Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 508-558]Midland Rubber Produce Company ltd. V. Uthayasuriyan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 508C.P. Pappachan v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 509Sheeba George v. State Election Commission & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 510Nishad Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 511The General Manager South Railway v. R....
Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 508-558]
Midland Rubber Produce Company ltd. V. Uthayasuriyan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 508
C.P. Pappachan v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 509
Sheeba George v. State Election Commission & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 510
Nishad Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 511
The General Manager South Railway v. R. Haridrakumar 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 512
Manager, Sunniyya Arabic College v. State of Kerala & Ors and Aboobacker E.K. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 513
Sreekanth Sasidharan v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 514
Capt. Rajeev Thotten v. Air India Express Ltd & Ors. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 515
Muhammad Afreethi v. Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 516
State of Kerala & Anr. v. Veluswamy & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 517
Selvara A. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Walayar Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 518
The Kerala State Insurance Department v. P. Rajan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 519
Lalan P. R. & Anr v. Chief Registrar General of Marriages (Common) & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 520
Sreenath Bhasi v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 521
State of Kerala v. Civic Chandran and XXXXX v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 522
Prakash Karat & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 523
Solaman v. The State Police Chief and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 524
Suhasini v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 525
Chorayil Kunhiraman v. Sharaful Islam Madrassa Committee 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 526
G. Nagendran v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 527
Praveen K.R. & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 528
Rinu Sreejaya Aswan @ Rinu S Aswan v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 529
State of Kerala v. Civic Chandran @ V. Kuttan and XXXXX v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 530
Muhammed Shafi & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
K. T. Rajendran v. Director General & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 532
Jithin @ Kannan v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
The Manager, Sree Vivekananda Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala & Ors and Other Connected Cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 534
Pavithralal B. R. v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 535
M. Shabeer v. Anitha Bajee & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 536
Self Financing Arts & Science College Managements Welfare Association (KSMA) v. State of Kerala & Ors and Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
Dr. R. Prakash v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 538
Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd v. K.N. Madhusoodanan & Ors. and Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. v. P.K. Vijayakumar @ Puthalathkuttan Nair Vijayakumar & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 539
Case Title: B. Madhukumar Vs Commercial Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 540
Jancy Joseph v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 541
State Information Commission v. C. V. Rajendran and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 542
P.V. Mathai v. State of Kerala & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 543
Jollyamma V. Thomas v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 544
Sabu Thomas v. The Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors. and Other Connected Cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
Renoj R.S. v. State of Kerala & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 546
Dr. Nicky K. Xavier v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Dr. Nicky K. Xavier v. Dr. P. Balakrishnan & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 547
M.M. Madhavan Namboodiri & Ors v. The Tahsildar Thamarasseri & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 548
Abeyson P John v. Station House Officer & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 549
Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
Mathew Joseph v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 551
George Jose P.J. v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 552
Shilpa Nair v. State of Kerala (Deleted) 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 553
Sandra Stephen v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 554
Annamma Raju @ Bincy & Ors v. Shalet Jose & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
Asha Bawri v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
XXXXX v. State of Kerala & Anr.: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 557
Aleyamma Kuruvila v. Mahatma Gandhi University 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 558
Judgments /Orders This Month
Case Title: Midland Rubber Produce Company ltd. V. Uthayasuriyan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 508
The Kerala High Court on Friday observed that the limited enquiry contemplated under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is only to find out whether a proper domestic enquiry has been held to prove the misconduct attributed to the workman and whether he has been afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
Justice Mohammed Nias C P observed that proviso to Section 33 (2)(b) is for the protection of the workman and to shield the workman against victimization or unfair practice by the employer during the pendency of an industrial dispute when the relationship between them is strained.
Case Title: C.P. Pappachan v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 509
The Kerala High Court on Friday contemplated the question as to whether non-compliance of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice by the court staff would be sufficient ground to non-suit the complainant or any party, and answered the same in the negative.
Justice A. Badharudeen, while holding so, observed, "It is the settled law that fault committed by the court shall not stand in the way of non-suiting the aggrieved party before the court. The maxim 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit' embodies the said principle. That is to say, the act of Court shall prejudice no one. In such a situation, Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong".
However, on noting that many complaints and petitions were forwarded to the High Court without seal as mandated under Rule 28, and taking note of the seriousness in non-payment of court fees in petitions before the criminal court, the Court in this case issued direction to subordinate courts that the aforementioned Rules 28 and 29 of the Criminal Rules of Practice ought to be strictly complied with.
Case Title: Sheeba George v. State Election Commission & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 510
The Kerala High Court recently held that when a candidate, who contested elections as an independent contender, subsequently makes a declaration about being a candidate of a party or coalition, the same would attract disqualification on the ground of defection under Section 3(1)(c) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999.
Upholding the decision of the State Election Commission to disqualify an elected member of Keerampara Grama Panchayat, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly said the law relating to defection in regard to the members of the local body has been made with the intention of upholding the constitutional principles, the democratic setup and the rule of law prevailing in the country. "This we say because, in order to sustain the faith of the citizens in the democratic set up of conducting elections, and for retaining and sustaining the confidence of the citizens on the candidates elected by the electorate, a strict view is to be adopted in the matter of defection. It is with the said basic intention that the Act, 1999 and Rules, 2000 were brought into force," said the court.
Case Title: Nishad Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 511
The Kerala High Court recently held that where the accused has himself conceded the jurisdiction, and the trial has been completed, the question of territorial jurisdiction cannot be raised at the fag end of the trial and transfer of the case on this ground cannot be sought for.
The Court in this light, taking note of precedents, observed that as per Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), it would be clear that when there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction, lack of territorial jurisdiction or ground of irregularity of procedure an order or a sentence awarded by a competent court could not be set aside unless a prejudice is pleaded and proved, which would mean failure of justice. Justice A. Badharudeen, further observed that, "as per the settled position of law, the objection regarding question of territorial jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest and at any rate, before adducing evidence or examination of witnesses in the Court".
Case Title: The General Manager South Railway v. R. Haridrakumar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 512
The Kerala High Court recently observed that as per the provisions of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, a railway servant compulsorily retired from the service as a penalty has no vested right to stake a claim for the entire pension or gratuity, as the quantum of pension and gratuity to be granted is at the absolute discretion of the employer.
A division bench consisting of Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Mohammed Nias C P, further observed that past service can be forfeited or pension can be withheld to the extent which the Regulations permit, and this exercise of discretion cannot be termed as a secondary punishment.
