Kerala High Court Weekly Round Up: March 7 To March 13, 2022
Hannah M Varghese
13 March 2022 9:07 AM IST
Nominal Index [Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114 - 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126 ]Sanjeev Hansda & Ors v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114Deputy Director of Education & Ors v. P.A Suhura, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 115M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 116K. Jaya Kuma v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 117P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of...
Nominal Index
[Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114 - 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126 ]
Sanjeev Hansda & Ors v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
Deputy Director of Education & Ors v. P.A Suhura, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
K. Jaya Kuma v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
Union Bank of India v. K.J. Jose & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
Harikrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
Dr. Sonia K Das v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
YYY v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
Nico Tiles v. State Tax Officer & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
Krishna Moorthy Rao v. S. Bhanumathi @ Lakshmi & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
B.S. Syamkumar v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
Kerala High Court Judgments This Week
Case Title: Sanjeev Hansda & Ors v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
The Court deleted the condition imposed by a Judicial Magistrate of producing sureties from Kerala on the bail granted to a group of migrant labourers. In a plea moved by the workers, Justice K. Haripal observed that it was unwholesome to insist them to produce sureties from the State itself while deleting the condition that sureties must belong to the State of Kerala. However, since the specific allegation against the accused was that they caused damage to the State to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs, it was held that they are liable to bear a portion of the damage sustained by the State.
2. Temporary Relinquishment Of Promotion Can Extend Beyond One Year: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Deputy Director of Education & Ors v. P.A Suhura
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
The Court has ruled that the Government Order issued in 1991 mandating that temporary relinquishment of promotion shall be for a minimum period of one year only implies that it should be at least for a minimum period of one year and that it can go beyond one year. A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Viju Abraham observed that the said Order was issued considering the administrative inconvenience caused due to repeated temporary relinquishment of promotion by employees for short periods to the same grade to suit their convenience.
Case Title: M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
The Court has ruled that in the case of a breach of contract, no compensation can be granted under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act unless such breach resulted in an actual loss or damage to the opposite party. Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha opined that the words 'loss or damage' would necessarily indicate that the party who complains of breach must have really suffered some loss or damage apart from being faced with the mere act of breach of contract since every breach of every contract need not necessarily result in actual loss or damage.
Case Title: K. Jaya Kuma v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
The Court dismissed a petition filed by a retired Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau) seeking to quash a case registered against him by the Vigilance Special Investigation Unit. Justice Sunil Thomas gave green light to the VACB to continue with its probe against the petitioner finding that the offences alleged against him were not covered by the protection under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
The Court while dismissing the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 sexual assault case ruled that Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not restrict the investigating agency from conducting a further probe into a crime when it is notified of new information. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that Section 173(8) of CrPC does not imply that further investigation could be conducted only after getting further materials in connection with the crime.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Dismisses Dileep's Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Sexual Assault Case
6. Maintainability Of A Petition Can Be Contested Long After Its Admission: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Union Bank of India v. K.J. Jose & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
The Court ruled that the question of maintainability of a writ petition can be raised by the respondents years after its admission and even if an interim relief has been granted on the plea. However, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan clarified that a high court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should ensure that its decision is equitable to both the parties involved. The Court also suggested some of the relevant factors for high courts to exercise their discretionary power when a petition is admitted, despite there being an alternative remedy available
7. Kerala High Court Directs 5 College Students Accused Of Ragging Their Juniors To Engage In Social Service For 2 Weeks
Case Title: Harikrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
The Court directed five college students of TKM Engineering College to engage in social service for two weeks, to quash the proceedings pending against them for ragging two junior students. Arguing that they had settled the matter among themselves, the accused had sought to quash the proceedings pending against them. While agreeing to quash the proceedings against them, Justice K. Haripal ordered the petitioners to undergo some kind of social service preferably in the General Hospital for two weeks.
Case Title: Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
The Court has held that the failure of a dealer to attend assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as the violation of principles of natural justice. The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has observed that petitioner/dealer was granted sufficient opportunity to contest the assessment proceedings and the failure to do so cannot be regarded as a violation of the principles of natural justice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Dr. Sonia K Das v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
The Court has upheld the appointment of Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) Director of Legal Studies- Dr. Vani Kesari A, by dismissing a petition challenging the selection process. A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P observed that it was up to the court to decide if the procedure followed by the statutory selection committee was legal, even if it was deviant from the one prescribed by the statute.
