Kerala High Court Monthly Digest - January 2023 [Citations 1-52]

Sali M.N. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 2

T. A. Abdul Sathar v. The State of Kerala and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 3

Lt. Col. E.V. Krishnan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 4

Laila Bhagaval Singh v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 5

Jayadevi v. Narayana Pilla & Ors.2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 6

Sadanandan K.S. & Ors. v. Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 7

Rajesh and Anr. v. The Station House Officer and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 8

Chandra Chooden Nair S v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 9

Pappu Bawariya and Anr. v. District Collector Civil Station and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw(Ker)10

Siraj v. State of Kerala and Abhilash v. State of Kerala and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 11

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 13

M/S PVS Memorial Hospital & Ors. v. Dr. Satheesh Iype & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 14

Dimple Lamba @ Dolly v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 15

State of Kerala and Ors. v. Raveendran Pillai S and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 16

The Tahsildar (RR) & Ors. v. Nizamudeen S. & Ors. and other connected cases. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 17

Tintu K. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 18

Nibu Kasim & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and M/S Go Green Bags v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 19

Aswathi & Anr. v. Rajeesh Raman & Anr. and Betty Philip v. William Chacko 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 20

 Sasi Pathirakunnath Versus Assistant State Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 21

Union Bank of India v. The Deputy Chief Engineer and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 22

Justice K.K. Denesan (Retd. Judge) v. Senior Accounts Officer & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 23

Razak Mether v. State of Kerala and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 24

Ajeesh Nath P.S. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 25

Ambili S. Pilla v. Vinod Kumar Pilla and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 26

Vasu Coco Resorts Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 27

Rasheeda v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 28

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 29

Advocate Cherunniyoor V. Jayaprakash v. Sree Narayana Trust & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 30

Emmanvel Peter v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 31

S. Surendran v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 32

Mr. Unnikrishnan V.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 33

Star Health Insurance And Allied Insurance Company Ltd v. Avinash T and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 34

Meharban M.H. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 35

Kerala Judicial Officers' Association & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 36

Aaron S John v. TKM College of Engineering, Kollam and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 37

P.S. Jayaprakash v. Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 38

Fasaludheen A. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 39

Firozalavi T.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 40

Kerala State United Nurses Association v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 41

Sayed Mohammed Noorul Ameer and Ors. v. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 42

Jeby James v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 43

RB. v. AB. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 44

Clint Johnson v. State of Kerala & Anr.2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 45

Gireesh Kumar N v. Rajani K V and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 46

Babu T. v. Byju Sebastian and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 47

Dr. Drisya D.T. & Ors. v. Dr. Kiran & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 48

Bijy Paul v. The Marriage Officer and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 49

Case Title: XXXX v. Union Of India and Connected Cases

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 1

The Kerala High Court observed that the imposition of age restriction under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulations) Act, 2021 without a transitional provision, is irrational and arbitrary. Thereby, the Court issued the direction that the petitioners who were undergoing ART services as of the date on which the ART Act came into effect (25.01.2022) shall be permitted to continue their treatment.

The Court has also directed the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to alert the Central Government about the need for a re-look at the upper age limit prescribed in Section 21(g) of the Act.

The Court issued the aforesaid directions while disposing of a batch of Writ Petitions filed challenging the upper age limit of 50 years for women and 55 years for men prescribed under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulations) Act, 2021 which prohibits the application of ART services to persons above the prescribed age limit.

Persons Extracting Groundwater For Consumer Supply Are Bound To Obtain Statutory Registration: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sali M.N. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 2

The Kerala High Court has held that persons engaged in the business of extracting groundwater and supplying it to consumers through tanker lorries are 'users of ground water' as defined under Section 2(1)(h) of the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002 and are bound to obtain registration under Section 9 of the Act, irrespective of whether the areas where they operate are notified areas or not.

Kerala Service Rules] Leave Vacancy Without Allowance Granted To Regular Incumbent Not Appointment Against 'Substantive Vacancy': High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala rep. by Secretary to the Government & Ors. v. Dr. Sushama S. & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 12

The Kerala High Court held the appointment of a teacher against the vacancy that arose by reason of the leave without allowance granted to a regular incumbent, cannot be regarded as an appointment made against a substantive vacancy.

The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Sureshkumar and Justice C.S. Sudha further held that the service rendered by such person in the leave vacancy preceding their absorption without break in the regular establishment would also not qualify for pensionary benefits.

"...in the absence of an order by the Government suspending the lien of the teacher in whose leave vacancy the petitioner was initially appointed, the said teacher was retaining a lien on that post. If that be so, the initial appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be an appointment made against a substantive vacancy", it was observed.

Sabarimala Pilgrims Can't Carry Posters Of Film Starts, Politicians; Right To Worship Subject To Tradition : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 13

The Kerala High Court observed that no pilgrim can be permitted entry to Sabarimala Sannidhanam carrying posters and huge photographs of celebrities, politicians etc.

The Court, therefore, directed the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to take necessary steps to ensure that every worshipper of Lord Ayyappa exercises his right of worship at Sabarimala Sannidhanam, in an accustomed manner and subject to the practice and tradition in Sabarimala.

Division Bench consisting of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar observed that,

"According to Oxford Dictionary 'worshipper' is a person who shows reverence and adoration for deity. Right to worship is a civil right, of course in an accustomed manner and subject to the practice and tradition in each temple".

