Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 609-628]J.C. Daniel Foundation & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 609Leela v M.K. Sukumaran, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 610Popular Motor Corporation v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 611Rajan P v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 612Mohamed v. Kunhalankutty & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 613State of Kerala v...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 609-628]
J.C. Daniel Foundation & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 609
Leela v M.K. Sukumaran, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 610
Popular Motor Corporation v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 611
Rajan P v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 612
Mohamed v. Kunhalankutty & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 613
State of Kerala v P.K Radhakrishnan, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 614
Alfa One Global Builders Pvt. Ltd. V Nirmala Padmanabhan, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 615
Nijesh Chandran & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 616
Balamuraly G v Vinod T R, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 617
Thomas Abraham & Ors. v. The Mission Director & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 618
M/S. Global Plasto Wares Versus Assistant State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 619
Gireeshkumar T.M. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and connected matter, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 620
Joseph George v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 621
Advocate Rajesh Kumar C v Prasad M Cherian, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 622
George Varghese v. Treesa Sebastian & Ors. and connected matter, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 623
Elon Christ Stephen v Steaphen Antony Venasious ,2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 624
E.K. Anil v. Tahasildar & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 625
Prajila M. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 626
Jose v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 627
Binoy Paulose v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 628
Judgment/Orders this week
Case Title: J.C. Daniel Foundation & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 609
The Kerala High Court has suggested the establishment of a database of societies registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act ('TC Act'), so that the District Registrars can avoid any dispute regarding names and other particulars between registered societies, and those seeking registration under the Act.
Justice Devan Ramachandran made the above recommendation in a plea filed by the J.C. Daniel Foundation, Kowdiar, Trivandrum, which is a registered society under the TC Act, alleging that J.C. Daniel Foudation, Perumbayikode, Kottayam, and J.C. Daniel Foundation, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram were also registered under the Act with the same name.
Kerala High Court Holds Employer Liable To Compensate For Driver's Death Due To Accident Caused By His Suffering Heart Attack While Driving
Case title: Leela v M.K. Sukumaran
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 610
The Kerala High Court by relying upon the Apex Court decision in Param Pal Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd and another (2013) held that the death of a driver due to heart attack would amount to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as drivers were subjected to long years of stress and strain.
Justice PG Ajithkumar by relying upon the Apex Court decision observed that an employer was liable to compensate the kin of deceased employee even if the deceased was not actually driving the vehicle while he was having heart attack. The Court also noted that Employees Compensation Act was a social legislation, intended to compensate employees and thus has to be interpreted for the benefit of the employees.
The Court ordered that the family of the deceased employee was liable to be compensated.
Case Title: Popular Motor Corporation v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 611
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), by a company/firm, a power of attorney holder or authorized representative can depose on behalf of the complainant, and that it would be sufficient to demonstrate before the Magistrate that the complaint has been filed in the name of the 'payee'/'complainant', and the authorization as well as the contents of the complaint, are within the knowledge of such power of attorney holder/authorized representative.
Justice C.S. Dias arrived at the above finding when faced with the question as to whether the directions issued in Narayanan. A.C v. State of Maharashtra (2013) would be strictly applicable in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act by a power of attorney of a company/firm in view of the subsequent decision in M/S TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2022)
Case title: Rajan P v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 612
The Kerala High Court has held that a person belonging to the Hindu Maravar Community, whose domicile was in Tamil Nadu cannot claim the benefit of OBC reservation after migration to Kerala because Hindu Maravar Community is not recognized as an OBC category in Kerala.
The Court was considering a writ petition filed by the petitioner who challenged the appointment of the 4th respondent to the post of Junior Scientist at Kerala Forest Research Institute based on OBC reservation. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V observed thus, “In view of the principles laid down above, the 4th respondent, who would not satisfy the criteria of being an OBC in the State of Kerala, would not qualify for the 10th turn, which has been set apart for an OBC. The Hindu Maravar Community does not hold recognition or inclusion as an OBC category in the State of Kerala. In that view of the matter, the selection of the 4th respondent on the ground that he is a member of the OBC community is clearly illegal.”
Case Title: Mohamed v. Kunhalankutty & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 613
The Kerala High Court pondered upon the question as to how far a Muslim could dispose of their properties by Will.