10. Kerala High Court Aids 10 Year Old Rape Survivor To Terminate 30 Weeks Pregnancy
Case Title: YYY v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
The Court came to the aid of a 10-year old girl who was allegedly sexually abused by her father, by permitting her to undergo medical termination of her 8-month (30 weeks) old pregnancy. Finding the plight of the girl who became pregnant at such a tender age 'unfortunate', Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan allowed the plea for medical termination of pregnancy moved by the girl's mother.
Case Title: Nico Tiles v. State Tax Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
The Court has recently held that a taxpayer cannot seek to avoid mandatory pre-deposits as a remedy to an appeal under Section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that granting such relief would render the provisions of the Act redundant. The Court also noted that this appeal was preferred as early as March 2020, so the liability to make the pre-deposit befalls on the date of filing of the appeal. This liability cannot be eschewed from reckoning on the basis of subsequent events, which as claimed by the petitioner to be beneficial to it, the Judge noted.
12. Suit Filed By Minor Without Appointing Next Friend Is A Curable Irregularity: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Krishna Moorthy Rao v. S. Bhanumathi @ Lakshmi & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
The Court held that a suit filed by a minor without a next friend need not be taken off from the file since the same is a curable irregularity and by filing a subsequent application, the defect can be cured. Justice A. Badharudeen held that the defect can be cured by filing a separate petition for the same and that the suit can be proceeded thereafter. As such, it was held that the appointment of a next friend subsequent to the filing of the suit is not bad in law.
13. Kerala High Court Reinstates Its Directions On Use Of Flex Boards In State
Case Title: B.S. Syamkumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
The Court has reiterated the extensive set of directions it had issued last year on the issue of the use of plastics/flex boards in the State. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly recalled the directions in a petition challenging the State's inaction in taking effective measures to prohibit the manufacture, storage, sale and usage of Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) Flex.
Other Significant Developments
14. Full Bench Of Only Women Judges, For The First Time, In Kerala High Court
Incidentally, on international women's day, a full bench comprising only women judges will hear a case in the Kerala High Court. This is the first time in the history of the Court that a full bench comprising only women judges has been constituted. The cause list showed Justices Anu Sivaraman, V Shircy and M.R Anitha as members of the women's only full bench.
15. Hotel No.18 POCSO Case: Kerala High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Accused Roy Vayalat
Case Title: Roy J. Vayalat v. State of Kerala
The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications moved by No.18 hotel owner Roy J Vayalat and his friend Syju M.Thankachan in a POCSO case where they have been accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl at the hotel. However, the third accused Anjali has been granted pre-arrest bail. Justice Gopinath P granted pre-arrest to the third accused subject to conditions considering the fact that she is a woman aged 24 years.
Case Title: Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Chief Justice of India
The Court directed its Registrar (Judicial) to explain why a couple of writ petitions were not listed before a Bench on time despite all the defects being cured and recurring requests from the counsel for the petitioner. A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P sought a response from the Registry having found force in the submission of the petitioner that such delay could be fatal to the litigant's right to access to justice.
Case Title: Edadan Chindan Nair & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.
The Court directed the State government to reconsider the application moved by an Indian National Army (INA) veteran for a Central government pension scheme on the ground that his application was rejected for hypertechnical grounds. Justice Murali Purushothaman recorded that the petitioner's application was rejected mechanically without any application of mind. The Court also added that there were many freedom fighters whose sacrifices and names were not known to the common man.
Case Title: A.D. Johnson & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Court while dealing with a batch of petitions seeking expeditious distribution of available land to the landless Scheduled Caste and Tribe families at Chengara expressed its apprehension over the State's submission that there was a scarcity of assignable lands. Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that this was a cause of concern particularly since these issues arose out of an agitation that had its own sordid consequences and that steps should be taken to prevent such events from happening again.
19. Can State Fix RT-PCR Rates For Private Labs? Kerala High Court Refers Issue To Division Bench
The Court referred the issue relating to the fixation of charges for the RT-PCR test, as he held a divergent view from another judge who ruled that the government had no power to regulate the price of the test to a Division Bench. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan opined that after going through the relevant statutory provisions that there is sufficient source of power to the State to regulate the price rate of RT-PCR tests, thereby dissenting with a previous decision of a Single Judge.