'Moratorium U/S 14(1) IBC Applies Only To Corporate Debtor; Non-Corporate Debtors U/S 141 NI Act Continue To Be Statutorily Liable': Kerala HC

Case Title: M/S PVS Memorial Hospital & Ors. v. Dr. Satheesh Iype & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 14

The Kerala High Court held that the moratorium provision enshrined in Section 14 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code would only apply to corporate debtors, and the non-corporate debtors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would continue to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the Act.

As regards the application of the principles of vicarious liability under criminal law as has been provided under Section 141 of the NI Act is concerned, the Single Judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that, the same could not be fastened due to civil liability.

"Vicarious liability under sub-Section (1) to S.141 of the NI Act can be pinned when the person is in overall control of the day-to-day business of the company or firm. Vicarious liability under sub-section (2) to S.141 of the NI Act can arise because of the director, manager, secretary, or other officer's personal conduct, functional or transactional role, notwithstanding that the person was not in overall control of the day-to-day business of the company when the offence was committed. Vicarious liability under sub-section (2) is attracted when the offence is committed with the consent, connivance, or is attributable to the neglect on the part of a director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the company", it was observed.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Dimple Lamba Who Allegedly Facilitated Rape Of 19-Year-Old Model In Kochi

Case Title: Dimple Lamba @ Dolly v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 15

The Kerala High Court granted bail to Dimple Lamba alias Dolly, who allegedly facilitated the gang rape of a 19 year old model in a moving car in Ernakulam.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the above order.

"The victim had specifically stated, at the initial stage itself, that the petitioner had an active role in the crime committed. The sequence of events as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor also indicates prima facie, the possibility of an active role played by the petitioner. However, taking note of her young age, and the period of detention already undergone including the stage of investigation, I am of the view that no further purpose would be served by continuing the petitioner in detention. Moreover she is a woman falling within the beneficial provision of the first Proviso to Section 437 of Cr.P.C.", it was observed.

Kerala Service Rules | No Claim To Pension When An Employee Is Appointed For A Limited Period, Say Against Leave Vacancy: High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala and Ors. v. Raveendran Pillai S and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 16

The Kerala High Court observed that according to Rule 4 and Rule 14E(a) of Kerala Service Rules no claim to pension is admissible when an employee is appointed for a limited period and that the period of regular full time service of a pensioner in an aided school alone shall be reckoned as qualifying service for pension.

Division Bench consisting of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. S. Sudha observed that,

“The appointments of the petitioner in the leave vacancies can be regarded only as appointments for a limited time and in light of Rule 4 of Part III KSR, no claim to pension is admissible for the services rendered by the petitioner in the said vacancies, especially in light of the clarification made in Rule 14E(a) that only regular full time aided school service shall be reckoned for pension”.

Sale Of Property Under SARFAESI Will Not Extinguish Prior Existing Charge For Dues Under State Tax Laws : Kerala High Court

Case Title: The Tahsildar (RR) & Ors. v. Nizamudeen S. & Ors. and other connected cases.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 17

The Kerala High Court held that the statutory charge created under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, prior to any mortgage made, against the dealers would remain intact, even if the property is sold by the Bank, by the rights conferred under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and Section 31B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 read with the Rules to it, until such encumbrances are cleared as per the provisions of the said enactments and the rules.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, passed the above orders in a batch of writ appeals filed by the State challenging the Single Bench order which held that a secured creditor under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 31B of the RDB Act obtains priority over the right claimed by the Revenue, both in proceeding against the properties in question, or in recovering the secured debt.

While allowing the writ appeals, the Division Bench observed: "To put it otherwise, if and when any amounts have fallen due as per the provisions of the KGST Act, 1963 and the KVAT Act, 2003 and the proceedings start, consequent to which a charge is created on the properties of the assessee and the said charge created would continue to run with the property even if the Banks / financial institutions conduct the sale to recover the amounts due under the mortgage".

It noted that, "....if the mortgage is created after the amounts have fallen due as per the provisions of the KGST Act, 1963 and the KVAT Act, 2003 and accordingly, proceedings are initiated, such a mortgage can only be termed as subject to a statutory charge as per Sections 26B and 38 of Act 1963 and the Act 2003 respectively".

Contractual Employees Cannot Be Terminated Without Issuance Of Notice: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Tintu K. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 18

The Kerala High Court held that contractual employees cannot be terminated on the ground of 'unsatisfactory performance' of service without the issuance of notice or finding to that effect.

Setting aside an order passed by Mananthavady Municipality by which the service of petitioners at Ayush NHM Homeopathic Dispensary was discontinued, Justice Anu Sivaraman said that the primary reason for termination of services of the contract was that their services had been found to be unsatisfactory.

"If that be so, even though the petitioners are contractual employees, they were entitled to a notice with regard to the unsatisfactory nature of their service and their services could have been terminated only on a finding being rendered on the same," the court said.

The court further noted that even in case the contention of the respondents is that the petitioners were not appointed after a full process of selection was carried out, it is not in dispute that they have been continuing in service on contract basis from 2010 and 2016 onwards.

Plastic Ban : Kerala High Court Lifts Ban On Non-Woven Bags Of 60 GSM & Above

Case Title: Nibu Kasim & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and M/S Go Green Bags v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 19

The Kerala High Court held that the inclusion of non-woven bags of 60GSM and above in the list of banned single use plastic items by Government Orders without regard to the GSM standards, and in violation of the provisions of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 as arbitrary and illegal.

