Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C J. 1. This writ petition filed as public interest litigation prays for issue of writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P1 order, by which, the Central Government has constituted State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Kerala and State level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), Kerala. A writ of quo warranto has also been prayed for against respondents 5 to 8. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.2, 5 to 8. Statement has also been filed by the counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding the writ petition are :- In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, a notification has been issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests dated 14.9.2006 providing for obtaining environmental clearance for construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. All these Writ Appeals except W.A. No.556 of 2016 arise out of W.P(C) No.39448 of 2015. Writ Appeal No.556 of 2016 arises out of the judgment in W.P(C) No.3504 of 2016. Common issues of fact and law being involved in all these Writ Appeals they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Writ Petitioners are the in-service candidates who have completed five years of service whereas the appellantsare in-service candidates who have completed two yearsof service. There is inter-se dispute between the candidates who have completed five and two years service, respectively regarding admission to Post Graduate Medical Course, 2016. Writ petitioners who have completed five years of service shall be referred to as petitioners whereas the in-service candidates who have completed two years of service shall be referred as appellants. 2. Brief facts and sequence of events giving rise to the Writ Appeals are: The issues which have been raised in thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Life is a See-Saw but not so an examination quipped a medico when confronted with the results of his Post-graduate medical examination after repeated attempts leaving him confusion confounded. The in congruity between the MCI (Medical Council of India) Regulations and the KUHS (Kerala University of Health Sciences) Regulations is highlighted. 2. The petitioners are Post-graduate medical students who have failed in their M.D/M.S/Diploma courses either because they did not secure the minimum in one of the four theory papers or in one of the clinical/practical tests. The petitioners challenge the relevant clause in the KUHS Regulations as being repugnant and inconsistent with the MCI Regulations as regards the prescription for a pass in their examinations for the course. The petitioners have also a case that the KUHS Regulations have not been notified as yet in the Gazette and that their eligibility to pass in the examinations for the course should be judged according to the MCI Regula...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Petitioners are persons, who are aggrieved with their impending retirement, which occurs at the end of the academic year. WP(C) No.10257 of 2016 is filed by teachers, who are retiring at the age of 56, from aided affiliated Colleges, whose salaries are paid by the Government under the direct payment agreement. WP(C) No.11511 of 2016 is filed by teachers, who are working with the University of Kerala itself, whose retirement is at the age of 60. The retirement, respectively at the age of 56 and 60, is by way of prescriptions made by the State under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claim that they ought to be granted extended period of service and permitted to continue till the age of 65 as per the 'UGC Regulations On Minimum Qualifications For Appointment Of Teachers And Other Academic Staff In Universities And Colleges And Measures For The Maintenance Of Standards In Higher Education 2010'(herein after for brevity 'UGC Regulations'). The UGC Regulations spec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Whether charging prices in excess of MRP (Maximum Retail Price) printed on the label of Beer served to guests in a Bar Hotel, operating on the strength of an FL3 Licence issued by the Excise Department, will attract the penal provisions of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011, is the question that is to be answered in this petition filed under S.482 of the Code. 2. The prosecution case as is revealed from the complaint laid before the court below runs thus: An inspection was conducted on 22.12.2011 by the second respondent in the premises of M/s Hotel Savoy Bar at Kozhikkode. He placed an order for 3 portions of 90 ml- MC Whisky, 1 portion of 90 ml -MC Brandy, one bottle of Beer, snacks and a soda and on his request a bill was issued for the same. Measurements were made in respect of Whisky and Brandy supplied to the complainant and the same revealed that it was in accord with the order placed. In respect of the beer purchased by the Senior Inspector, it was reveale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The constitutional validity of Section 56A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, falls for consideration in these writ petitions. 2. In W.P.(C)No.18030/2014, the petitioners are the Co-operative Bank and one of its members; respondents 4 and 5 are the borrowers, the latter of whom mortgaged her property as security for the loans. Apart from being husband and wife, the fourth and fifth respondents are the petitioners in 18030/2014 respectively. 3. While the Bank has raised the issue of vires of Section 56A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the borrowers, on the other hand, seek the enforcement of Exhibits P7 and P8 orders passed by the authorities drawing their power from the impugned provision. 4. Since the writ petitions have similar issues involving the same parties, this Court has proposed to dispose of the writ petitions through a common judgment. For ease of reference and convenience, the facts as pleaded and the parties as have been arrayed in W.P.(C)No. 1803...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Whether the removal of admission and access to entertainment event and amusement facilities [sub-clause (j) of Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994] from the Negative List of Services by an Amendment of 2012 and the consequent imposition of service tax on such activity would result in the Union Parliament trenching upon the exclusive field assigned to the State, under Entry 62 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India is the question raised herein. 2. Entry 62 of List II [any reference to Lists I, II or III is to the Lists under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution] deals with taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling . The State has also brought out the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as State Act of 1961 ], wherein Section 3, the charging section, provides for levy of tax and the rate of tax; connected cases the same being on the price for admission to any entertainme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. The Range Officer/Authorised Officer, Kerala Forest Department and the Tahsildar, Devikulam, who were respondents 1 and 2 in W.P(C) No.29534 of 2015 have come up in appeal against the judgment dated 26.10.2015 in the aforesaid Writ Petition by which judgment, the learned Single Judge has permitted the petitioner to cut and remove 9 planted Eucalyptus trees from 25 cents of land in R.S. No.49/1-1, Block No.14 of Pallivasal Village. 2. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings on record are: Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in business of running hotel, hospitality management, etc. For establishing a hotel in Munnar, petitioner purchased 25 cents of land in R.S. No.49/1-1 by sale deed dated 06.05.2015. The previous owner of the property was given no objection certificate by the Pallivasal Grama Panchayat on 24.01.2007 for construction of a building in the said property. In the property there were 9 Eucalyptus trees planted by the previous owner....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These six Writ Appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 13.10.2015 delivered in a bunch of Writ Petitions. Writ Petition No.4949 of 2015 was treated as the leading Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge for referring the facts and pleadings. Writ Appeal No.2441 of 2015 arising out of Writ Petition No.4949 of 2015 is being treated as the leading Writ Appeal and it shall be sufficient to refer to the facts and pleadings in W.A. No.2441 of 2015 for deciding all these Writ Appeals. The parties shall be referred to as described in Writ Petition No.4949 of 2015. 2. Writ Petition No.4949 of 2015 giving rise to Writ Appeal No.2441 of 2015 was filed by five Writ Petitioners who were all Primary Agricultural Credit Banks. The first petitioner, Perumanna Service Co-operative Bank was registered on 24.02.1966 which is a Class I Special Credit Bank under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 which was enforced in Malabar area. Second petitioner, Olav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Hariprasad, J. 1. This appeal is boarded before us by way of a reference. In the reference order, the learned Single Judge has observed that the ratio in Shyamalavalli Amma v. Kavalam Jisha (2007 (3) KLT 270) is irreconcilable with that in Narayani v. Aravindakshan (2005 (4) KLT 1) because the learned Single Judge, while disposing of Shyamalavalli Amma's case, did not advert to the judgment in Narayani's case. Learned Single Judge doubted the pronouncement in Shyamalavalli Amma's case, by placing reliance on the decision by the Supreme Court in Kalliani Amma v. K.Devi (1996 (2) KLT 42) too. 2. The defendants in O.S.No.916 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur are the appellants and the plaintiffs are the respondents. 3. We shall narrate the facts, in nut shell, for a clear understanding of the disputes. The suit is one for partition. There are 32 items of immovable properties scheduled to the plaint. It is averred in the plaint that the properties belonged to Vaikkat...
Tag this Judgment!