Kerala Court April 2010 Judgments

Anoop Mohanan S/O. Mohanan Vs. the District Collector

Court: Kerala

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No. KL-7/AD 6457. The said vehicle was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Cheruthuruthy Police station on 11.5.2009 on the allegation that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. A report was thereupon submitted to the District Collector, Thrissur. The petitioner thereupon moved the District Collector seeking release of his vehicle. On that petition, the District Collector heard the petitioner and passed Ext.P2 order whereby he ordered confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle finding that it was used to transport river sand without a valid pass. The District Collector however directed that in the event of the petitioner remitting the sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- which was fixed as the value of the vehicle with the assistance of the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Wadakkanchery, in the River Management Fund, the vehicle will be released to him. The petitioner has aggrieved thereby f...

Renjith R., S/O. Rajakuruppu and Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

K.M. Joseph, J.1. Petitioners seek a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioners' life and to ply their autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-57-254 by parking the same at Narikkuni, Calicut District in compliance with Ext.P1 permit conditions. Obstruction is alleged against respondents 5 to 8.2. A Counter Affidavit is filed on behalf of the party respondents. Therein, the case set up is that the second petitioner is the person belonging to Narikkuni Panchayat. It is further stated as follows:Ext.P1 Permit shows that the parking place is at Narikkuni. The autorickshaw was being operated by a driver belonging to Narikkuni, during which time, there was no objection. It is stated that Ext.R5(a) is a decision taken by the Co-ordination Committee of all political parties, that the autorickshaw having Permit in Narikkuni Panchayat should be driven by a driver belonging to the same Panchayat. It is also stated that because the first petitioner i...

V. Achuthan Vs. V.A. Nishadmon

Court: Kerala

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. These Writ Appeals are filed against the common interim order dated 29.3.2010 in W.P.(C) Nos. 3299 and 6745 of 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeals are the following:We refer to the Exhibits produced in W.P.(C) No. 3299 of 2010. Ext.P3 is a seniority list of Promotee Sub Inspectors of Police (General Executive Branch) as on 2.3.2003. It was finalised by the Director General of Police, by his proceedings dated 3.8.2009. The competent authority decided to order promotions to the post of Circle Inspector, from the said list. The direct recruits to the post of Sub Inspector, filed representations against the said steps. A Division Bench of this Court directed the competent authority to consider their representations and also permitted to follow the existing seniority list for promotions, till final orders are passed on the representations. The representations of the direct recruits were rejecte...

Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam Vs. Smt. Smithamol.S. and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the first opposite party and respondents 1 to 4 were the complainant and opposite parties 2 to 4 respectively in CC No. 101/2007 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 4 due to their failure to pay the deposited amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest from September 2006 onwards. Thus, the aforesaid complaint was filed for getting the deposited amount with interest, compensation and costs. 2. The first opposite party entered appearance in the said CC No. 101/2007 and filed written version contending that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party; that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties; that the first opposite party is not a necessary party to the said proceedings; that the first opposite party has never entered into any transaction with the complainant; that the first opposite p...

The Thrikkakara Grama Panchayath Vs. Reliance Hyper Mart Ltd. and the ...

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. WP(c). No. 37684/08 is filed by the Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat, challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No. 443/08, declaring it ex-parte and taking the view that M/s. Reliance Hyper Mart Ltd., the first respondent in this writ petition is entitled to a deemed licence. The deemed licence declared in Ext.P4 order was for the year 2008-09 and therefore by lapse of time, period of the said deemed licence has expired long ago. Therefore, at this distance of time, I do not find any relevance to the issue raised in this writ petiton. Therefore WP(c). No. 37684/08 is closed as infructuous.2. In so far as WP(c). No. 9411/09 is concerned, that was filed by M/s. Reliance Hyper Mart Ltd; against the Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat praying to quash Ext.P3, the communication by which the licence application made by the petitioner was returned stating that WP(c). No. 37684/08 was pending. In that writ petition, this Court pas...

Bhadran and Sasikumar Vs. the State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 119 of 2010 of Kareelakulangara Police Station.2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.3. The case of the de facto complainant is that on 12.12.2007, she was abducted by accused No. 1 and she was taken to the house of accused No. 2. In that house, she was illegally confined till 16.12.2007 and she was raped by the first accused on several occasions. She became pregnant and a child was born to her. There is no allegation of rape against accused No. 2. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Magistrate's court on 10.3.2010. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly,...

Praveen Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ617

P.R. Raman, J.1. W.A. 2754/2009 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C) 23071/2009. The appellant, who was the petitioner, applied for permission to convert a piece of wet land under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. The application was made in 2007. Reminders were also sent subsequently and the matter was pending consideration when a new enactment namely, Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was passed and came into force, with effect from 12.8.2008. Subsequently, the application submitted by the appellant was rejected holding that since the Act has already come into force, he has to seek permission under the said Act. Challenging the said order, the Writ Petition was filed. Learned Single Judge, after referring to the relevant provisions contained in the Conservation Act more particularly Section 3(1) of the said Act, which prohibits conversion or reclamation of the paddy land except in accordance with ...

Rajagopal S/O. Arjunan Nair and Sureshkumar S/O. Sudhakaran Vs. State ...

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. This, alas, is yet another case where the ugly and shameful spectacle of hostility of the prosecution witnesses with impunity clouds the truth discovery process by courts by procedure established by law. It also brings to light the need to boldly and innovatively look at the efficacy of the ruler of the complicated process of truth discovery in our criminal justice system.2. Is there a semblance of legal evidence to support the allegations against the appellants? Are not the appellants entitled atleast to the benefit of doubt? Did the court below, shocked and dissatisfied with the parade of hostile witnesses before it, commit the indiscretion of not insisting on and ignoring the core mandate of human right jurisprudence that deprivation of life and liberty can be only on the basis of satisfactory proof of culpability?3. These questions are raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri. M.K. Damodaran in this case.4. Appellants are two of the seven accused, who fa...

Eldho M. Kuriakose Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed by him, challenging Ext.P6 order dated 15.2.2010, issued by the Chief Engineer, the 2nd respondent herein, deploying him along with others to the Local Self Government Department. In fact, the appellant was deployed earlier to the Local Self Government Department, as per Ext.P3 order. But, the same could not be implemented, owing to certain technical defects in that order. The persons covered by that order, except the appellant herein, were already deployed and they have completed their tenure also. Now. the 2nd respondent has rectified the mistake and the appellant/writ petitioner has been deployed. By the deployment, none of the service conditions of the appellant is affected and after completing his normal tenure, he can go back also. This Court has also upheld the policy of the Government concerning deployment in several decisions. Therefore, the deployment cannot be faulted. But, the griev...

Bhargavan S/O. Mallan Vs. the State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 197 of 2002 of Panniyankara Police Station, which is now pending in C.C. No. 44 of 2010, on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode.2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The charge sheet was filed in the case on 15.1.2010. It is stated that the petitioner could not be arrested during the crime stage. He was absconding. After filing the charge sheet, summons could not be served on the petitioner as he was not available. The case was treated as long pending. He was arrested in execution of the non-bailable warrant on 12.3.2010. He was produced before Court. The petitioner moved for bail. That application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner filed application for bail before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode Divisi...