Justice N. Nagaresh, passed the order in two writ petitions filed before it challenging the ban on the non-woven bags brought into effect by virtue of certain Government Orders by the State of Kerala and the Kerala State Pollution Control Board.

The Court in this case noted that while Section 23 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 provided that the Central Government is competent to delegate its powers and functions under the Act, 1986, the rule making power of the Central Government cannot be delegated.

"When, in exercise of the rule making powers under Section 25, the Central Government has prescribed minimum standard in GSM for manufacturing of non-woven bags, then under any delegated power the State Government cannot prescribe a different standard which would negate the rules framed by the Central Government. If any State Government issues executive instructions contrary to the Rules framed by the Central Government, it would amount to exercise of powers which the Act, 1986 has prohibited to delegate", it observed in this regard.

Court Retains Power To Execute Its Maintenance Order Against Person Residing Outside Its Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Aswathi & Anr. v. Rajeesh Raman & Anr. and Betty Philip v. William Chacko

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 20

The Kerala High Court held that even though an order of maintenance may be enforceable at the place where the person - against whom it is made - resides, the court which passed the order also retains the power to execute it outside the jurisdiction where such person is residing.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen considered the legal question as to whether a court which passed an order of maintenance under Section 125 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is competent to execute the order against a person, who has been residing in a place outside its jurisdiction.

"...it is necessary in the interests of justice to visualise the plight of poor wife and children or the parents, as the case may be, if a view taken to the effect that each and every execution proceedings to enforce order of maintenance obtained by the wife, children and parents at the place where the person against whom the order was made. If such a proposition is declared, a clever husband or son or daughter, as the case may be, could very well shift their residence, outside the jurisdiction of the court where the order of maintenance sought to be executed, so as to defeat the enforcement of the order. No doubt, it may be easy for them to shift their residence periodically, to defeat the enforcement of the maintenance order," the court observed.

Presence Of Gold In Pocket Without The Appropriate Documentation Raises Suspicions Of Tax Evasion: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sasi Pathirakunnath Versus Assistant State Tax Officer

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 21

The Kerala High Court has held that the presence of gold in your pocket without the appropriate documentation raises suspicions of tax evasion.

The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that there is no satisfactory explanation for the fact that there was a discrepancy in the number of documents produced by the petitioner in the evening before the department and the quantity of gold actually recovered from the petitioner.

Claim Of Electricity Board Not Barred By Limitation Where Unauthorised Usage Is Continuous: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Union Bank of India v. The Deputy Chief Engineer and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 22

The Kerala High Court observed that Electricity Board's claim for additional amount on the basis of alleged unauthorised usage of electricity is not barred by law of limitation when the violation is a continuous and recurring one.

The Court observed that this is in addition to the factors provided under Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act 2003.

Justice Shaji P Chaly observed that, "the limitation under the Limitation Act does not hit the claim of the Board as contented by the petitioner, because the instant violation is a continuous and recurring one, renewing the dues every day, till the unauthorized load is dismantled."

Pension Of High Court Judge Who Has Been Re-appointed After Retirement As Ombudsman Cannot Be Deducted From Salary: Kerala HC

Case Title: Justice K.K. Denesan (Retd. Judge) v. Senior Accounts Officer & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 23

The Kerala High Court considered the question as to whether the pension of a High Court judge, who has been reappointed as an Ombudsman after retirement, could be deducted from his salary, and answered the same in the negative.

Justice Anu Sivaraman, observed in this regard,"the provisions of the Act (Panchayat Raj Act) and the Rules (Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions (Inquiry of Complaints and Service Conditions) Rules, 1999) are quite clear in as much as the provision specifically provides that a person appointed as Ombudsman would be entitled to salary and allowances equivalent to that of a High Court Judge. The Act or the Rules, admittedly, do not provide for any deduction of pension".

Complainant U/S 138 NI Act Must Specifically Assert That Power Of Attorney Holder Has Knowledge Of Impugned Transaction: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Razak Mether v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 24

The Kerala High Court observed that a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through power of attorney holder is perfectly legal and competent. However, the power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of a complaint, only when he has witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/ holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions.

Justice A. Badharudeen further observed that the complainant has to make specific assertions as to the knowledge of the power of attorney in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint.

It is true that as per the ratio in A.C Narayanan first case (A.C.Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra &anr), the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through power of attorney holder is perfectly legal and competent. But the power of attorney holder could depose and verify on oath before the court in order to prove the contents of the complaint, only when the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions and also it is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint and the power of attorney holder, who has no knowledge regarding the transactions. If the above stipulations are not satisfied, the power of attorney could not depose and verify on oath before the court."

High Court Quashes Proceedings Under Kerala Prevention Of Damage To Private Property Act Based On Settlement Between Parties

Case Title: Ajeesh Nath P.S. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 25

The Kerala High Court quashed the proceedings under Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019 based on the settlement arrived at between the parties.

The bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the order. It observed,

"The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court by invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court".

Administrative And Quasi-Judicial Authorities Must Mention At Least Brief Reasons In Their Orders: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Ambili S. Pilla v. Vinod Kumar Pilla and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 26

The Kerala High Court reiterated the importance of reasoned orders by authorities performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions and observed that it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons at least in brief must be disclosed in the order.

The Division Bench consisting of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar observed,

The recording of reasons by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. it would apply equally to all decisions made by such authority and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. At the same time, it is not the requirement that, the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. What is necessary is that, the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that, some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in the order passed by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority.

