Kerala Court December 2009 Judgments

John Bosco, Section Officer, University and Jacob Philip, Section Grad ...

Court: Kerala

Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 23246/2007. W.A. No. 2380/2009 is filed by respondents 5 and 6 and W.A. No. 2496/2009 is filed by respondents 3 and 4 in the Writ Petition. As the very same judgment is under challenge in these appeals, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2. W.A. No. 2380/2009: This Writ Appeal is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the parties and exhibits. The brief facts of the case are the following: The 6th respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade II in the Kerala University on 1.8.1988. She applied for leave for higher studies. The University granted the same by Ext.P1 order dated 30.1.1992 with effect from 1.2.1992 for a period of two years. The purpose of leave was shown as higher studies and the rule referred to in Ext.P1 for granting the leave was Rule 91 of Part I, Kerala Service Rules (for short 'K.S.R.'). While the 6th...

Manoj Vs. Vidhya

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT305

R. Basant, J.1. Is proof of irretrievable break down of marriage irrelevant altogether in a claim for divorce on the ground of matrimonial cruelty?ii) Can physical assault by husband against wife even when it is not gross be reckoned as natural wear and tear of marriage to avoid the consequence of a decree for divorce?iii) Is a court justified in rigidly insisting on independent corroboration for proof of matrimonial cruelty?These questions arise for consideration in these appeals.2. These appeals are preferred by the appellant/husband. The respondent herein is his wife. In these matrimonial appeals, a common order passed in two Original Petitions is assailed. Those petitions are filed by the rival contestants for divorce and for restitution of conjugal rights. The petition for divorce was filed by the wife whereas the petition for restitution of conjugal right was filed by the appellant/husband. By the said common order, it was found that the husband is guilty of matrimonial cruelty. ...

Rajeev G.H.S.A., Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The appellants were the writ petitioners. The Writ Petition was filed by them, challenging Ext.P3 order of the Director of Public Instruction (for short 'D.P.I.'), revising the staff fixation order of their school for the academic year 1997- 98, Ext.P4 order of the Government, affirming the same and also Ext.P5 order of the Government declining to take a different view than the one taken in Ext.P4. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that Ext.P4 was already quashed by this Court and on reconsideration, in its place, Ext.P5 order was passed. So, the appellants pressed only the challenge against Exts.P3 and P5 orders.2. After the finalisation of the staff fixation order, the super check cell under the D.P.I made a visit to the school on 3.11.1997. Based on the report of the super check cell, the D.P.I issued Ext.P2 notice, proposing to revise the staff fixation order of the year 1997-98. The irregularities noted by the super check cell were also state...

Markose V. S/O Varkey Vs. the Authorised Officer,

Court: Kerala

A.K. Basheer, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment in WP(C) No. 20412/09. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge held that the appellant was guilty of suppression of material facts and therefore he was not entitled to get any relief in the Writ petition.2. The sole prayer in the Writ petition was to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P3 communication informing the appellant and his co-obligant that the property which was mortgaged to secure a loan advanced by them had been sold for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/-. The appellant and his co-obligant were therefore directed to give vacant possession of the said property.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the Bank. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the auction purchaser who is additional respondent No. 3 in the Writ Appeal.4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the materials available on record, we do not deem it necessary to deal wi...

P.N. Mohanadasan Vs. the State Information Commission,

Court: Kerala

S.R. Bannurmath, C.J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18th November, 2009 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, the present writ appeal is filed.2. The appellant who is now working as Administrative Assistant in the office of the District Medical Officer of Health, Wayanad was the designated State Public Information Officer in the office of the District Medical Officer of Health, Pathanamthitta. After such appointment, the third respondent herein submitted an application on 17.8.2008 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and requested for certain information. On receipt of the application, the appellant intimated the applicant/third respondent by letter dated 4.9.2008 to furnish certain details regarding his organization, the registration number and other details and also to prove that he is an Indian citizen. Sensing the delaying tactics and bona fides of the appellant in not giving the infor...

