Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE29H DAY OF NOVEMBER20138TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 993 of 2013 () ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED253/13 IN CMP NO.84/13 IN SC NO.361/12 on the FILE OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KANNUR. REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED HANEEFA, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED33YEARS, MATTOOL AMSOM, THEKKUMBAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT AND STATE: -------------------------------- 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ROY THOMAS. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2911-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HARILAL, J.------------------------------------------------------ C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/11TH BHADRA, 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 639 of 2012 (D) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.1446/2011 IN CC 12/2009 of SPECIAL JUDGE(SPE/CBI) -II, ERNAKULAM DATED 9.12.2011. REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ STATE REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI/SPE COCHIN BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I. RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.4: --------------------------------- RAMALINGAM S/O.LATE KANNIAH RTD CHAIRMAN AIRPOT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NOW R/A.NO 27 BODI CHETTI STREET CUDDALOOR, TAMILNADU-607003 R1 BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR R1 BY SRI. U.U. LALITH, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: "C.R" HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.------------------------ Crl....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN MONDAY,THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2013 10TH ASHADHA, 1935 OP (CAT).No. 568 of 2013 (Z) ---------------------------------------- [O.A.NO.684/2012 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 01 01-2013] ........ PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. S.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (S.C.B), LAVANYA, CHAVADINADA, VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 523.2. K.K.RAJAN, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (S.C.B), KAILASAM, GURUDEV NAGAR, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM-691 017. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NEW DELHI - 3.2. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, C.G.O COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-3.3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), C.B.I HEAD QUARTERS, 5-B, 7TH FLOO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 29TH AGRAHAYANA 193 WP(C).No. 9963 of 2012 (U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- VIBIN P.V., AGED 2 YEARS ADVOCATE, S/O. VRINDHAVAN, PARUTHEZHATH VEEDU NAJARAKKAL P.O., NAJARAKKAL VILLAGE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682505. BY ADV. SRI.A.G.BASIL RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.2. THE HOME DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALUVA RURAL, ALUVA-683101.4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NAJARAKKAL-682505.5. S.I. OF POLICE (VEANS JOSEPH) NAJARAKKAL POLICE STATION NAJARAKKAL-682505. (THE ADDRESS OF R5 IS CORRECTED AS FOLLOWS AS PER ORDER D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2012(3)KLT163; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)176; 2012(3)KLJ291
1. The petitioner is the father of an unfortunate young boy, who was arrested by the Police. The sequence of events started from the date when one girl went missing. Her parents lodged a complaint before the police. A man - missing case was registered by the police. The girl returned after four days. It was found that the girl was in the company of the petitioner’s son and three of his friends. Thereafter, as requested by the police, the parents of the girl and the girl went to the police station and gave statements to the police. The girl submitted that she had not been in any way harmed by the youths. The girl was referred for medical examination, in which it was proved that she was not subjected to any kind of sexual intercourse. The girl and her parents had no complaint against the petitioner’s son and the other youths, in whose company the girl had been. It appears that the girl had some difference of opinion with her parents, which was the reason for her to leave her ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2012(2)KLT133(SN)(C.No.129)
Ramkumar J. Proceedings impugned in this petition In this petition filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 63 of theMahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the University Act" for short), the petitioner, who was formerly working as senior grade lecturer in Malayalam in the St.Alberts College, Ernakulam challenges the judgment dated 25.08.2009 passed by the Mahatma Gandhi University Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dismissing University Appeal No.3 of 2009 filed by the petitioner. THE PETITIONER'S CASE 2. The case of the petitioner can be summarised as follows:- The petitioner is a senior grade lecturer in Malayalam and was the Head of Department in St.Albert's College, Ernakulam with 24 years of unblemished service. St.Albert's College is an aided college under the Government of Kerala and affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University. The first respondent is the Manager and the 2nd respondent is the Principal of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Issues raised in these writ petitions and the parties are common and therefore these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. W.P.(C).No.20125/2011 is adopted as the leading case and documents produced therein are referred to in this judgment. 2. From May 2006 till May 2011 the petitioner’s father was the Chief Minister of the State and the 3rd respondent was the Opposition Leader in the Legislative Assembly. During the said period, on the floor of the Legislative Assembly and outside, members of the opposition raised several allegations against the petitioner and his father. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent sent Ext.P1 letter dated 01.03.2011 containing as many as the 11 allegations against the petitioner, against the Chief Minister himself and his office. The contents of this letter being relevant to decide the issues raised in these writ petitions, the letter is extracted for ready reference; “Malayalam” 3. The files produced by the le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are in challenge of orders passed by the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, "the Special Judge") under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") directing the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (for short, "the VandACB") to conduct a preliminary enquiry and register a case if materials indicating commission of offences as alleged in the private complaints are disclosed and if not, report the matter to the learned Special Judge. The following questions of law are urged for a decision: I. Whether, in view of Sec. 68A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,1969 (for short, "the Act") it was within the power of learned Special Judge to direct the VandACB to conduct an enquiry/investigation and the VandACB to enquire/investigate into matters relating to a Co-operative Society registered under the Act? II. Whether, it was within the power of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ramachandran Nair, J. All these writ petitions are filed in public interest challenging the decision of the State Government to constitute State Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter called "the Act") to handle service cases of State Government employees. Challenge made in the writ petitions include constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act, Notifications and other Orders issued constituting the Tribunal and appointing the Chairman and also the establishment of two permanent Benches at Trivandrum while only one Bench, that too without filing facility, at Ernakulam, which is the seat of the High Court of the State. Grave procedural irregularities including lack of prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Governor as required under Section 6(3) and (4) of the Act affecting the validity of appointment of the Chairman of the Tribunal are also raised. 2. Of the five writ petitions, two are filed by individual lawyers, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.W.P (C) No.17526 of 2010Dated this the 19th November, 2010J U D G M E N T1. Petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P8 and seeks a prohibition restraining the first respondent from proceeding with Ext.P7 complaint. 2. The briefly stated facts are that in 1979, petitioner was appointed into the Indian Forest Service and was alloted to the Kerala Cadre and joined service as Assistant Conservator of Forests. He earned various promotions and in the year 2002, he was promoted as Chief Conservator of Forests. By Ext.P6 order dated 31.3.2010 extending him the benefit of Ext.P1 guidelines providing for promotion to those who have completed 25 years of service , petitioner was promoted as Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and was posted against a leave vacancy. Accordingly, he joined the higher post and retired from that post on 31.3.2010 itself. 3. The case of the petitioner is that such promotion in pursuance to Ext.P1 guidelines was based on Ext.P2 representation ...
Tag this Judgment!