[Promissory Estoppel] Govt Subsidy Cannot Be Withdrawn With Retrospective Effect Particularly When Other Party Takes Steps: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Vasu Coco Resorts Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 27

The Kerala High Court recently observed that action of taking away the benefits of concession/ subsidy promised by the government can only be done prospectively.

Justice Amit Rawal observed that, "Principle of promissory estoppel arises while extending the promise if steps have been taken where the benefit cannot be taken away after expiry of number of years. There is no bar for the Government to stop the concession or benefit of subsidy prospectively for the units which have already raised to construction with a project considering the factor of subsidy. In case such subsidy is not paid to such persons, the affected parties would be liable to pay the charges along with interest for no rhyme and reasons."

Electricity Dept Has No Business To Check Property Ownership Of Consumer: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Rasheeda v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 28

The Kerala High Court recently held that where a civil dispute is pending before the Civil Court, the Electricity Department ought to be circumspect in entertaining a complaint, unless there is gross violation of provisions of the Act.

Justice Amit Rawal passed the above order in a petition that was filed challenging the communication issued by the Electricity Board to the petitioner, asking her to show ownership of the property in question.

"Electricity department has no business to check the veracity of the ownership. Once the matter is pending before the civil court, Electricity Department should be circumspect in entertaining the complaint until and unless there is gross violation of provisions of the Act", the Court observed.

Kerala High Court Seeks Report On Action Taken Against Devaswom Guard Who Misbehaved With Pilgrims At Sabarimala

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 29

The Kerala High Court said that action must be taken against the Devaswom guard who recently misbehaved with the devotees at Sabarimala.

The division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar after perusing the report filed by the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala on the incident and viewing a video recording, observed that:

…the body language and the facial expression of the Devaswom guard, while shoving the pilgrims in front of Sreekovil of Sabarimala Sannidhanam has to be deprecated in the strongest words. For such misbehaviour towards pilgrims, the Devaswom guard has to be proceeded against, in accordance with law.

Sree Narayana Trust Office Bearers Involved In Criminal Offence Relating To Trust Barred From Holding Office Till Disposal Of Case: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Advocate Cherunniyoor V. Jayaprakash v. Sree Narayana Trust & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 30

The Kerala High Court approved the modification of the scheme of Sree Narayana Trust. The Scheme was framed pursuant to a judgement of the court in a 1972 case and clause 34 permits any member of the Board of Trustees to approach high court for appropriate modification.

While the clause 34A of the Scheme permits members of the Board of Trustees to move civil court against office bearers of Trust or the executive committee for violation of Trust scheme or on breach of trust, the new modification states that "if an office bearer of a Trust is involved in a criminal offence of breach of trust or in an offence relating to the property of a Trust and, his continuation in the office is having conflict with the interest of the Trust, or is detrimental to the interest of the Trust, the office bearer shall abstain to hold the office till he is discharged or acquitted in such case."

'Consensual Relationship, Promise To Marry Was Not False': Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case

Case Title: Emmanvel Peter v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 31

The Kerala High Court quashed rape case against a 31-year-old man, observing that he and the complainant were in a consensual relationship and his promise to marry her was not with an intention to deceive her.

Justice Kauser Edappagath reiterated that in an allegation of rape on false promise of marriage, the courts have to carefully examine whether the accused actually wanted to marry the victim or had malafide motives and had made a false promise to this effect.

The Court took note of the Apex Court decisions in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) and Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (Dr) v. State of Maharashtra (2019) and said it has been observed that if an accused had not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the victim to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape and that if the accused had any mala fide intention or clandestine motives, it would be a clear case of rape.

Plaintiff Cannot Seek Return Of Plaint & Refund Of Court Fees After Dismissal Of Suit: Kerala High Court

Case Title: S. Surendran v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 32

The Kerala High Court held that the court fee could not be refunded after a suit had been decided on merits, particularly when the petitioner had filed the application for return of the plaint and court fee, without challenging the decree therein.

Justice C.S. Dias observed in this context that the judgment in the civil suit had been delivered after a full-fledged trial and a complete adjudicatory process.

Munsiff Magistrate Trainee Not A Judicial Officer, Not Barred For Appointment As District Judge After Seeking Permission: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mr. Unnikrishnan V.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 33

The Kerala High Court held that where a person had not been a judicial officer either on the date of submission of application for appointment as the District Judge, or on the date of his appointment as such, and he had only been a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee, the same would not be a bar for his appointment to the post of District Judge.

Justice Anu Sivaraman passed the above order in a petition challenging the appointment of A.V. Telles (3rd respondent), on the ground that he had been undergoing Munsiff-Magistrate training at the Kerala Judicial Academy, and observed,

"a reading of the provisions of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules would make it amply clear that the initial induction in the post of Munsiff-Magistrate is as pre-induction trainees and that Ext.P6 is an order deputing the incumbents whose names are contained in Ext.P5 list for the pre-induction training. Since the Special Rules specifically provide for a pre-induction training and a later appointment as Munsiff-Magistrate after completion of the period of training, the contention of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent stood appointed as Munsiff-Magistrate and was therefore a judicial officer cannot be accepted" the Court said.

COVID First Line Treatment Centre Can Be Termed As Hospital For The Purpose Of Claiming Insurance: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Star Health Insurance And Allied Insurance Company Ltd v. Avinash T and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 34

The Kerala High Court recently observed that COVID First Line Treatment Centre can be termed as a Hospital for the purpose of insurance claims.