Case Title: Manager, Sunniyya Arabic College v. State of Kerala & Ors and Aboobacker E.K. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 513
The Kerala High Court recently held that where a post has been reserved for blind/ hearing impaired candidates under Section 34 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), candidates having locomotor disability cannot ordinarily raise a claim to be appointed to the said post, but only at the last instance where no such candidates originally eligible to the post are available.
"...going by Section 34 of the RPwD Act, even if the post in question was one which was deserving of being reserved for candidates under its ambit, it could have been offered only to a "blind" candidate and to no one else. It is only if no such candidate is available and consequently, a fresh notification issued, wherein, again persons from the "blind" or "the hearing impaired" categories are not available, can a person like the petitioner (Safeena), with locomotor disability, be considered", Justice Devan Ramachandran observed.
Case Title: Sreekanth Sasidharan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 514
The Kerala High Court on Thursday reiterated that if a man retracts his promise to marry a woman, the consensual sex they have had will not constitute rape unless it is established that the consent was obtained by him by giving false promise of marriage with no intention of adhering to it, and that promise made was false to his knowledge.
Quashing a rape case against a 33-year-old man, Justice Kauser Edappagath said the relationship between the accused and the complainant appears to have been purely consensual in nature. There is no allegation that when he promised to marry her, it was done in bad faith or with the intention to deceive her, said the court.
Case Title: Capt. Rajeev Thotten v. Air India Express Ltd & Ors. and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 515
The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed the petitions of three retired pilots who had approached the court seeking re-engagement on a contract basis with the Air India Express Ltd. In 2020, the contract appointments of the petitioners had been terminated.
Justice Anu Sivaraman at the outset observed that the Air India subsidiary is no longer a public sector undertaking after privatisation and therefore the issuance of public law remedy in the nature of a writ against it cannot be sought now. The court added that the only question which remains would be as to the legality of the order of the termination passed by Air India Express Ltd when it was a PSU.
Case Title: Muhammad Afreethi v. Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 516
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed Ilaha College of Arts and Science to admit a candidate who had been denied admission on the belief that he would disrupt the discipline of the College.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, while issuing the direction, was of the view that the petitioner was being denied admission to the College based on 'speculative reasons'.
"...it is evident that the College is refusing admission to the petitioner based on certain speculative reasons. It may be true that there was an incident in the past, which led to a police complaint being filed against the petitioner, but this does not ipso facto mean that his attempt is to 'wreck vengeance'", the Court observed.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Anr. v. Veluswamy & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 517
The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that testimony alone, of an interested party seeking exemption under Section 3(2) of Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignments) Act, 1971, is not sufficient to establish that the disputed property was cultivated during a particular time.
The Act prescribes that the ownership and possession of all private forests in the state of Kerala shall stand transferred to and be vested in the Government. Section 3(2) however is an exemption clause for land comprised in private forests held by an owner under his personal cultivation.
Case Title: Selvara A. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Walayar Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 518
The Kerala High Court on Friday declared that when specific provisions have been provided under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 for determining the continuance of a person as a member of Society, the same would have to be adhered to.
Justice T.R. Ravi, while allowing the petition filed by members of the Walayar Milk Producers Cooperative Society, thus observed, "When specific provisions are set out in the Act, to deal with different situations regarding the continuance of a person as a member of Society, action can be taken only in accordance with the said provisions".
Case Title: The Kerala State Insurance Department v. P. Rajan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 519
Setting aside the award directing the Kerala State Insurance Department to pay compensation in a road accident claim case, the Kerala High Court Friday said since the policy was not issued by it, the department cannot be charged with liability to pay compensation. However, the court added, since the department took more than eight years to deny the policy, the claimant deserves to be compensated.
The department had challenged the award of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Kozhikode dated 19.10.2005 in a case dating back to 1995. The sole ground was that since the vehicle in question was not even insured by it, the liability of compensation is illegal. The vehicle was instead insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, which was not even made a party before the tribunal.
Case Title: Lalan P. R. & Anr v. Chief Registrar General of Marriages (Common) & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 520
In a significant order, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that the religion of the parties is not a consideration for registering marriages under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan observed, "The only condition for the registration of the marriage as per Rule 6 of the Rules, 2008 is that the marriage is to be solemnized. Religion of the parties is not a consideration for registering marriages."
It added that simply because the father or mother of one of the parties to a marriage belongs to a different religion, it is not a reason to reject an application submitted for registration of the marriage as per the Rules, 2008.
Case Title: Lalan P. R. & Anr v. Chief Registrar General of Marriages (Common) & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 520
In a significant order, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that the religion of the parties is not a consideration for registering marriages under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008.
While passing the order, Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan quoting the famous words of 'Sree Narayana Guru', which says that this is a place where people reside in brotherhood without any difference based on their caste and religion, remarked that in a state like Kerala, where Great Reformers like Sree Narayana Guru and Ayyankali lived and propagated the principle of secularism, it is unfortunate that nowadays attempts are made to hijack the names of these reformers by certain caste group as their caste leaders.
Case Title: Mr. Sreenath Bhasi v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 521
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday quashed the criminal proceedings that had been initiated against Malayalam film actor, Sreenath Bhasi, for using filthy language against a female interviewer, following a settlement between the parties.
Justice Kauser Edappagath, while passing the order, observed that,"The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings".
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Civic Chandran and XXXXX v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 522
The Kerala High Court on Thursday, while disposing of two pleas challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to the author and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case, expunged the 'sexually provocative dress' remark of Kozhikode Sessions Court.
Justice Kauser Edappagath, while disposing of the two pleas moved by the State as well as the De facto complainant against the anticipatory bail order, observed that even though the reason shown by the Court below for granting anticipatory bail cannot be justified, the order granting anticipatory bail cannot be set aside.
Case Title: Prakash Karat & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 523
Quashing the criminal proceedings against 12 CPI(M) Leaders, including the state Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, Former CM V S Achuthanandan and Polit Bureau member Prakash Karat in a case alleging unlawful assembly and rioting, the Kerala High Court on Thursday said the right to dissent and the freedom of expression which is contrary to the views of the government is not an offensive conduct.
"The right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to form an assembly guaranteed under the Constitution will be a dead letter if every assembly is regarded as offensive conduct," said the court.
Case Title: Solaman v. The State Police Chief and Ors.
Case Title: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 524
The Kerala High Court recently appreciated the "invaluable assistance" rendered to it by the State Police in disposing a habeas corpus writ petition.
The Division Bench consisting of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran exalted the assistance of various Police Personnel within State Police Department in tracing out the person, alleged to have been illegally detained, both within and outside the state.
Case Title: Suhasini v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 525
The Kerala High Court recently observed that as per Kerala Prisons and Correctional Service (Management) Rules 2010, there is no absolute bar in granting parole to the convict even if he had previously absconded.