Interpreting Paragraphs 117 and 118 of the Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law, which provides for 'Bequests to Heirs' and 'Limit of Testamentary Power' respectively, the Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen explained thus,"...the power of a Mahomedan to dispose of his property by Will is limited in two ways. Firstly, as regards the persons to whom the property may be bequeathed, and, secondly, as regards the extent to which the property may be bequeathed. The only case in which a testamentary disposition is binding upon the heirs is where the bequest does not exceed the legal third and it is made to a person who is not an heir. But a bequest in excess of the legal third may be validated by the consent of the heirs; similarly, a bequest to an heir may be rendered valid by the consent of the other heirs. The reason is that the limits of testamentary power exist solely for the benefit of the heirs, and the heirs may, if they like to forgo the benefit by giving their consent. For the same reason, if the testator has no heirs, he may bequeath the whole of his property to a stranger: (see Baillie, 625)"
Disciplinary Proceedings Under KCS Rules Will Discontinue On Retirement Of Govt Servant If Proceedings Primarily About Loss Recovery: Kerala High Court
Case title: State of Kerala v P.K Radhakrishnan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 614
The Kerala High Court held that after a government servant has retired from service and the proceedings primarily become about loss recovery, disciplinary proceedings under Rules 15 and 16 of KCS (CC&A) Rules are no longer applicable. Instead, Rule 3, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules applies, although it governs the recovery of losses from a pensioner found guilty of misconduct during their service.
Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen added that the new proceedings must conform to Rule 3 with a requisite adherence to the principles of natural justice: “However, in the light of the fact that the proceedings have been confined to the recovery of loss as the respondent had retired from the service, the proceedings already initiated under Rules 15 and 16 of KCS (CC&A) Rules would vanish and the proceedings will have to be in accordance with the Rule 3 part III of the Kerala Service Rules (for short, 'KSR').”
Case title: Alfa One Global Builders Pvt. Ltd. V Nirmala Padmanabhan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 615
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that an appeal before division bench under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 is not maintainable against a single judge's order in a writ petition where the relief sought was merely to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
The provision states that an appeal shall lie to a bench of two judges from the order of a single judge who was exercising original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Court said where the writ jurisdiction was invoked merely to seek relief under Section 482 CrPC, an appeal under Section 5 will not lie.
In the instant case, the appeal was filed under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, against the order of a single judge in a criminal writ petition under Article 226 read with Section 482 of CrPC. A Division bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun, dismissed the writ appeal and observed thus: “Considering the above-referred decisions of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the view that appeal would not lie against the impugned judgment where the learned single Judge has refused to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of a criminal case filed against the appellants. Hence, the appeal is dismissed only on the ground of maintainability.”
Case Title: Nijesh Chandran & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 616
The Kerala High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to three persons who had allegedly cheated a woman by putting up a fake profile on a matrimonial website.
The prosecution allegation was that the 1st petitioner who is a 38 year old man who is already married, had put up a matrimonial profile claiming himself to be a doctor, and had gone to the house of the de facto complainant with his wife and mother (2nd and 3rd petitioners herein), under the pretext of fixing marriage with the de facto complainant.It is alleged that the 1st petitioner had thereafter obtained 150 sovereigns of gold from the de facto complainant, by convincing the latter that he required money urgently for the medical treatment of his father, whereafter he pledged the same, and obtained loan. Justice Gopinath P. was of the considered view that the plea for anticipatory bail could not be granted in light of the clear allegations against the respondents.
Case title: Balamuraly G v Vinod T R
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 617
The Kerala High Court has clarified that when concurrent revisional jurisdiction is available under Section 397 CrPC to approach the High Court as well as the Sessions Court, it is just and appropriate to first approach the Court of the lowest forum, that is, the Sessions Court. The Court was quick to add this does not mean that there is any bar in approaching the High Court first, without exhausting the remedy before the Sessions Court.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar has relied upon the Full Court decision in Sivan Pillai v. Rajamohan and others (1978) to state it is prudent to invoke the jurisdiction of the lowest forum first before approaching the High Court when concurrent remedy was available under Section 397 CrPC. The Court noted parties might be located in the Sessions Division concerned and thus it would be easier to issue notice to the accused who might be residing within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court.
Case Title: Thomas Abraham & Ors. v. The Mission Director & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 618
The Kerala High Court quashed the order issued by the District Programme Co-ordinator of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) terminating the services of six Quality Monitors for unsatisfactory work.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V noted that the impugned order had been passed merely on finding that the performance was unsatisfactory, without any data being placed before the authority substantiating the same. "No order of an administrative authority communicating its decision is rendered illegal on the grounds of absence of reasons ex-facie, and it is not open to the court to interfere with such orders merely on the grounds of absence of any reasons. However, it does not mean that the administrative authority is at liberty to pass orders without there being any reasons for the same," the Court observed.