Justice V G Arun said that as per the COVID-19 advisory for patient admission to CFLTCs issued by the Government, the Centre identified as COVID Health Care Centre should treat all mild and moderate symptomatic persons under surveillance and should be utilised for treating positive cases when need arises.

CFLTCs are Primary Level Health Care Centres set up for providing care to less serious cases and referral of serious cases to COVID hospitals, so as to avoid crowding in COVID Hospitals and avoid wastage of resources.

Kerala High Court Directs Law College To Consider Granting Admission To 5-Year LLB Course To Candidate With 3-Year Diploma After Class X

Case Title: Meharban M.H. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 35

The Kerala High Court recently directed the Principal of the Sree Narayana Law College, Poothotta to consider the claim of a candidate who had been denied admission to the 5 year LL.B. Course on the ground that her qualification of three year diploma/polytechnic was not equivalent to the one prescribed by the Bar Council of India for admission.

Justice Devan Ramachandran took note of the Circular issued by the BCI granting equivalency to the qualification of three year Diploma/Polytechnic course viz-a-viz the Plus Two certificate course for admission to the 5 year integrated LL.B. course, and observed that:

"Taking note of the afore submissions and since there does not appear to be any dispute as regards the qualification of the petitioner, I allow this writ petition and direct the 5th respondent – Principal of the College, to consider her claim for admission to the available vacancy, subject to any directives that may be issued with respect to it by the 3rd respondent – Commissioner for Entrance Examinations; and to complete proceedings as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment".

Judicial Officers' Pension | Special Pay Part Of Pay, Should Be Reckoned To Calculate Pension : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Kerala Judicial Officers' Association & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 36

The Kerala High Court held that the special pay granted to judicial officers is a part of their pay and that it is to be reckoned for the purpose of calculation of pension.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman was considering a batch of petitions filed by judicial officers who are either working or have retired from service as District and Sessions Judges, seeking refixation of pension payable to the petitioners and members of the Kerala Judicial Officers Association by reckoning special pay which is paid to them as part of their emoluments.

"Boys, even from a very young age, often grow up with certain sexist stereotypes - reinforced by peer and other social influences. Showing a girl/woman respect and honour is not old fashioned; on the contrary, is a virtue for all times. Sexism is not acceptable or “cool”. One exhibits strength when he respects a girl/woman. Respectfullness is an imperative that needs to be inculcated very young. How one treats a woman gives an insight to his upbringing and personality."

ISRO Espionage Case : Kerala High Court Allows Anticipatory Bail Applications Filed By RB Sreekumar & Other Accused

Case Title: P.S. Jayaprakash v. Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 38

The Kerala High Court allowed anticipatory bail applications of former Police and Intelligence Bureau officers, including former Gujarat ADGP RB Sreekumar and former Kerala DGP Siby Mathews, in the case relating to the alleged framing of former ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in the 1994 ISRO Espionage case.

A bench of Justice K. Babu passed the order. The Court directed that the accused must appear before the CBI for interrogation on January 27 between 10 AM and 11 AM. In the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail on executing bonds for Rs 1 lakhs each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. They cannot leave India without the permission of jurisdictional court.

'No Prima Facie Case Of Conspiracy Or Involvement Of Foreign Powers In Nambi Narayanan's Arrest': Kerala HC In ISRO Espionage Case

Case Title: P.S. Jayaprakash v. Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 38

The Kerala High Court, while allowing the anticipatory bail applications of former Police and Intelligence Bureau officers-including former Gujarat ADGP RB Sreekumar and former Kerala DGP Siby Mathews- in the case relating to the alleged framing of former ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in the 1994 ISRO Espionage case, observed that prosecution has failed to prima facie establish any element of conspiracy to hold that a foreign power had a hand in persuading the petitioners in the registration of the two crimes against Narayanan.

Justice K. Babu, after perusing the Case Diary and DK Jain Committee Report, observed that he was unable to find any credible material to prima facie find any elements of conspiracy as contended by the Additional Solicitor General.

"I am of the view that the prosecution has so far not prima facie established any element of conspiracy as projected by the learned Additional Solicitor General...have carefully examined the Case Diary and the Justice D.K.Jain Committee Report. I am unable to find any credible material to prima facie find any elements of such conspiracy. There is absolutely no indication or credible material to prima facie hold that a foreign power had a hand in persuading the petitioners/accused in the registration of the two crimes referred to above."

Section 113 (3) Motor Vehicles Act | Owners Also Liable When Vehicle Driven With Excess Weight: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Fasaludheen A. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 39

The Kerala High Court observed that owners of the vehicles are also liable to be prosecuted under Section 113(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in case they have permitted the vehicle to be driven with excess weight.

Hearing a batch of petitions challenging the proceedings initiated under Sections 113(3)(b) r/w. Section 194(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the court said the complaints raise specific allegations against the registered owners of the vehicles that they had permitted the vehicle to be driven with excess weight.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. took note of the 'presumption' stipulated under Section 113(4) that when the driver or person in charge of the vehicle being driven in contravention to the stipulations of the provision is not the owner, the Court may "presume that the offence was committed with the knowledge of or under the orders of the owner of the motor vehicle or trailer".