Landlords Exempted From Kerala Rent Control Act Free To Waive Such Benefit: High Court
Case Title: Chorayil Kunhiraman v. Sharaful Islam Madrassa Committee
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 526
The Kerala High Court recently held that landlords who are exempted from application of all or any of the provisions of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 are free to waive such exemption.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Sureshkumar and Justice C.S. Sudha held that the exemption granted under Section 25 of the Act is a 'privilege' which the landlords may waive. It observed: "...a notification under Section 25 has been issued by the Government by which certain building or class of buildings have been taken out of the purview of the Act. Therefore it is a benefit or privilege that has been extended or given to the landlords or owners of such buildings, which they are free to waive".
Electricity Dues Of Previous Consumer Create First Charge On Property: Kerala High Court
Case Title: G. Nagendran v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 527
The Kerala High Court on Friday observed that though the subsequent purchaser of a property is not liable to pay the dues owed to the Electricity Board by a previous owner; however, the dues from the previous consumer would create a first charge on the property in question.
Justice Shaji P. Chaly further clarified that the Electricity Board is entitled to recover the dues by proceeding against the property over which a charge is created, consequent to non-payment of the electricity dues by the previous consumer. "...Even though the subsequent purchaser of a property is not liable to pay the dues of a previous owner, the dues from the previous consumer would create a first charge on the property in question; thereby meaning that the board is entitled to recover the dues proceeding against the property over which a charge is created consequent to non-payment of the electricity dues by the previous consumer".
Case Title: Praveen K.R. & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 528
The Kerala High Court on Monday interpreted the 1st proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, and held that the provision does not mean that the validity of rank lists issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission would have to be extended by a further period up to the date that coincides with the expiry of one month after the last batch of persons advised under the extended period commenced their training.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., observed that holding to the contrary would result in an endless loop. Taking note of the facts of the case, it was observed that this would mean, "... All vacancies reported till (the date on which the last batch of candidates advised pursuant to the vacancies reported commenced their training, and the expiry of period of one month thereafter) would then have to be ascertained and candidates from the rank list advised to the said vacancies. We would then, yet again, have to ascertain the date on which the last batch of those candidates commenced their training and so on. This contention of the petitioners is clearly untenable since, accepting the same would result in a never-ending process of extension of a rank list till all candidates in the list are advised to vacancies that are reported during the period of each extension. This could never have been the intention of the rule makers. We also find that an acceptance of the contention of the petitioners would render meaningless the phrase "within a period of one year from the date of finalisation of the ranked lists" that finds mention in the 1st proviso to Rule 13".
Every Driver Legally Presumed To Know Speed Limit Prescribed By Central Govt: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rinu Sreejaya Aswan @ Rinu S Aswan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 529
The Kerala High Court recently held that Central Government notifications prescribing the maximum speed limit are mandatory as per Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and every driver is legally presumed to know the same. It added that this obligation is irrespective of whether mandatory traffic signs have been put up by the State indicating the reduced maximum speed limits on various stretches of the roads.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed, "it can be seen that when speed limits are fixed by the Central Government, every driver of the vehicle is duty bound to follow the limit prescribed therein. It may be true that the State Government by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 116 of Act 1988 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 112 is duty bound to fix traffic signs showing the speed limits, but once the maximum speed limit is fixed by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette, the said speed limit is legally presumed to be known to every driver driving vehicles on the road, depending on the nature of the road and the speed limits earmarked for such routes. This in our view, is a mandatory requirement under section 112(1) and the proviso to it, of the Act 1988".
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Civic Chandran @ V. Kuttan and XXXXX v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 530
Allowing the state government and victim's petitions challenging the sessions court order, the Kerala High Court on Thursday cancelled author and social activist Civic Chandran's anticipatory bail in a sexual harassment case.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that prima facie case is made out alleging the commission of offences under the SC/ST Act and Section 354 of IPC. "Having appraised the facts of the case with a view to find whether a prima facie case is made out alleging commission of offences under Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act, the said case is specifically made out. That apart, a non available offence under Section 354 of IPC also is made out. In such a case, the finding entered into by the Special Judge giving a clean chit to the accused at the investigation stage itself cannot be justified so as to anull the entire prosecution even before completing the investigation".
Case Title: Muhammed Shafi & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed the plea moved by the three accused persons in the recent human sacrifice sase against the Magistrate Court Order granting police the custody of the accused for 12 days. The Court has however, permitted the accused to meet their lawyer for 15 minutes every alternate days. However, it has been expressly stipulated that the presence of such lawyers would not be permitted during interrogation of the accused in police custody.
Justice Kauser Edappagath, while passing the order observed that, the Court below had passed the impugned order granting police custody with "great care and caution". The Court further found merit with the submissions made by the prosecution that, "the accused persons cannot dictate in what manner investigation has to be carried out".
Case Title: K. T. Rajendran v. Director General & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 532
The Kerala High Court recently observed that offences under Sections 354, 506 and 509 IPC may not fall within the ambit of 'sexual offences' for the purpose of cancellation of Airport Entry Permit as included in the provisions of Airport Entry Permit Guidelines, 2019. Section 354 penalizes use of assault or criminal force upon woman with intent to outrage her modesty; Section 506 provides punishment for criminal intimidation; and Section 509 criminalizes use of words, gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
Justice V G Arun found merit in the contention that the term 'sexual offence' is given as a caption to only Section 375 and related offences in the Indian Penal Code, the allegation raised against the petitioner under aforesaid Sections may not fall within the ambit of sexual offence.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Main Accused In AKG Centre Attack Case
Case Title: Jithin @ Kannan v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 533
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted bail to a Youth Congress leader who was arrested last month for his alleged involvement in the attack on the AKG Centre, which is the State Committee Office of the CPI(M).
Justice Viju Abraham, considering the fact that the investigation has considerably progressed and there is no allegation that anyone was injured during the alleged incident, said the further detention is not required for the purpose of the investigation.
Case Title: The Manager, Sree Vivekananda Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala & Ors and Other Connected Cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 534
A division bench of the Kerala High Court recently upheld the decision of the Single Judge holding community-based reservation of 10 percent seats in plus one admissions of aided higher secondary schools run by managements, other than minorities and other backward classes communities, as unconstitutional.
The division bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen said the 10% community quota reservation was simply a resurrection of what had been struck down by another Division Bench earlier in Akhila Kerala Dheevara Sabha & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. "We are of the firm view that the present 10% reservation quota in managements other than minority and backward class communities is nothing but old wine in a new bottle, and it is a mere resurrection of the very same quota, which was interfered with by the Division Bench and accepted by the State, since the issuance of G.O. dated 09.06.2003. We are not in a position to appreciate why the State Government has again resurrected the 10% community quota in the present cases", the bench observed.
