the purpose of comparison since it has already been established that obtaining voice samples of the accused do not infringe Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. While dismissing a petition alleging that the accused was not given an opportunity of being heard before being directed to produce his voice sample, Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi held that the accused has no right of option in the matter.
4. Kerala High Court Extends Validity Of All Interim Orders Till February 21 Amid COVID-19 Surge
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
A Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P. Chaly 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 surge in Covid-19 cases and the Test Positivity Rate in the State. As such, the Bench revived an earlier order it had passed on 19, May 2021 in which it had issued directions for the extension of interim orders.
Case Title: Thomas Mathew v. State Tax Officer & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
The Court has held that there is a clear distinction between refusing to consider an application and rejecting one with reasons while finding that an officer should specify reasons while denying copies of statements made to the parties in an investigation. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that since it is settled law that reasons should be reflected in the order, the Proper Officer should have given reasons for refusing to grant copies of the witness statements.
Case Title: Justine Pallivathukkal v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
The Court ruled that merely because the Kerala State Commission for Minorities (Amendment) Act, 2017 permits appointing Chairperson and members from the same community, it cannot be said to be conferment of unbridled power infringing rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. While dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly while referring to Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act and National Commission for Minorities Act observed that such an amendment did not violate any rights under Part III of the Constitution.
Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
The Court issued a set of further directions to ensure that no new unauthorised flag posts, banners or boards are installed in the State and to remove the already existing ones within a period of 30 days. Justice Devan Ramachandran found it imperative to notify such guidelines after observing that people had fallen back to their lackadaisical attitude regarding the erection of illegal boards, banners and flag posts in the State within a few months after the Court issued strict orders against the same.
8. Maoist Threat In Locality Valid Reason To Deny NOC For Explosive Licence : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rajan K. v. Additional District Magistrate & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
Justice N. Nagaresh while dismissing a petition challenging the decision of a Magistrate held that the presence of a Maoist threat in a locality is a sound reason to deny a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for an explosive license. It was also held that the fact that there is an Anganwadi or a PWD road nearby is also sufficient for such rejection. The Court further noted that the presence of Maoist terrorists and the perceived threat posed by them is a very relevant factor in the context of public interest.
Case Title: Nisha Suresh v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
The Court granted bail to a 33-year-old woman suffering from multiple disabilities who allegedly dropped her newborn into a bucket of water, resulting into the infant's death. The infant was her sixth child, and reportedly a consequence of unintended pregnancy. Justice Gopinath P. released the woman on bail noting that her custodial interrogation may not be necessary in the investigation of the case.
Case Title: Arun Raj P.N. v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
The Court barred all public gatherings exceeding 50 individuals in the Kasargod district for a week citing the increasing number of Covid-19 cases, posing a major setback to the ongoing District Meet of the ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist). The Court passed the order in a writ petition which alleged that the District Collector had revoked an earlier order that limited attendance in public meetings to facilitate the CPI(M)'s Kasargod District meet.
Other Significant Developments
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep &Ors v. State of Kerala &Anr.
The Court granted interim relief to actor Dileep in the recent case registered by the Kerala Police for allegedly conspiring to kill the police officers investigating the 2017 sexual assault case. The actor had sought a pre-arrest bail in this matter. Justice Gopinath. P has restrained the police from arresting him till January 27th. Meanwhile, Dileep and other accused have been directed to appear before the police for interrogation at Crime Branch Office on 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2022 from 9 am till 8 pm.
The Court partly allowed the application filed by the State government challenging the trial court's order in the sensational actress sexual case that involves Malayalam actor Dileep, which had rejected the prayer to re-examine certain witnesses and summon additional witnesses. The prosecution had sought before the trial court to re-examine 6 witnesses, 1 witness cited but not examined and 9 additional witnesses who were not cited as witnesses in the final report.
The Court impleaded and directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the case where an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (ASI) is accused of demanding bribe for the release of two girls from a children's home to their parents. While ordering so, Justice Devan Ramachandran explained why a VACB probe was necessary in the matter and how it could serve as a lesson for other officers in the force.
Also Read: Around 25 Government Pleaders, Several Staff Test COVID Positive In Kerala High Court
4. Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Former Chief Airport Officer In Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: Giri Madhusudana Rao v. State of Kerala
The Court granted anticipatory bail to former Chief Airport Officer (CAO) of the Trivandrum International Airport, Giri Madhusudana Rao in the case where he was accused of raping a lady staff working under him. Justice P. Gopinath granted the pre-arrest bail considering the age of the petitioner and his ailments. The pe-arrest bail was granted with a condition that the petitioner, although currently placed under suspension, shall not enter the workplace until the filing of the final report.
Also Read: Former Chief Airport Officer Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Pre-Arrest Bail In Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: Adivasi Dalit Munneta Samiti & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors
The Court directed the State government to inform the time frame required to allot inhabitable land to the landless Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes individuals at Chengara who have been fighting for their land for two decades, which soon shaped a campaign and came to be known as the 'Chengara land agitation'. While requiring the State to disclose the name of the officer who had been entrusted with identifying and allotting such land, Justice Devan Ramachandran also reflected on the disproportionate hold up in granting benefits to those who lost their land to State acquisition:
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala
The Court directed the State government to explain its actions taken in furtherance of its K-Rail Silver Line project and to justify the manner in which the survey is conducted by its instrumentalities. Upon being informed that a survey was being conducted before a Detailed Project Report (DPR) was drafted, Justice Devan Ramachandran found it imperative for the State to explain its actions within the framework of statutory formalities.
Also Read: Man Seen Shaving/Brushing With His Camera On Before Kerala High Court VC
The Court directed the State Police Chief to enquire into the allegations raised by actor Dileep that the media was flouting the trial court's order restricting the publication of matters related to the 2017 actor assault case till the conclusion of the trial. Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked that the allegations if found to be true, should be handled with prompt action as prescribed by law. The Judge also issued notice to ReporterTV and posted the matter to be heard after 3 weeks.
Also Read: [Actor Assault Case] Restrict Media Coverage Until Conclusion Of Trial: Dileep To Kerala High Court