NDPS Act | Vehicle Piloting Another Vehicle Carrying Contraband Is Not Vehicle Used As Conveyance; Cannot Be Confiscated: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Firozalavi T.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 40

The Kerala High Court considered the question as to whether a vehicle piloting or accompanying another vehicle, which is transporting Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances could be held as vehicle used as conveyance in carrying the contraband so as to confiscate the same under Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), and answered the same in the negative.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that to hold that the vehicle accompanying or piloting another vehicle carrying the contraband, also as a vehicle carrying the contraband, and to treat the same also as conveyance is beyond the statutory intent of Section 60(3) of NDPS Act.

Kerala High Court Directs State To Revise Minimum Wages Of Nurses In Private Sector

Case Title: Kerala State United Nurses Association v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 41

The Kerala High Court has directed the State government to revise the minimum wage of nurses working in the private sector in the State.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Rawal has directed that the said exercise ought to be undertaken within a period of 3 months. The Court has added that the said decision has to be taken after hearing the submissions of the hospital Management and the nurses.

Kerala High Court Suspends Conviction Of Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal In Attempt To Murder Case

Case Title: Sayed Mohammed Noorul Ameer and Ors. v. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 42

The Kerala High Court suspended the conviction and sentence of Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal and three others in a case of attempt to murder.

Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal had moved an appeal challenging the decision of the Court of Session, Kavaratti to convict and sentence him and three others to 10 years in jail in a case of attempt to murder.

Indulging In Similar/Other Criminal Activities Reason For Bail Cancellation When Such Condition Imposed In Bail Order: Kerala HC Reiterates

Case Title: Jeby James v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 43

The Kerala High Court reiterated that indulging in similar or other criminal activities would be a reason for cancellation of the bail, particularly, when there is such a condition imposed in the initial bail order.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen, while dismissing a petition seeking the bail cancellation order passed by the court below to be set aside, observed,

"Since the law is settled that indulging in similar or other criminal activities is a reason for cancellation of the bail, particularly, when a condition imposed in the initial bail order is to that effect, involvement of the accused in a similar offence by itself is a reason to cancel the bail granted, cancellation of bail on the said finding is to be justified".

Can't Browbeat Judges To Get Things Done Your Way: Kerala High Court To Woman On Allegations Of Bias Against Family Court In Divorce Case

Case Title: RB. v. AB.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 44

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a woman's petition seeking transfer of a divorce case on the ground of alleged bias and favouritism by the Family Court Judge. The divorce case has been filed by her husband.

Justice C.S. Dias said the petitioner, a woman lawyer, has made a "scathing attack" on the Family Court Judge by questioning his integrity, honesty and impartiality, on the sole reason that he had passed a string of orders against her.

'Mentally Retarded Persons' Also Eligible For Tax Exemption For Motor Cars Purchased Since April 1, 1998: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Clint Johnson v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 45

The Kerala High Court ruled that 'mentally retarded persons' are also entitled to tax exemption in purchase of motor cars, on par with the physically handicapped persons under the notification issued by the state government in 1998 under Section 22 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan said when both the Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 state that the person with disability includes 'mentally retarded persons' also, their exclusion from tax exemption and restricting the benefit to the physically handicapped persons - blinds, deaf and orthopedically handicapped persons, is discriminatory and is liable to be interfered by the court.

S.125 CrPC | Major Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Maintenance From Father Merely On Ground That She Is Unable To Maintain Herself: Kerala HC

Case Title: Gireesh Kumar N v. Rajani K V and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 46

The Kerala High Court reiterated that an unmarried daughter who attained majority cannot claim maintenance from her father under Section 125(1) CrPC, merely on the ground that she does not have means for her sustenance.

The Court observed that an unmarried daughter unable to maintain herself by reason of any physical, mental abnormality or injury is entitled to claiming maintenance under Section 125(1) CrPC, however, pleadings and evidence in this regard are mandatory.

SC/ST Act | Bail Order Passed Without Notice To Victim A Nullity, Liable To Be Recalled: Kerala HC

Case Title: Babu T. v. Byju Sebastian and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 47

The Kerala High Court recently recalled an order which granted bail after taking note of the fact that the order was passed without notice to the victim.

The Court allowed an application filed by the victim seeking recall of the bail order passed without hearing him.

The Court observed that a notice to the victim is mandatory as contemplated under Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and if such a notice is not provided while passing a Bail Order, then it is liable to be recalled.

Compromise Decree Cannot Be Passed Where Parties Enter Into Agreement Without Specifying How The Suit Is To Be Decided: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Dr. Drisya D.T. & Ors. v. Dr. Kiran & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 48

The Kerala High Court recently held that where the parties agreed to settle a suit on the basis of an agreement entered into between themselves, without saying how the suit is to be decided or what the terms of the compromise are, no decree can be passed by the Court in such suit.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar passed the above order while dismissing the judgment rendered by the Family Court which held that all the pending cases between the parties were settled in terms of the compromise. It was noted by the Division Bench that the compromise agreement in Clause 5 merely pertained to the settlement of the case relating to setting aside of a gift deed.

"On the basis of an agreement by which the parties agreed to settle a suit, without saying how is the suit to be decided and what are the terms of compromise, no decree can be passed. If the suit is to be withdrawn also, there shall be a stipulation to that effect. Clause (5) or any other clause in Annexure A1 does not enable this Court or the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of any of the cases mentioned above except, O.P.No.780 of 2021. Therefore, the apprehension of the appellant that Annexures A1 and A2 would be interpreted to mean that all the aforesaid pending cases have been settled is genuine. In view of that Annexure A2 judgment is wrong", it was observed.