Case Title: Pavithralal B. R. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 535
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the Public Interest Litigation challenging the display of star plates and the use of flags on the cars of senior police officers.
The division bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed that symbols and markings are used by the high ranking police officers for the identification purpose by the other police officers and other officials on traffic and law and order duty. "The public may not be affected by using the boards with symbols as permitted under the law by the superior police officers in contemplation of the Rules and the law … Therefore, the public interest raised by the petitioner in the writ petition does not have any force," said the court, while dismissing the PIL.
S.138 NI Act | Fine Imposed Must Not Exceed Double The Cheque Amount: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M. Shabeer v. Anitha Bajee & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 536
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday said that the maximum amount of fine, including the interest, imposed in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must not exceed twice the amount of the cheque.
Justice A. Badharudeen said the punishment provided for commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act is imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. "Thus the statutory provision is clear that the maximum fine shall be twice the amount of the cheque and nothing more. So, a blanket order, as in a civil case, directing the accused to pay fine amount along with interest @ 9% per annum for the principal cheque amount if exceeds at the time of payment, in excess of double the cheque amount, the said course of action is not permitted under law and courts must ensure that while ordering payment of fine, the same shall not exceed double the cheque amount," said the court.
Case Title: Self Financing Arts & Science College Managements Welfare Association (KSMA) v. State of Kerala & Ors and Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
The Kerala High Court recently set aside the Administrative Sanction issued by the Government to Kannur University in favour of TKC Education and Charitable Society (TKC) for starting a new Arts and Science College for the academic year 2022-23. The court said the Vice Chancellor of the University had acted beyond the scope of his powers while considering TKC's application, which admittedly was incomplete.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said the VC has been statutorily vested with great powers when it requires immediate action, enabling him to exercise any power vested with the Syndicate or Academic Council of the University.
Case Title: Dr. R. Prakash v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 538
The Kerala High Court recently directed the state government to reconsider its decision in a case where an application for reimbursement was rejected because Apollo Hospital, where the patient had gone for treatment in 2011, was a non-recognized hospital under the Medical Reimbursement Scheme and no prior permission had been obtained for availing the treatment there.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said the incident happened in 2011 "when surely our systems were far behind from what we see today". No decision could have been taken by the government without making a proper investigation as to whether treatment availed of by the petitioner was absolutely necessary or whether he had any alternative in Kerala, said the court.
Case Title: Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd v. K.N. Madhusoodanan & Ors. and Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. v. P.K. Vijayakumar @ Puthalathkuttan Nair Vijayakumar & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 539
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that writ petitions cannot be instituted against the matter of rejection of nomination for election to the post of Director in the Board of a private banking company.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly while in appellate jurisdiction found that the writ petitions before the Single Judge were not maintainable. it observed, it may be true that the Dhanalakshmi Bank, though a private Bank, may be discharging certain duties with respect to receipt of deposits and issue of loans and other financial activities. But the said duty cast upon a private Bank like the appellant, even assuming it as a public duty, has nothing to do with the election to the Director Board of the banking company, whose activity is confined to the realm and control of the shareholders of the appellant company.
VAT Defaulter Not Liable To Pay Collection Charges If Opts Amnesty Scheme: Kerala High Court
Case Title: B. Madhukumar Vs Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: WP(C) No. 14030 Of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 540
The Kerala High Court has held that collection charges are not payable if a VAT defaulter opts for the Kerala Amnesty Scheme, 2017.
The single bench of Gopinath P. has noted that the petitioner had settled the liabilities in terms of the provisions contained in the Amnesty Scheme of 2017, which was introduced by the provisions contained in the Kerala Finance Act 2017.
Case Title: Jancy Joseph v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 541
Quashing a preventive detention order under Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (KAAPA), the High Court recently said the authorities should have considered the option of bail cancellation in respect of the first case against the detenu before resorting to the extreme measure of preventive detention.
The court clarified that it was not saying that such an option should "necessarily be mechanically pursued" in all cases, but asserted that consideration of such an option was highly crucial and relevant to the case before it.
The Division Bench consisting of Justice Alexander Thomas and Sophy Thomas said, "We have to bear in mind that, at the end of the day, what is involved is the curtailment of the personal liberties and freedoms of the detenu, which are guaranteed in terms of the safeguards contained in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India."
Case Title: State Information Commission v. C. V. Rajendran and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 542
The Kerala High Court has held that when a complaint is filed before the State Information Commission under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act for illegal denial of information, it may impose a penalty on the errant Public Information Officer. However, the provision does not empower the State Commission to direct the PIO furnish such information to the requester.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar observed that in case of withholding of information, the aggrieved cannot resort to Section 18 of the Act to get access to the information since the Statute provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by a refusal to provide information under Section 19.
Case Title: P.V. Mathai v. State of Kerala & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 543
Quashing the criminal proceedings against a 58-year-old man from Ernakulam, the Kerala High Court has said that Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted when there is no allegation of use of assault or criminal force, or in absence of an accusation that such act was done to deter the public servant from discharging her officials duty.
The accused had been booked under Section 353 IPC ( Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) for entering Karimannoor Agriculture Office in April 2019, abusing the office staff in loud voice and "deterring" the agriculture officer from discharging her official duty.
Case Title: Jollyamma V. Thomas v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 544
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday suggested the General Education Department of the State to constitute an expert committee to address issues plaguing its internal functioning such as recruitment, database management, etc.
It noted apparent absence of accurate data on students, instructors, and non-teaching personnel in the State's Government and Aided Schools, eventually leading to increased disputes and consequential litigation.
It suggested the Department to form a committee comprising former DGEs with experience, experts from State Government initiatives such as KITE (Kerala Infrastructure and Technology for Education), Digital University Kerala, Indian Institution of Information Technology and Management-Kerala and legal professionals with practical knowledge.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. was of the view that a substantial amount of litigation can be avoided if the department implements some improvements by leveraging the power of information and communication technology.
Case Title: Jollyamma V. Thomas v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 544
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday observed that there is no ban on the continuation of disciplinary proceedings by Educational Authorities against teachers who are subject to criminal prosecution for offence of child harassment or offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act.
The Court noted that as soon as a teacher is arrested for a crime, they are suspended from their service. However, in the majority of instances, educational authorities do not complete the disciplinary processes under a mistaken impression that they cannot proceed against the teacher until the Criminal Court has rendered a decision in the pending case.