R. Shaji S/O. Raghavan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

P. Bhavadasan, J,1. The case from which these appeals arise reveals a gruesome and horrendous murder by the guardian of law along with four others, three of whom are mercenaries. Initially only accused Nos. 1 and 2 were available for trial. Their trial ended in conviction and both of them were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. They were also sentenced for some other offences also. Later accused Nos. 3 and 4 surrendered and they were also tried. The details of that case are not relevant for the present purpose.2. Crl. Appeal No. 86 of 2006 is by the first accused and Crl. Appeal 193 of 2006 is by the second accused against their conviction and sentences. The State has come up in appeal in Crl. Appeal No. 1796 of 2007 seeking enhancement of sentence. The State canvasses for capital punishment.3. The incident which gave rise to this case seems to have occurred in the evening of 15.2.2005. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the deceased were all related to P.W.1. Praveen, the victim, was ea...

Ramamorthy Vs. Food Inspector

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT673

ORDERP.S. Gopinathan, J.1. The first respondent, Food Inspector, Thalassery, on 19.2.2003 took sample of vanaspati from shop bearing No. 12/317 at Mambram in Vengad Grama Panchayat run by one Abdul Khader. When sent for analysis it was reported that the sample did not confirm to the standard prescribed by the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and hence it was adulterated. The prosecution was launched against the vendor as well as the distributor. It was revealed that the sample purchased by the first respondent was manufactured by SSD Oil Mills Company Ltd. The request of the first respondent to the said company to intimate the details regarding nominee under Section 17(2) of the Act was not heeded by the company authorities. Therefore, the first respondent got impleaded the Managing Director, who is the revision petitioner before this Court as the third accused.2. The revision petitioner filed a petition as C.M.P. No. 385...

K.K. Manoharan and T.S. Krishnankutty Vs. State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

Kurian Joseph, J.1. This appellants are the petitioners in the writ petition. They are working as Masseurs in the Indian Systems of Medicine (Ayurveda). They approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 communication from the Government. In Ext.P5, the Government dealt with the representations filed in the matter of parity of pay scale with that of Ayurveda Nurses/Pharmacist Grade II and declined the request for parity.2. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition without prejudice to the liberty to the petitioners to approach the Pay Revision Commission and hence this appeal.3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the 1998 Pay Revision Commission had recommended the upgradation of the scale of pay to Rs. 1050-1660, which was the existing scale of pay of Nurses/Pharmacists in Ayurveda. The scale of pay applicable to Masseurs was Rs. 950-1650. However, when the revision of pay was effected, the scale of pay of Nurses was revised from Rs. 1050-1660...

Ramesh S/O. Mohanan Vs. State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner, brother of a detenu by name Ratheesh @ Induchoodan, who is detained as per an order of detention passed by the second respondent under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA') has come to this Court for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to direct the production of the said detenu Ratheesh and to set him at liberty.2. The third respondent had submitted Ext.P1 report to the second respondent recommending action against the said Ratheesh (hereinafter called 'the detenu) under Section 3 of the KAAPA. The second respondent on consideration of the said report had passed Ext.P2 order of detention dated 5.8.2009 under Section 3(2) of the KAAPA. The detenu was taken into custody and was arrested on 14.8.2009 in execution of Ext.P2 order. He continues in custody from that date. It is conceded that order of approval under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA and order of confirmation under Section 10(4) of the KAA...

Mar Philexinos Vocational Higher Secondary School Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT176

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The Manager of a Vocational Higher Secondary School is the petitioner herein. The question that is raised in the Writ Petition is about the legality of the direction issued by the Government in the impugned order, Ext.P16, to the Manager to initiate de novo disciplinary action against the third respondent as provided under Chap.XIV-AK.E.R.2. Ext.P16 is the order passed by the Government in Ext.P15 appeal filed by the Manager against Ext.P14 order passed by the Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education. In fact, in Ext.P14 order the Director was of the view that the petitioner/ Manager can terminate the appointment of the third respondent only after following the procedure contemplated in KCS (CC &A;) Rules.3. Therefore, the main question raised by the petitioner is whether the direction issued by the Government to comply with the provisions of Chap.XIV-AK.E.R. in regard to the disciplinary action taken against the third respondent, is correct or not...