Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. W.P.(C) No.18690 of 2009 filed as a public interest litigation raises environmental concern alleging illegal filling of wet land to the extent of 7.42.64 hectares (74,264 sq.m) situated within 15 kilometers from the Ashtamudi Lake, which is one of the 19 sites designated as 'wet land of international importance' in the State of Kerala. The writ petition was entertained as public interest litigation on 6.7.2009. Various orders were passed by the Division Benches from time to time including appointment of Advocate Commissioner by order dated 21.12.2010 to inspect the premises and submit a report. The Advocate Commissioner, after inspection, submitted a report. Counter affidavits by the State as well as the 8th respondent, who is the contesting respondent had already been filed. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.10.2015, the petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit, in which, counter affidavit has also been filed by the 8th respondent. 2. W.P.(C)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
J. Chelameswar, C.J. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 3rd July 2007 rendered in two writ petitions namely W.P. (C) Nos. 12587 of 2007 and 12874 of 2007. 2. The facts leading to the litigation are as follows: The Government of India decided to acquire certain parcels of land in the State of Kerala for the establishment of Inland Water Transport Terminals at three place called Thanneermukkom North, Mullackal and Thrikkunnappuzha. For the purpose of the fulfillment of the said project, the Government of India entrusted its functions to the Govt. of Kerala, by issuing notification invoking the power under Article 258 of the Constitution of India dated 19th January, 1985. Thereafter, the Govt. of Kerala issued a notification dated 16th December 1987 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, indicating the various parcels of land proposed to be acquired in the three villages mentioned above. 3. In these two appeals, we are concerned with the acquisition, in s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Antony Dominic, J. 1. The first petitioner is a partnership firm, which has established a three star hotel located within the limits of the Kollam Corporation. The second petitioner is stated to be an employee of the hotel. The hotel has been issued a FL-3 licence, which has been renewed from time to time and is valid upto 31/3/13. 2. In this writ petition, petitioners challenge the validity of Rule 28 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, which was substituted by notification dated 18th of April 2012. This rule read as under; "28 (1) FL-3 Hotels (Restaurants) functioning within a Panchayat or Municipality shall not be kept open before 8' O clock in the morning and after 11' O clock in the night. FL-3 Hotels (Restaurants) functioning within Corporation limits shall not be kept open before 9' O clock in the morning and after 12' O clock in the night. No FL-1 shop shall be kept open before 9' O clock in the morning and after 11' O clock in the night. (2) The Deputy Commissioner of Excise shall be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
R. Basant, J. i) In a criminal case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, is the prosecution bound to prove the circumstances beyond doubt? ii) Is it sufficient that the circumstances are proved by the prosecution on the test of balance of probabilities as in a civil case? iii) Is the burden on the prosecution in a criminal case to prove guilt beyond doubt confined only to proof of inferential facts and not to primary or basic facts? iv) Can the insistence on proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case be justified by the definition of the expression "proved" in Section 3 of the Evidence Act? Is such insistence alien to such definition and justified (or imported into Indian Criminal Law) only by binding precedents of superior courts? v) Does not the definition of the expression "proved" in Section 3 of the Evidence Act (the Act hereinafter) apply to all facts - facts in issue and relevant facts, whether sought to be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence? vi) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(3)KLT310
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.In this petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 4/95 on the file of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, seeks a transfer of the above case from the said Court to the other Court dealing with the C.B.I. cases at Ernakulam, for an adjudication of the question of discharge in a fair, unbiased and transparent manner. The Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) and the State of Kerala are the respondents to this petition. The matter was argued in detail before me.Petitioner's Contentions2. In the words of the petitioner himself, when his petition for discharge was argued before the Special Judge on 7.3.2005, what transpired was the following:The Special Judge remarked:'I have to frame charges'. My counsel replied 'only if there are sufficient materials'.'I was in Court and was completely taken aback and shocked at the observation made by the Court. The Court was then impressed upon the fact that the Supreme Court has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