Case Title: M/S. Global Plasto Wares Versus Assistant State Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 619
The Kerala High Court has held that the penalty is payable on failure to deposit the tax collected by him within a period of thirty days from the due date of the payment of the tax.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that in Sub-sections 6, 8, and 9 of Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, it is provided that if a person chargeable to tax fails to deposit the tax collected by him within a period of thirty days from the due date of the payment of such tax, Sub-section 8 will not have any effect, and such a person is liable to pay a penalty.
Case Title: Gireeshkumar T.M. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 620
The Kerala High Court laid down that the Kerala Public Services Commission cannot alter its previous stance and subsequently admit candidates with higher qualifications for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Kerala Water Authority.
The petitioners in the present writ petitions were aggrieved by the inclusion of candidates who do not have the prescribed qualifications, but higher qualifications, as per the notification to the post of LDC, in the rank list published by the Public Service Commission (PSC). Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. observed, “it is imperative to recognize that the Public Service Commission, having steadfastly maintained a particular stance in the earlier proceedings and vigorously objected to the acceptance of candidates with advanced qualifications, cannot justifiably alter its stance by subsequently admitting individuals with higher qualifications. Such a reversal of position, if sanctioned, holds the potential to reopen previously concluded judgments of the Court. This not only raises concerns regarding the abuse of the judicial process but also carries significant ramifications for the overall administration of justice."
Case Title: Joseph George v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 621
The Kerala High Court upheld the order issued by the Special Devaswom Commissioner of the Cochin Devaswom Board denying permission to the proprietor of ‘Appu Pathu Pappu Production House’ from shooting a few scenes of the film ‘PANI’ on the ground of Sree Vadakkunnathan Temple in Thrissur.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Sophy Thomas observed, “Any permission granted for film shooting in the parking area of the Kshethra Maidan or near the roads leading to Sree Vadakkunnathan Temple from ‘Manikandanaal’ area, parking area, etc., will result in the movement of the devotees through those roads leading to the temple being restricted or regulated by the members of the production unit or even by ‘bouncers’ engaged by the production units in film shooting sites. Therefore, the Cochin Devaswom Board cannot grant permission for any such activities in Sree Vadakkunnathan Kshethra Maidan.”
Case title: Advocate Rajesh Kumar C v Prasad M Cherian
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 622
The Kerala High Court has held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge disputed questions of fact concerning election to the Managing Committee of a Society.
Justice N. Nagaresh relied upon various judicial precedents and observed that factual disputes regarding election to the Managing Committee of a Society have to be settled by a Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.
Family Court Has Jurisdiction To Entertain Plea Seeking Reliefs U/S 18-22 Domestic Violence Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: George Varghese v. Treesa Sebastian & Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 623
The Kerala High Court has laid down that the Family Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a petition seeking reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
"What is discerned from the provisions of Section 12 is that an aggrieved person is free to elect any of the reliefs. The legislature in the wisdom has framed the Act by taking into consideration the doctrine of election. The parties are free to elect either a remedy under Section 12 or reserve the right to claim other reliefs as provided under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 in the manner and mode as has been done. The plain and simple reading of the provisions of Section 26 left the question clear and unambiguous that a party seeking a claim under any provisions of the civil or criminal court much less a family court can always claim relief in addition as provided under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act," the Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C.S. Sudha explained
Maintenance Application Under Chapter IX CrPC Cannot Be Dismissed For Default: Kerala High Court
Case title: Elon Christ Stephen v Steaphen Antony Venasious
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 624
The Kerala High Court considered whether an application filed for maintenance allowance under Chapter IX of CrPC can be dismissed for default (non-appearance of party seeking maintenance). Chapter IX, Section 125-128 of CrPC contemplates Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents.
Justice C.S. Dias observed that Magistrate has no implicit power to dismiss an application filed under Chapter IX CrPC for default summarily. In the facts of the case, the application was dismissed for non-representation of the petitioner-minor son who was appearing through his mother for claiming maintenance from the respondent-father.
Case Title: E.K. Anil v. Tahasildar & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 625
The Kerala High Court has held that where separate buildings are constructed, albeit for for a common purpose, the buildings would have to be assessed separately for the purposes of building tax, if the same are structurally different.
Perusing Section 5 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, (hereinafter, the 'Act, 1975'), which provides that the plinth area has to be assessed on every building, the construction of which is completed, Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed: "For assessment of building tax, if structures are different, the buildings have to be assessed separately and the only exception is that it should not be an appurtenant building for more enjoyment of the main building".