[Special Marriage Act] Youngsters Largely Employed Abroad, 30 Days Mandatory Residence & Subsequent Waiting Period May Need Relook: Kerala HC

Case Title: Dr. T. Muhammedali v. Dr. M.K. Jayaraj & Ors.

A petition has been filed before the Kerala High Court challenging the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of Calicut University, Dr. M.K. Jayaraj.

The petition has been filed by Dr. T. Muhammedali, Associate Professor in an aided college affiliated to the Calicut University, for the issuance of the writ of quo warranto against Dr. Jayaraj.

Muhammedali has argued that the post of the VC is a public office and the vacancy of such post ought to be filled by following the procedure as provided in the UGC Regulations and when the UGC Regulations are silent, by following the procedure as contained in the State enactment. It has been pointed out that a notification is required to be issued by the Chancellor of State University as mandated under the Calicut University Act, 1975.

Kerala High Court Dismisses As Withdrawn Petition Challenging Appointment Of NUALS Registrar

Case Title: Adv. Sanjai D. Rajan v. The National University of Advanced Legal Studies & Ors.

The petition challenging the appointment of the Registrar of the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) Mahadev M.G. has been withdrawn from Kerala High Court by the petitioner.

During the hearing, the Division Bench comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice C Jayachandran questioned the petitioner as to how he could file the plea before the court without filing a representation before the UGC, considering that the appointment had been made in the year 2014.

Pursuant to this, the counsels for the petitioner informed the court that he would be withdrawing the petition. The Bench permitted the same.

Case Title: P.S. Jayaprakash v. Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected matters

The Kerala HC heard the anticipatory bail pleas of former Intelligence Bureau officers who have been accused of conspiring to frame former ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in the 1994 ISRO Espionage case.

The matter was heard by a bench of Justice K. Babu. It may be recalled that the Supreme Court had in December 2022 set aside the previous orders of the High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the accused and remanded the matters for fresh consideration.

Kannur University Case| Priya Varghese Appeals Against Decision Of Single Judge

Case Title: Priya Varghese v. Joseph Skariah & Ors.

Priya Varghese, the wife of K.K. Ragesh, private secretary to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, has moved the Kerala High Court challenging the Single Bench decision which directed the competent authority of the University to reconsider her credential, and decide whether she ought to continue in the rank list for appointment.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran had passed the impugned order on November 17, 2022.

Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal Moves Kerala High Court Against 10-Year Jail Term In Attempt To Murder Case

Case Title: Sayed Mohammed Noorul Ameer and Ors. v. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep

Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the decision of Court of Session, Kavarathi to convict and sentence him and three others to 10 years in jail in a case of attempt to murder.

Faizal and the three other accused persons on Wednesday were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 324, 342, 307, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and sentenced by the Sessions Court to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs one lakh each on the convicts for attempting to kill Mohammed Salih, son-in-law of former Union Minister P M Sayeed, during the 2009 Lok Sabha polls.

Nambi Narayanan's Arrest Was Conspiracy To Stall Cryogenic Technology Development: Counsel Tells Kerala HC

Case Title: P.S. Jayaprakash v. Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected matters

The Kerala High Court was told by the counsel appearing on behalf of former ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan accused in the 1994 Espionage Case, that the arrest of the scientist was done as part of a conspiracy. The Court was told that this was done in order to stall the cryogenic engine that is crucial for India's space program.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu continued the hearing on the anticipatory bail pleas that were filed former Intelligence Bureau and Kerala police officers who were accused of conspiring to frame Narayanan in the 1994 Espionage case.

ISRO Espionage Case A Conspiracy To Derail Cryogenic Technology, Custodial Interrogation Required : CBI Tells Kerala HC

Case Title: P.S. Jayaprakash v. Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected matters

The Kerala High Court was told by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation that the entire conspiracy in ISRO espionage was to derail the development of Cryogenic Technology.

ASG submitted before the court that the matter is of serious nature involving national security and foreign powers may be involved in the conspiracy to foist a false case against eminent scientists of ISRO and custodial interrogation was necessary for proper investigation. Advocate C S Unnikrishnan appearing on behalf of former ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan sided with the contentions raised by ASG.

The Kerala Police has started a preliminary investigation in a complaint that an advocate has taken money from a client in the name of paying bribe to a High Court judge for granting anticipatory bail.

The police probe is based on a complaint made by the High Court registrar pursuant to a decision taken by a full court of all judges. The allegations are against Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor, who was recently elected as the President of the Kerala High Court Advocates Association.

No Proposal To Shift Kerala High Court To Kalamassery: Registrar General To KHCAA President

Registrar General of Kerala High Court in a letter to the President of Kerala High Court Advocates' Association has clarified that there is no proposal to shift the High Court to Kalamassery.

"Instead, the Government has only been requested to allot additional land to the High Court for further development," the Registrar General said in the communication dated January 16.

State Should Have Directly Attached Properties Of PFI Office-Bearers; Notice Was Unnecessary: Kerala High Court On Hartal Damages

Case Title: Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. State of Kerala and Malayalavedi v. State of Kerala

The Kerala High Court observed that the State Government ought to have directly proceeded to attach the properties of the PFI and its office bearers, and bring the same to sale for realization of the amount of Rs 5.20 Crore towards the damage caused during the flash hartal in September 2022.

