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
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
1. The issue in these writ petitions concerns the legality of an appointment made by the President of a Society. The appointment is said to have been ratified subsequently by the managing committee. Acting on the complaints of certain persons, the Assistant Registrar interdicted the appointment; the Society implemented his directive. But the employee was not heard before her termination. Thus, the Court is called upon to decide on the propriety of the procedure adopted by the Assistant Registrar and the Society in removing the employee. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38458 of 2015 challenges Exts.P2 and P3, the order of the Assistant Registrar and the resolution of the society respectively, through which the petitioner s appointment was sought to be cancelled. 3. In W.P. (C) No.2028 of 2016, the petitioner, who is said to be a rival candidate for the post, raises an issue concerning the competence of the President to appoint the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38458 of 2015. The appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Facts in Brief: 1. Syllogistically speaking, the major premise is this: A and B have been appointed to similar posts in two similar organisations; the minor premise: When disputed, A's appointment was upheld based on B's appointment; the conclusion: when conversely B's appointment is questioned, it should be upheld based on A's appointment. 2. That is logic, not law. Logical fallacy may not be fraught with dangerous consequences; a flaw in law or its interpretation is. For Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., the life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. 3. To elaborate, I may observe that initially, A's appointment was questioned. He sustained his appointment showing that B was similarly appointed; thus, A's appointment has attained finality. At a later point in time, however, B's appointment was questioned. Then B wanted to sustain his appointment because A's appointment was approved under identical circumstances based on the very B's appointment. Now, B's contentions...
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
Ashok Bhushan, C J. 1. These Writ Appeals raise an important issue pertaining to the extent of power which can be exercised by the District Disaster Management Authority (for short, the DDMA ) in reference to a disaster management, i.e., Whether in exercise of the power under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 2005 Act ), the District Management Authority can direct for demolition of the construction belonging to a private individual standing on an underground canal so as to carry out renovation and repair works of the said canal which became imminent due to the fact that the structure of the canal has outlived its life and would have led to a disaster within the meaning of the 2005 Act? 2. Writ Appeal Nos.2745, 2767 and 2768 of 2015 have been filed against the common judgment dated 23.09.2015 rendered by the learned Single Judge in three Writ Petitions filed by respondent No.1 in the above appeals. Writ Appeal No.57 of 2016 has been filed b...
Tag this Judgment!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!