Case Title: Prajila M. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 626
The Kerala High Court called upon the State Government and the Kerala Sports Council (KSC) to provide assistance to a young professional handball player, who had been injured during the Junior Girls National Handball Championship. The young handball player, who belonged to a middle class family, and suffere from a ligament tear, had approached the KSC for financial aid, stating her grievance that her future as a handball player would be jeopardized without the same.
Justice Devan Ramachandran was of the considered opinion that the State authorities ought to provide necessary assistance to the sports professional, since a vibrant society requires not just persons in academic and service pursuits, but also athletes and sportspersons inclucated with a robust sporting culture.
Case title: Jose v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 627
"Jail is not a place to show the physical strength of jail officials," the Kerala High Court observed while hearing a plea filed by the convicted prisoners of Viyyur Central Prison at Thrissur alleging that the Deputy Superintendent of Jail along with other officers brutally manhandled and caused serious injuries to them.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed that an independent inquiry has to be conducted by the State Crime Branch and disciplinary proceedings can also be initiated against the officials responsible for this.
Case title: Binoy Paulose v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 628
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that the jurisdiction of writ court cannot be invoked against decisions of lending institutions like banks unless there were compelling reasons such as violations of rules, regulations or statutory provisions. The petitioner had approached the writ court against the decision of the bank rejecting his request for restructuring of the loan.
Justice K.Babu observed that the bank has rejected the request of the petitioner for restructuring of the loan after considering the viability of his proposal. “It is trite that lending has always been the discretion of lending institutions on broad parameters. This Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot replace the wisdom of the lender/banker in the process of lending unless there are compelling reasons, in a sense that there are all-around violations of the rules and regulations or any of the statutory provisions in this regard.”, Court observed.
Other Significant developments This Week
Case Title: C. Shukkur v. State of Kerala & Ors.
A lawyer has moved the Kerala High Court seeking a declaration that the law of inheritance for children of parents whose marriage is registered under the Special Marriage Act would be the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in all scenarios even if the parties had initially solemnized married under their respective personal law.
The petitioner herein had married his wife as per the Muslim custom, which is Islamic Shariat Law, and three daughters were born to the couple. The petitioner avers that as per the Islamic Shariat law of inheritance, their daughters would only get 2/3rd share of the couple's properties, while the remaining would devolve upon the brothers and sisters of the petitioner, in the proportion prescribed under the Islamic Shariat Law. The petitioner says that he thereafter, registered his marriage with his wife under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 so that he could overcome the restriction imposed by Shariat Act.
Case Title: Democratic Alliance for Knowledge Freedom v. Union of India & Ors.
The Kerala High Court has sought the response of the Union Government and the Kerala Government on a petition which challenges the collection of Aadhaar number of students and parents for the Unified District Information System for Education Plus ('UDISE+') platform. The petitioner, an organization named Democratic Alliance For Knowledge Freedom (DAKF), challenged the collection of personal data, including the Aadhaar number, of students and the mobile numbers parents, by the Unified District Information System for Education Plus ('UDISE+') platform.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun issued notice and sought the response of the Union Ministry of Education, Union IT Ministry and Kerala Public Education Department.
Case Title: St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Emphasizing on the need to discuss and prevent "visual pollution" of the environment, the Kerala High Court directed the Committees, which were formed to tackle the issues of unauthorized boards and banners, to impose a penalty of Rs. 5,000 per board under The Kerala Municipality (Erection of arches and setting up of advertisement boards in public streets and public places) Rules, 1999.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said boards and banners are unauthorizedly put up in public places by political parties, religious groups and film promoters destroy the beauty of the cities.
Kerala High Court Set To Launch Malayalam Version Of Indian Law Reports (ILR) Tomorrow
The Kerala High Court is set to launch the Malayalam version of the Indian Law Report on its website, on the occasion of Kerala Piravi. The programme is set to be inaugurated by Chief Justice A.J. Desai at 9:50 A.M. on November 1, 2023.
The present move of inaugurating the Malayalam version of ILR is a bid to make the legal spectrum more visible and accessible to citizens. It is hoped that the initiative shall "provide a platform to the common man to understand the finer aspects of law more comprehensively and effortlessly".
Case Title: Adv. Priyanka Sharma M R v State Of Kerala & Anr.