The court was told by the State Attorney that the notice had been issued to the Secretary of PFI, Abdul Sathar, asking to show cause as to why the property need not be attached, since the court had directed that the recovery proceedings to be initiated by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.

Walayar Rape Case | Victims' Mother Seeks Monitoring Of CBI Investigation By Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXX v. The Central Bureau of Investigation

The mother of the two minor girls in the Walayar rape case has approached the Kerala High Court seeking monitoring of the probe being conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The prosecution case was that the accused persons had trespassed into the shed where the deceased minor girls were residing with their family, since April 2016, on various occasions, and had subjected the girls to rape, and it was on account of the sexual assault and harassment that the minor girls committed suicide by hanging themselves. The girls, aged 13 and 9 years, were found hanging in the shed.

Can't Snoop On Neighbours In Guise Of Installing CCTV Cameras For Security: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Agnes Michale v. Cheranalloor Grama Panchayat & Ors.

The Kerala High Court made a prima facie view that no one should be permitted to snoop into the affairs of their neighbours, in the guise of installing CCTV cameras for security.

Justice V.G. Arun thus directed the State Police Chief to come out with appropriate guidelines regarding the manner in which CCTV cameras are to be installed, in consultation with the State government.

Food Poisoning Incidents In Kerala: High Court Directs State Health Secretary To File Action Taken Report

Case Title: In Re: Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Newspaper Reports dated 02.05.2022 on Food Poisoning

The Kerala High Court directed the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, to file a detailed report regarding numerous food poisoning incidents that occurred in the State recently and the steps taken against perpetrators.

At least 68 people were admitted to various hospitals on Tuesday after having food from an eatery in North Paravur at Ernakulam, mainstream media reported. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly has taken judicial notice of the mishap.

Consider Imposing Penalty On Drivers Using Fastag Lanes At Toll Plazas Without Fitting Fastag: Kerala High Court To Centre

Case Title: Nithin Ramakrishnan v. Union of India and Ors.

The Kerala High Court directed the Central Government to consider whether penalty can be imposed on drivers using the lanes reserved for Fastag vehicles, without fitting Fastag or with expired Fastag.

The direction was issued while considering a petition alleging that the delay on the part of the Concessionaire's staff in collecting the toll at Paliyekkara Toll Plaza and their disputes with the drivers are resulting in traffic snarls.

Kerala Govt Raises Retirement Age Of Kerala High Court Staff

The Government of Kerala has amended the Kerala High Court Services (Determination of Retirement Age) Act, 2008 to increase the retirement age of the High Court staff.

The amendment has raised the age of retirement for the High Court staff, who were appointed before April 2013, from 55 to 56 years and the retirement age of those who were appointed after April 1, 2013, and are members of the National Pension System from 55 to 60 years.

The Central Government has issued a notification appointing Justices Abdul Rahim Musaliar Badharudeen, Viju Abraham, and Mohammed Nias Chovvakkaran Puthiyapurayil, as permanent Judges of the Kerala High Court.

Justice A. Badharudeen, Justice Viju Abraham, and Justice Mohammed Nias were additional judges earlier.

The Supreme Court collegium on December 9, 2022, had approved the proposal for their appointment as Permanent Judges of the Kerala High Court.

'Was Only A Co-Passenger Of Sriram Venkitaraman; Have Not Abetted The Offence': Wafa Firoz Tells Kerala High Court

Case Title: Wafa Najim @ Wafa Firoz v. State of Kerala

The Kerala High Court heard the criminal revision petition filed by Wafa Firoz, the 2nd accused person in the 2019 rash driving case involving the IAS Officer, Sreeram Venkitaraman.

The matter is before Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.

During the hearing, it was submitted by the counsels for the petitioner that the only offence against the petitioner was that under Section 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for abetment of the offence under Section 184 and 185. However, the counsel pointed out that there was no record to indicate that the petitioner had abetted the commission of the offence by the 1st accused person.

PFI Hartal: Kerala High Court Directs Claims Commissioner To Commence Proceedings For Quantification Of Damages From Next Week

Case Title: Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. State of Kerala and Malayalavedi v. State of Kerala

The Kerala High Court directed the Claims Commissioner to commence proceedings for quantification of the loss caused on account of Flash Hartal called by Popular Front of India (PFI) in September 2022, from next week onwards.

The Division Bench consisting of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P said:

"Claims Commissioner to commence proceedings for quantification of the loss caused on account of the overt acts on 23.09.2022 from next week onwards and the State of Kerala and its officials are hereby directed to afford such assistance required to the Claim Commissioner for commencing the proceedings."

Magician Gopinath Muthukad To Get Recognition Certificate From Kerala High Court For His Uplifting Work For Specially-Abled Children

The Kerala High Court recognized the efforts being made by magician Gopinath Muthukad for upliftment of the differently-abled children, and asked the Registrar General to convey the appreciation of court to Muthukad and the entire team of Different Art Centre (DAC).

The court appreciated the famous magician in its decision on a petition challenging the exclusion of 'mentally retarded persons' from the government notification that grants exemption from taxation for motor cars of physically handicapped persons.

Kerala High Court Notifies Uniform Procedure For Impleading Legal Heirs Of Deceased Parties

The Kerala High Court in an Official Memorandum dated 24 January 2023 has directed for the implementation of a uniform procedure to be followed while impleading the legal heirs of deceased parties.

The OM issued by Registrar General reads that Chief Justice has ordered for the implementation of the Division Bench order in State of Kerala v. Govindan.