Case Title: Sabu Thomas v. The Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors. and Other Connected Cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
In a special sitting held on Monday, the Kerala High Court granted relief to eight Vice Chancellors of Universities in Kerala, who were asked by the Chancellor of the Universities(the Governor of Kerala Arif Mohammed Khan) to resign today.
The Court held that all of them could continue in their positions till a final order is passed by the Chancellor/Governor against them on the basis of the show-cause notice issued by the Chancellor to them today. The Court thus, set aside the the communications issued by the Chancellor asking the VCs of the Universities to resign vide its judgment dated 24.10.2022.
Case Title: Sabu Thomas v. The Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors. and Other Connected Cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
The Kerala High Court on Monday observed that the Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, in his capacity as the Chancellors of nine universities, could not have asked the Vice Chancellors to resign. The Court made this observation in the order passed in the writ petitions filed by eight Vice Chancellors challenging the instruction issued to them by the Governor on October 23 to resign by today 11.30 AM.
The Court has accordingly, set aside the communications issued by the Chancellor asking the VCs of the Universities to resign.
Case Title: Renoj R.S. v. State of Kerala & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 546
The Kerala High Court has held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) prevails over the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). Thus, when offences under both the Acts have been alleged, the accused would be entitled to avail the procedure contemplated under the former for bail.
The Court found that by virtue of Section 31 of the POCSO Act which makes the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) applicable, the accused person could approach the High Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while holding so, observed that,"...it is pertinent to notice that despite the SC/ST Act being amended in 2015 and 2018, the overriding effect of POCSO Act, in the event of inconsistency, has not been nullified or interfered with by the Parliament. Thus, it is evident that the legislature intended to give supremacy to the POCSO Act, even over the SC/ST Act, in the event of any inconsistency".
Case Title: Dr. Nicky K. Xavier v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Dr. Nicky K. Xavier v. Dr. P. Balakrishnan & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 547
The Kerala High Court recently held that a candidate who had initially applied for the post of Scientist E-1 in the Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI) in 2012, but did not apply again after a third notification was issued for the same posts in 2015, cannot be granted benefit of exemption from applying afresh as the same was only for those candidates who had submitted applications in response to a second notification in 2013.
Upholding a single bench order, the division bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed that the second notification did not contain a clause which exempted persons who had applied in response to the first notification from applying afresh.
"This would mean that the appellant who had responded to Ext.P23 notification (first notification), lost his opportunity for consideration to the post in question with the cancellation of the said notification and the re-notification through Ext.P24 notification (second notification)".
Case Title: M.M. Madhavan Namboodiri & Ors v. The Tahsildar Thamarasseri & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 548
The Kerala High Court recently held that the time limit fixed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) for filing a written statement is only directory in character, and not mandatory.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, perused various Apex Court precedents in arriving at its finding, and found favour in the submissions made by Advocates B.G. Bhasker and Biju Abraham appearing for the appellants. It observed, "when the Apex Court has expressed its opinion on the interpretation of a statutory provision, whether it forms part of the ratio or not, all the Courts will have to follow the opinion of the Apex Court in regard to the interpretation".
Case Title: Abeyson P John v. Station House Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 549
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday reiterated that if the Panchayat/ Municipality or any contesting party takes a stand that a land was voluntary surrendered, the burden would be on the said Panchayat/Municipality or contesting party to establish such voluntary surrender.
Justice Anu Sivaraman observed that if there is any case of voluntary surrender of any property by the petitioner or his predecessors-in-interest, it would be for the contesting party respondents to prove the same before the appropriate authorities.
Case Title: Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
The Kerala High Court on Thursday addressed the issue of massive encroachment upon Government properties, particularly by religious/ charitable institutions and expressed dismay at the inaction on part of the Government, political leaders and the society at large.
"A congenial environment is still in existence in the entire State of Kerala promoting encroachment over the Government land with the apparent acquisition of properties by such institutions. This has given immense wealth and authority to religious institution to dominate the will of Government machineries and it is injurious to our democratic system and the principle of equality and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution".
Justice P. Somarajan thus directed that both the State and Central Government would be duty bound to follow the Constitutional mandate and preserve properties of bona vacantia and property that belong to the public at large. The Court directed that the properties obtained by such religious or charitable bodies and institutions have to be enquired into and investigated by taking proper action against the culprits.
Case Title: Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
The Kerala High Court on Thursday requested the Central Government to explore the possibility of a uniform Central legislation to regulate the functioning of charitable organizations and religious institutions.
Justice P. Somarajan made the above request while addressing the issue of massive encroachment upon Government properties, particularly by religious/ charitable institutions, and the inaction on part of the Government, political leaders and the society at large in this regard.
Case Title: Mathew Joseph v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 551
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday observed that once the charge memo issued to a delinquent employee is set aside by a competent forum, the suspension order that is dependent on it also ceases to have force of law.
Division Bench consisting of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. observed that when the memo of charges is set aside, then there exists no enquiry in the eye of the law and thus, the employee must be deemed to be in service without any proceedings till the issuance of fresh proceedings, if any. Therefore, the employee is also entitled to the salary and other benefits for the said period.
Case Title: George Jose P.J. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 552
The Kerala High Court on Thursday granted bail to person accused of attempting to kill another for losing a carom game.
Justice Viju Abraham in the order said:
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is in custody from 05.10.2022 onwards and also the fact that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. In the result, the bail application is allowed.
Case Title: Shilpa Nair v. State of Kerala (Deleted)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 553
The Kerala High Court recently held that enhancement of annuities paid to the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and prescription of interest for the delayed payment is a matter to be decided by the legislature, since it can be effectuated only by appropriate amendment to Section 6 of the Sree Pandaravaka Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1971.
The development comes in a plea seeking enhancement of annuities by 25% every four years. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed, '...any such increase shall be taking into account the prevailing state of affairs, including the rate of inflation and change that has been brought about in the nature and complexity in the administration of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple over a period of time. All the same, it is a matter for legislation. This Court is not expected to direct the State to carry out a legislation in a particular manner".
Case Title: Sandra Stephen v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 554
The Kerala High Court has prima facie held that the extent of family house plot of a married woman living separately cannot be a reason for denying her EWS Certificate. It thus directed the Village Officer to issue a provisional Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Certificate to the Petitioner, subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition.
Justice V G Arun while admitting the Writ Petition, observed that:
I find prima facie merit in the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, being a married woman living separately, the extent of her family's house plot cannot be a reason for denying the EWS certificate to the petitioner.