The Kerala High Court directed the competent authority of the State Government to issue necessary notifications under the OBC Advocate Grant Scheme for the years 2021-22 and 2022-23 for disbursal of annual grant of Rs. 12,000 to the eligible junior advocates.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that the benefit given to the young lawyers under the Scheme cannot be denied for no perceptible reason and observed that there was no reason for non-issuance of notification for the years 2021-22 and 2022-23. It directed thus: “Therefore, I allow this writ petition with a consequential direction to the competent authority of the first respondent to issue necessary notifications under the scheme in question both for the years 2021-22 and 2022-23 at the earliest but not later than one month from date of the receipt of the copy of the judgment consequent to which the second respondent or such other competent authority will ensure that the eligible young advocates are given the benefits thereunder.”
Case Title: Gireesh Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Kerala High Court appointed an Amicus Curiae in the revision petition filed by social activist, Gireesh Babu(since deceased), against the dismissal of a complaint seeking investigation into the alleged bribery carried out by high ranking public officials of the State in connection with the mining and other business interests of the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) by the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha.
Justice K. Babu appointed Advocate Akhil Vijay as the Amicus Curiae in the matter today: "As the petitioner is no more, Akhil Vijay is appointed as the Amicus Curiae to address the arguments, for and on behalf of the petitioner," the Court said. The deceased petitioner had accused Veena Thaikandiyil (Veena Vijayan), daughter of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan (2nd accused), and her company Exalogic Solutions Pvt. ltd. (1st and 7th accused respectively), of having received illegal consideration under the guise of her father.
Case Title: Shwetha Janardhan Barve v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court directed the DIG, Thiruvananthapuram to conduct an enquiry and submit a report after interacting with a proposed surrogate mother and her family to ensure altruistic surrogacy.
The Court stated that permission can be granted for surrogacy only if altruism and lack of financial involvement are reasonably established. The Court was considering a plea submitted by the petitioners for the issuance of a medical indication certificate from the District Medical Board for undergoing surrogacy as per the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
Kerala High Court Stays Food Adulteration Proceedings Against 'Dalda Vanaspati
Case Title: Bhaskar Khandait And Others V State Of Kerala
The Kerala High Court stayed criminal proceedings initiated against 'Bunge Dalda Vanaspati' in Magistrate Court for allegedly violating the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The petitioners have approached the High Court for quashing criminal complaint filed against them by the Food Safety Officer, Majeri alleging food adulteration of their product, Bunge Dalda Vanaspati. They are booked under Section 3(1)(zz)(xii), Section 20, Section 26(1), Section 26 (2)(i), Section 27 (2) (c), Section 59 (i) and Section 66 of FSSA.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan admitted the matter and granted an interim stay on all criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
Case Title: Binoj K.B. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court came down heavily upon bursting of firecrackers at odd hours in religious places. The Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Rawal called upon all District Collectors in the State to conduct raids in all religious places and take into possession crackers illegally stored in all religious place, with the assistance of the Commissioners of Police.
"I...direct the Deputy Collector with the Assistance of the Commissioner of Police, Cochin and other districts, to conduct raids in all religious places and take into possession of the crackers illegally stored in all religious places and issue instructions that henceforth onwards no crackers shall be burst in religious places at odd time as prima facie there is no commandment in any of the holy book to burst crackers for pleasing the God," the Court observed.
Case Title: Sreekuttan S. v. Sree Keralavarma College & Ors.
A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court alleging arbitrariness in the recounting of votes pertaining to the election of the College Union Chairman at Sree Keralavarma College, Thrissur.
The petitioner, a specially-abled third Year B.A. Political Science student named Sreekuttan, had initially been declared as the Chairman of the College Union. Sreekuttan was the candidate of Kerala Students Union (KSU), student wing of the Indian National Congress. The petitioner stated that he had initially been declared as the winner by 1 vote, and KSU for the very first time in 41 years in the College.
Case title: Fathimathu Suhara v Union of India
The Kerala High Court suo moto impleaded the District Police Chief (Rural) Ernakulam as an additional respondent in a plea filed by a couple who allege that their newborn child died due to lack of proper care and medical treatment from the Cochin Birth Village, a natural birthing centre that offers midwifery care.
Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that the issue was serious and required quick action from the competent authorities. It directed thus: “Taking note of the seriousness of the issues impelled, I suo motu implead the District Police Chief (Rural) Ernakulam, Office of the District Police Chief, Aluva, Kerala, as an additional respondent and direct the learned Government Pleader to obtain specific instructions from the said Authority, as to what action has been taken or is proposed against the 2nd respondent and such other institutions.”