CONTENTS Table SYNOPSIS On 23/06/2010 a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising of Justice C. N. Ramachandran Nair and Justice P. S. Gopinathan while disposing of a Writ Petition filed in public interest, banned the holding of meetings and rallies on public roads and road margins thereby ensuring accident-free and uninterrupted traffic along such roads. On 26/06/2010 in a meeting organised in Kannur town in protest against the hike of fuel prices, the respondent M. V. Jayarajan, a non practicing Advocate ill-informed in law and a politician belonging to the C.P.I (Marxist) party, made a public speech. The speech was widely covered by the print and visual media. During the course of the speech he reacted vigorously against the High Court verdict and declared that the people throughout Kerala were openly disobeying the verdict by holding meetings and rallies on the roads and road margins. He asked that when such Court verdicts have only the value of grass what worth do the Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ramachandran Nair, J. The case has come up before the Full Bench as per Reference Order of the Division Bench dated 21.5.2010. The learned Single Judge referred the matter as per Reference Order dated 10.7.2009. The question referred before the Full Bench for its opinion, is the following: “Where the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered by coequal benches express conflicting principles of law, which cannot stand together and, thus, present a serious problem to the High Courts and Subordinate Courts, what are the principles to be followed in choosing one or other of the conflicting judgments by the High Court when in a case the applicability of the conflicting decisions rendered by the apex court has decisive impact in its disposal.” 2. The factual matrix is in a narrow compass. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the judgment debtors in E.P.No.14/2005 in O.S.No.184/1986 of the Munsiff’s Court, Punalur. The suit was one for declaration of title of the plaintiffs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. for himself and for A.M. Shaffique, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted on a reference made by a Division Bench vide order dated 13.08.2015. 2. Brief facts need to be noted for answering the reference and deciding the issues raised in this appeal are: An extent of 0.2042 hectare of land comprised in R.S.No.193/4 and O.0400 hectare of land comprised in Sy. No.277/8 and some other plots of land belonging to the appellant and her mother were acquired for the establishment of 'Naval Academy'. The Land Acquisition Officer gave an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) at the rate of Rs.1,15,200/- per hectare (Rs.466.40 per cent). The appellant did not seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act. However, certain other land owners whose lands were acquired by the same Notification had made application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Land Acquisition reference No.124 of 1987 was decided on 26.07.198...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J 1. All these cases concern steps taken by the Revenue Authorities for recovery of sales tax due from one E.V.Thomas. The writ petitioners were proceeded against mainly on the ground that they have acquired properties which belonged to Sri.E.V.Thomas, his wife and children and therefore became liable to the extent of properties acquired by them. The said action of the revenue authorities came to be challenged in separate writ petitions. 2. The writ petitioners are the appellants in W.A.No.1835/2008. They challenge the judgment in W.P.C.No.26177 of 2008 by which the learned Single Judge as per judgment dated 01/09/2008 relegated the writ petitioners to prefer a revision before the Government under Section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the RR Act'). 3. W.P.C.No.16382/2009 is also filed by the appellants in W.A.No.1835/2008, seeking for a direction to consider Ext.P3 representation before taking any further proceedings to recover any amount...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.10.2008 by which W.P(C) No.28735 of 2008 filed by the appellant has been dismissed. Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner, Banerji Memorial Club (for short, the Club ) challenging orders passed for eviction of the Club from the premises in question under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 1957 Act ). The parties shall be hereinafter referred to as described in the Writ Appeal. 2. Following facts of the case emerge from the pleadings of the parties: The Club, now registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 was established in Thrissur Town on two plots, i.e. 51 5/8 cents in Sy.No.246/1 and 13 cents in Sy. No.246/2 of Thrissur Village in the year 1914. The petitioner claimed that the land was gifted by His Highness, the Maharaja of Cochin State for construction of the Club. The first meeting of...
Tag this Judgment!