Case Title: Annamma Raju @ Bincy & Ors v. Shalet Jose & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that when transfer of a vehicle has been effected following the procedure in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurance policy taken out in respect of the vehicle is also deemed to have been transferred in favour of the transferee without any further process.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., in this light further found that, "Though sub-section (2) of Section 157 provides for intimation of such transfer, since the statute is silent as to the consequence of failure in doing so, it can only be treated as directory in nature and not mandatory".
Case Title: Annamma Raju @ Bincy & Ors v. Shalet Jose & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that the stipulation under Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to intimate about the transfer of a vehicle to the Insurance Company within a period of 14 days of such transfer is only directory in nature, and not mandatory.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A. arrived at this finding on the reasoning that no consequences for non-compliance of the provision has been stipulated in the Act. The Court also found this view to be fortified in terms of Rule 144 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, formulated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Case Title: Asha Bawri v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
The Kerala High Court has held that mere shifting of liability after a cheque has been issued would have no significance since penal provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act would attack the person who issued the cheque, particularly when a prima facie case has already been made out.
In this case, the drawer of the cheque sought to quash the criminal case against him which was instituted after the instrument was dishonoured, on the ground that all previous liability would be undertaken by one Montu Saikia as per a registered agreement.
Case Title: XXXXX v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 557
The Kerala High Court has held that in order to attract an offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the accused must not be a member of the SC/ST community and must be shown to have committed the offence with the knowledge about victim's caste/ community. In the absence of an averment to that effect, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) would not be attracted.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed,
"Merely because a person who does not belong to a member of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, the offence u/s 3(2)(v) would not get attracted...The word found in the provision being "knowingly", an allegation about the assailant's knowledge or awareness that the victim is a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe at the time of the commission of the atrocity described under the provision must be there. Without the element of knowledge being incorporated in the allegations, the offence is unlikely to be attracted."
Case Title: Aleyamma Kuruvila v. Mahatma Gandhi University
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 558
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday observed that appointment to the post of College Principal must be thorough a valid Selection Committee as stipulated under the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the Apex Court has made it clear that only a person appointed as per the provisions of UGC Regulations 2018 can continue be an Officer of the University.
Other Significant Developments This Month
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday initiated suo motu proceedings on the Vadakkancherry bus accident. In the early hours of Thursday, nine people, including five students were killed, and more than 50 others were injured when a tourist bus carrying school children rammed into a KSRTC bus at Vadakkenchery in Palakkad District.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar initiated the suo motu proceedings and has sought report from the Police Department and the Motor Vehicles Department on the accident. Flashy lights and sound systems, which were banned by the Court, were used in the bus.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday reserved its decision in the batch of petitions seeking enforcement of 'Right to be Forgotten' and consequent removal of a judgement copy and information related to it from various online portals.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, after hearing the submissions of Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, appearing on behalf of Google LLC, reserved the matter.
Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Corporation of Cochin
The Kerala High Court on Thursday, expressing distress over the Vadakkanchery bus accident, suo motu impleaded the Transport Commissioner, who is also the Road Safety Commissioner, as an additional respondent in a pending matter related to the poor condition of roads in the state.
Directing the officer to personally remain present before the court on Friday, the court said the pain of "the families, the parents, the children, the husbands and the wives" requires an urgent intervention and no more time can be lost. Nine people including five students were killed and more than 50 others were injured when a tourist bus carrying school children rammed into a KSRTC bus at Vadakkencherry in Palakkad District.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the recurrence of accidents is due to the lack of strict enforcement of the law. At the outset in its order, the court said while it has been struggling to obtain semblance of road safety in the state, the "horrific news of an accident awoke us in the morning".
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
In the wake of the tragic Wadakkanchery accident in Palakkad district, the Kerala High Court has called for strong action against tourist buses fitted with illegal modifications and YouTube vloggers who promote such vehicles which pose "potential threat to the safety of passengers and other road users".
The Court noted that the tourist bus involved in the accident had several unauthorized alterations as its passenger cabin was fitted with multi-coloured LED/Laser/Neon lights, flash lights and high-power audio system producing loud sound. The windscreen of the bus had huge graphical inscriptions obstructing the vision of the driver. The Court also noted that the vehicle, which rammed into a KSRTC Bus during the early hours of October 6, was fitted with multi-toned horn in violation of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules.
The bench comprising Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajithkumar also strongly condemned the action of the vloggers and others who upload videos on 'YouTube' and other online platforms, promoting the use of motor vehicles in public places, flouting safety standards and has directed the Transportation Commissioner to take action against them.
Adani Vizhinjam Port: Kerala HC Orders Removal Of Tent At Protest Site
Case Title: M/S Adani Vizhinjam Ports Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Dr. V.P. Joy IAS & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed that the tent erected by protestors on the road leading to under-construction Vizhinjam Port be immediately removed.
"The respondents shall take appropriate steps to see that the 'panthal' obstructing the road to the project site is immediately removed," said the court.
Justice Anu Sivaraman passed the order on a submission made by the counsels representing Adani Vizhinjam Port Limited that the "obstruction" has not been removed even after previous orders from the court.
Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Corporation of Cochin
The Kerala High Court Friday said that the recklessness on the wheel will not be tolerated and directed the Transport Commissioner to ensure strict enforcement of law on the roads to send a stern message to all the drivers that they will be held accountable for their actions.
Justice Devan Ramachandran in a warning to the drivers said: "The unmistakable caution to a driver, that recklessness on the wheel and the proclivity to violate law, will never be tolerated and will be dealt with the most stringent response in law ... is to be fostered and inculcated, because otherwise, nothing can change."
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Baiju Kottarakkara
The Kerala High Court has initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the Malayalam film director Baiju Kottarakkara for making abusive remarks during a news channel discussion on May 9 against a trial court judge, who is hearing the 2017 actor abduction and assault case.
In the Draft Charges sent through Registrar General to the 56-year-old director, the High Court said his remarks "intended to characterize the judge who conducts the trial and scandalize the judiciary as well."
In a notable order, the Kerala High Court recently allowed a senior citizen aged 61 years to seek cycro-preservation of his sperm, considering the fact that he was suffering from a rare cardiac condition.
A single bench of Justice VG Arun granted this interim relief while considering a writ petition filed by the man and his 39 year old wife challenging the age-limit under the Assisted Reproductive Technology(Regulation Act 2021.
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) v. Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Dr T.M. Thomas Isaac v. The Deputy Director
The Kerala High Court has put on hold for two months the further issuance of summons against Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) and Former Finance Minister of Kerala Dr Thomas Issac in connection with ED probe into alleged FEMA violations in the issuance of Masala Bonds in 2019. The development comes in the pleas challenging ED summons in connection with the investigation into the financial transactions of KIIFB.
Justice V G Arun observed even though the investigation conducted by the ED cannot be interdicted, there is no justification for petitioners being repeatedly being summoned.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court held that the head of the educational institution would be held liable if any tourist bus, which does not meet the safety standards and standards prescribed in relation to control of noise, is used in any public place for carrying students from that educational institution.
"In case any contract carriage, which does not meet the safety standards and the standards prescribed in relation to control of noise is used in any public place for carrying students from any educational institutions, the head of that educational institution and also the teacher or teachers, who are in charge of that trip, who are least bothered about the safety of the students, shall also be proceeded against, in accordance with law," said the court.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday took note of the reports stating that two women were abducted and killed as part of a black magic ritual at Elanthoor Village in Pathanamthitta, and expressed its shock and disbelief at the news.
Justice Devan Ramachandran wondered where the State was heading to, while referring to the incident.
"Some of the things happening here are beyond the limits of absurdity. Today it is human sacrifice. I wonder where Kerala is going," the court observed
Case Title: Dr. Naveen Prakash Nautiyal v. Union of India & Ors
A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court challenging the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of Central University of Kerala.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, admitted the plea and issued notice to the present Vice Chancellor of Central University, Kerala, Prof. H. Vemkateswarlu, who has been named as the 3rd respondent herein, while adding that the issuance of notice needn't be construed as one issued for a writ of quo warranto. The Court on Monday, further directed the respondents to file the respective counter affidavits within four weeks.
Kerala Human Sacrifice Case | Ernakulam Court Remands 3 Accused To Judicial Custody For 14 Days
A Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (JFCM) at Ernakulam on Wednesday, remanded the three accused persons, Muhammad Shafi alias Rasheed, Bhagaval Singh and Laila to judicial custody for 14 days, in the human sacrifice case at Elanthoor Village in Pathanamthitta, Kerala.
Two women lottery vendors had been abducted, killed and buried as part of a ritualistic sacrifice, in the months of June and September.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court Friday directed the Transport Commissioner and State Police Chief to take the necessary steps to ensure that no KSRTC bus exhibiting advertisements on the body are allowed to operate in public places.
The division bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar, in a previous case, had ordered that transport vehicles owned or operated by KSRTC and KURTC shall not be permitted to exhibit any advertisements since they are likely to distract the attention of other drivers.
Case Title: Dr. Arjun Rajeev & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Friday admitted the plea filed by at least 17 foreign medical graduates against the alleged charging of exorbitant amount of internship fees, and withholding of internship stipend by General Hospital, Kottayam.
Justice V.G. Arun, while admitting the plea and issuing notice to the respondents, said in the light of the orders passed in similar case, the authorities are directed to permit the petitioners to continue their internship without insisting for payment of internship fee.
Case Title: XXXXX v. Child Welfare Committee and connected matter
The Kerala High Court on Monday ordered the State government to ensure the safety and education of two minor girls from Assam who had migrated to the State with their parents, but were unfortunately subjected to sexual abuse.
Citing safety concerns, the Child Welfare Committee had refused to release the girls to their parents, who are daily wage labourers in Kerala, and had directed that the girls be sent back to their native place. However, expressing his disagreement with this measure, Justice V G Arun said, "State and its instrumentalities cannot abdicate their responsibility of protecting the children from the perpetrators of the heinous crime committed on them".
The Additional District and Sessions Court, Trivandrum, on Wednesday, dismissed the culpable homicide charges that were framed against IAS Officer Sriram Venkitaraman and his friend, Wafa Firoz, in an alleged drunken driving case leading to death of journalist KM Basheer in 2019.
The Court was acting upon the discharge petition been filed by Venkitaraman, contending that there was no evidence regarding him having driven the vehicle in a drunken state.
Kerala HC Initiates Suo Motu PIL For Protection And Rehabilitation Of Children In Streets
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Secretary to Government, Social Justice Justice Department
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday initiated suo motu Public Interest Litigation captioned 'Protection and Rehabilitation of Children in Streets' on noting the plight of the nomadic children begging or selling knick-knacks at busy junctions and tourist spots. The Suo Motu PIL has been initiated with the intention that such children ought to be taken care of, sent to shelter homes or repatriated.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, initiated the proceedings after the emergence of several news reports highlighting the plight of such children. Some reports also showed that the children were sleeping on platforms or roads. The Court has also taken due note of drug peddlers attempting to lure students outside school campuses since they are aware of the strict monitoring within the premises of such educational institutions, and seeks to consider this issue as well.
Case Title: Case Title: St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Chruch v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday ordered setting up of committees at the level of every Local-Self Government Institution to tackle the issue of putting of illegal boards and banners in the state.
Directing the Local Self Department's Secretary to issue immediate orders, Justice Devan Ramachandran ordered that the primary committees shall comprise of the following:- Secretary of the Local Self -Government Institution; Station House Officer (SHO) of the Police Station concerned; Competent official of the National Highway Authority of India; Competent engineer of the PWD.
Case Title: Kerala Yukthi Vadhi Sangham v. Union of India & Ors.
The Kerala government earlier this week informed the High Court that it is contemplating enactment of a legislation against human sacrifice and other such superstitious practices.
The Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly recorded the submission made by the State Attorney in this regard when a case regarding the issue came before it for admission on Tuesday. The court has adjourned the matter for a date after two weeks.
Case Title: Muhammed Shafi & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors
The three accused persons in the recent human sacrifice case of Elanthoor Village have approached the Kerala High Court against the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court VIII, Ernakulam, which permitted the police to take the accused persons in custody for 12 days.
In the Criminal Revision Petition moved through Advocate B.A. Aloor, the petitioners have argued that the order passed by the Trial Court was illegal and improper, and liable to be interfered with.
Case Title: Eldhose Kunnappilly v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Additional Sessions Court at Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala, has granted anticipatory bail to the Congress MLA Eldhose Kunnappilly in a case accusing him of rape and attempt to murder.
ASJ Prasun Mohan in the order said the victim or rape survivor in her first complaint dated September 28 never "asserted" that the accused raped her "on any dates before the date of presenting the complaint". The police had initially registered a case under Section 362, 323, 354, 506(i) r/w 34 of the IPC, the court noted.
Case Title: Dr. K.S. Chandrasekhar & Ors. v. The Chancellor & Ors.
In a development related to the appointment of Kerala University's new Vice Chancellor, the High Court on Friday interdicted the state Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, who is the Chancellor of the varsity, from nominating any new members to its Senate in place of the 15 members, who have been removed by him in his capacity as the Chancellor.
The interim order was passed by Justice Murali Purushothaman after considering the petition challenging the Governor's order withdrawing the nomination of the heads of the Institute of Management and departments of Music, Sanskrit and Philosophy as Ex-Officio members of Kerala University Senate. The other Senate members have also filed separate petitions challenging the decision of the Governor.
Applicant's Name: Puthusserikudy Thankappan Santosh; Dated: 01.08.2022
The Kerala Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that commercial vehicle body building on chassis supplied by the customer is a supply of service.
The two-member bench of S.L. Sreeparvathy and Abraham Renn S. has observed that commercial vehicle body building on chassis supplied by the customer attracts 18% GST.
Works contract services provided to Malabar Cancer Centre Attracts 18% GST: Kerala AAR
Applicant's Name: Uralungal Labour Contract Co-operative Society Ltd; Dated: 27.06.2022
The Kerala Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that work contract services provided to Malabar Cancer Centre attract 18% GST with effect from 01.01.2022.
The two-member bench of S.L. Sreeparvathy and Abraham Renn S. has observed that Malabar Cancer Centre is a society established by the State Government with 100 per cent participation by way of equity or control, to carry out the function of public health, a function entrusted to a municipality as well as a panchayat under Article 243W and Article 243G, respectively, of the Constitution and accordingly falls within the definition of governmental authority.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Baiju Kottarakkara
The Kerala High Court Tuesday said the counter affidavit filed by Malayalam Film Director Baiju Kottarakkara in the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against him for making "abusive remarks" against a trial court judge neither specifically affirmed that he made those comments, nor refuted the same.
Granting a further period of three weeks to him to make his stance clear, the court sought a fresh affidavit on the charges against him. Kottarakkara had made the comments against a judge, who is presiding over the trial of 2017 actor abduction and assault case.
Case Title: Dr Joseph Skariah v. Vice-Chancellor (Selection Committee Chairman)
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday extended its stay on the appointment of Priya Varghese, wife of K.K. Ragesh - who is private secretary to the Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, as an Associate Professor at the Department of Malayalam, in Kannur University.
Justice Devan Ramachandran extended the court's interim order, while adjourning the case challenging Varghese's appointment.
Family Property No Reason To Deny EWS Certificate To Married Woman Living Separately: Kerala High Court Opines Prima Facie
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday impleaded the Secretary of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as a respondent in the suo motu public interest writ petition seeking inclusion of 'Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia' as a rare disease under the National Policy for Rare Diseases.
The division bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, passed the interim order, after noting though the Central Technical Committee for Rare Diseases (CTCRD) had examined the case and opined that Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) disease could be categorized as a Rare Disease under Group 2 in the policy, a notification has to be issued by the Central Government so that support can be availed by the patients.
Case Title: Anil J.S. v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed the State Police Chief to file a further report on the manner in which its directions insisting the Police to behave well with the citizens were being complied with.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, on being informed by the Government Pleader Joshy Thannickamattom, that a circular had been issued by the State Police Chief in this regard, observed that, it is not merely sufficient that, the State Police Chief issues circulars, but it should be ensured that every Police Officer adheres and abides by the same. The compliance report is woefully wanting in this regard, since it merely says that a circular has been issued. This Court certainly requires further information from the State Police Chief, as to the manner in which the above mentioned Circular has been implemented across the State and among all the officers in the hierarchy of ranks.
In A First, Family Counselling Centre Inaugurated By Chief Justice S. Manikumar At Kerala High Court
A Family Counselling Centre, a facility under the aegis of Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee, was formally inaugurated by the Chief Justice, High Court of Kerala S. Manikumar, on October 26.
This service facility was initiated by the Chairman of Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee, Justice A Muhamed Mustaque, to help the litigants in matrimonial and allied matters to address their emotional needs and to help and guide them to reach a logical conclusion to their protracted litigations.
Case Title: Kiran Kumar S v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, while considering the convict's appeal in the Vismaya dowry death case, said the legal system must remain immune from the public and media pressure while dealing with sensational cases.
The appeal has been moved by Kiran Kumar against his conviction and the sentence imposed on him by the trial court in the case related to his wife's death.
The division bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Sophy Thomas said the legal system must be sensitive towards public interest but should not be swayed by too much public pressure while dealing with sensationalised cases.
Kerala High Court Says Only 'New Driving Culture' Can Prevent Road Accidents
Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Corporation of Cochin
The Kerala High Court on Friday observed that only a "new driving culture" can prevent road accidents in the state.
Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that despite every effort of the court to ensure that accidents are minimised, it was distressing to know that road mishaps have continued.
"As this Court has been emphasising earlier, only if there is a new culture of driving, can such incidents be controlled, particularly in view of the fact that the number of vehicles are increasing day by day".
Case Title: State Of Kerala v. Eldose Kunnapilly
A Petition has been moved before the Kerala High Court by the state government challenging Thiruvananthapuram Court's order granting anticipatory bail to the Congress MLA Eldhose Kunnappilly in a case accusing him of rape and attempt to murder.
In the Petition, moved through Additional Public Prosecutor, it has been argued that the lower court erred in granting pre-arrest bail at the initial stage of investigation. The State has said that custodial interrogation is highly necessary in the case.
Case Title: Dilakshan & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted interim bail to Sri Lankan nationals, who are accused of attempting to illegally travel to Canada via sea, and directed the trial court to complete the trial within three months after receipt of final report in the matter.
During the bail period, the accused persons, who had been apprehended near Vaddy Harbour, Kaikulangara Cheny Kollam West Village Kollam, will remain confined to a home run by Gandhi Bhavan International Trust, Pathanapuram and Open Prison and Correctional Home, Nettukaltheri, Thiruvananthapuram, until further orders. The petitioners were earlier living in various refugee camps in Tamil Nadu.
Kerala High Court Makes Entry Pass Mandatory For Public, Introduces Online Pass Management System
To bolster security arrangements at the court complex, the Kerala High Court has made entry passes mandatory for public. The litigants and visitors can use Online Pass Management System of the court to obtain the passes.
While the staff members have been directed to wear their identity cards while entering the high court complex, the advocates who are not in robes would be required to show their ID card at the entry points for identification.
Kerala High Court To Introduce 'Unique Neutral Citation Number' System From November 1
Just days after Delhi High Court introduced its own 'neutral citation system' for all the judgments on its official website, the Kerala High Court is also set to implement a 'Unique Neutral Citation Number' for all Judgments and 'CR' marked interim orders issued since the year 1949, from November 1.
According to a notice issued by Kerala High Court's Registrar General P. Krishna Kumar, the citation for judgments will be in the format of [Year Of Judgment uploaded]/